Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (7170)	8/15/2001 10:43:20 AM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Cutting local air pollution is beneficial to people within a country and so sooner or later governments do something about it. There are treaties already for transboundary pollution - mainly acid rain - from US to Canada, from Western and Eastern Europe to Scandinavia etc. US didn't care about damage in Canada. Canadians complained and an agreement was reached. Ditto in Europe. Chinese pollution falling on Japan is now a current issue. Global warming is like the next level. Here the effects of each country's actions affect everyone on the globe equally. Classic market failure as the costs of them reducing on their own which only they bear are weighed against the benefits split among all the world. And anyway some competitor might move in and pollute more in case. So here some treaty is necessary unless all countries were to suddenly become altruistic.

To: Ilaine who wrote (7170)	8/16/2001 12:08:47 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

CB, men have a different attitude from women. <the row about the Kyoto Accord baffles me: if cutting air pollution is a Good Thing, why do we need treaties? Why not Just Do It? > Men tend to focus on the benefits and costs to themselves. Women tend to focus on the community. Whether that's a universal characteristic [related to being testosterone deficient or testosterone poisoned, depending on your point of view] or a cultural bias I don't know. I suspect it's genetic. I first became aware of the difference over lead in petrol. Women would spend more money buying fuel to avoid polluting the shared air. Men on the other hand, buy the cheapest, most powerful product and care less about the consequences to others. This wasn't a few anecdotal experiences I'd had, it was market research [which should always be taken with a grain of salt and the statistics carefully examined for testing verbal behaviour rather than actual behaviour]. A similar result is found in support for Act, a free market party in New Zealand. Act apparently only gets 16% of their support from women. Free market ideas are supportive of individual action and freedom. A similar result is seem in prison populations. Nearly all men! Men value the proceeds of crime higher than women do. Women tend to avoid criminal attitudes. Crime is a vote for self and to hell with others. I don't know the psychobabble reasons for those differences, but essentially, girls are made of sugar and spice and all things nice, boys are made from frogs and snails and puppy dog tails. So, laws and force are required to protect communities against testosterone poisoning and the tragedy of the commons. The curse of democracy is concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Of course, men are actually the saviours of the world by bringing the carbon back to life. Women are selfishly wanting to keep the carbon buried and dead for another few eons. It's a paradox of testosterone. Often the seemingly hard people are inside the kindest and the heart on sleeve crowd, when put to the test, just happen to be really busy, poor, or otherwise indisposed when something needs doing. George Bush knew Kyoto flim-flam when he saw it. Mqurice