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 : Heinz Blasnik- Views You Can Use -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: benwood who wrote (2997)	7/9/2003 1:14:52 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4914

Everything affects everything else. However, Gross Domestic Product does not (and should not) take into account stuff like pollution. For that, we have pollution indices. And our minds, which can evaluate those two at the same time. It's clutching at very feeble straws indeed to try to support an allegation like pollution affecting "value of GDP". It's like saying the GDP should be taken into account when evaluating the "value" of pollution in a country...

To: benwood who wrote (2997)	7/9/2003 1:30:05 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 4914

Exactly... it can certainly be argued by a rational person [Zonder exluded] that the GDP of the pristine nation was in fact superior to the wiped out nation which showed the same GDP over a certain period. Pretty much common sense, non? -LOL- DAK

To: benwood who wrote (2997)	7/9/2003 1:52:18 PM
From: GraceZ	Respond to of 4914

GDP isn't a measure of national wealth or even of national well being. One man's cost is another man's income. In other words while one industry makes a good income and adds to the GDP destroying some aspect of the environment, income and additions to the GDP are also produced when another company comes along and cleans it up. It's the nature of the beast that GDP doesn't distinguish between those activities which most would consider positive and those most would consider negative. What it counts are those that produce money in that particular period. It really gets ridiculous when you start to get into it and try to separate between investment and those products which are incorporated into another final product (so you don't double count). You find out that in some industries the line is very thin between an investment in capital equipment and an expense of producing a final product. Needless to say, we're no longer a nation of wiget makers. All industry has an environmental cost, most of which will be born by society on the whole. Lead paint is a good example, asbestos another. I'm paying for lead paint clean up and I never bought even a quart of the stuff.