home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / talk / environm / 5627 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1993-01-21  |  1.2 KB
  1. Xref: sparky talk.environment:5627 alt.politics.greens:553
  2. Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.greens
  3. Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sgi!twilight!zola!elysium!archer
  4. From: archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully)
  5. Subject: Re: Ca. Green Platform, Ecology Section (was Re: Gas Tax?)
  6. Message-ID: <v5n2jns@zola.esd.sgi.com>
  7. Sender: news@zola.esd.sgi.com (Net News)
  8. Organization:  Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
  9. References: <1993Jan19.193507.6542@netcom.com> <1993Jan19.212757.1865@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <1993Jan20.123627.12325@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <1993Jan20.164149.1890@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
  10. Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 18:57:43 GMT
  11. Lines: 13
  12.  
  13. In <1993Jan20.164149.1890@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
  14. *
  15. *The point is that such subsidies, like all subsidies, perform a social
  16. *role. If we decide that the benefits of these subsidies are outweighed
  17. *by the negatives, then we can eliminate them.
  18.  
  19. If I go into detail refuting this statement I would get little else done
  20. today.  However, the Economist had a rather thorough analysis of the 
  21. "social good" of agricultural subsidy a few issues back (late December,
  22. methinks) that is well worth reading.  
  23.  
  24. -- archer
  25.  
  26.