That’s the phrase, about what to put out forest fires will not be because the cost of fighting is higher than the economic damage from the fire, it is very important (not in the specifically political sense is much broader).
The last two or three generations laid the economy Foundation of political planning. Economic language has copied not only the markets or people’s attitudes in the enterprise, but also wrote in her culture, education, science, nature, and the policy itself — all this is now taken to describe the language of economists. Not by chance, and the Minister of science and higher education of Russia — economist (but this is a special case).
So, today, quoted the phrase — the essence of the “economic approach”, and at the same time an epitaph for him. And the argument here is not about that, take into account whether the author of the loss of health loss of the population of the territories in close proximity to forest fires; the question is whether it is possible to calculate, for example, whether in the fire to rescue works of culture? (easy because: the market value of the paintings is compared with the cost of fire suppression). It was a few years ago calculated how much all fresh water in the world, or even all the forest (and like, the world already has the money), — does this mean that you can buy them and destroy (pollute, etc.)? Or part of them (to raise the price of the rest)?
In General, there is one scale — measurable price of fire, and on the other — far (conventional tools), and this is true for forests, for education and for culture.
© 2019, paradox. All rights reserved.
