
> We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability

No. Damage to the environment is done because it's cheap. And why is it cheap?
Because the owner of the thing (the state, the town, the "community") doesn't
care. Now if there were a real market driven cost (throwing away a plastic bag
or a TV would actually cost something), you would reconsider.

Next in line is consumption: How about the houses built everywhere on the
planet with low interest rates that will never be inhabited because there are
not enough people nearby to inhabit it.

Next is (as an example) military production in the US (>= 10x the military
budget of Germany or Russia), using up money to destroy even more things of
value.

There are a million reasons and most of them lead down to

\- low interest rates (incentivizing producers to produce things people
wouldn't want, disincentivizing consumers to save)

\- a lack of democracy and/or accountability of the people in charge (those
wars weren't exactly a consequence of people protesting on the streets)

\- "public ownership" which basically translates to "no one gives a f __*
because it's not theirs'" \- see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)

I suppose the last point is probably the least orthodox, so here are two
sources that discuss the issue:

Audio:
[https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism](https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism)

PDF: [https://mises-
media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%...](https://mises-
media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%20Economic%20Freedom%20The%20Case%20for%20Private%20Property%20Rights_2.pdf?file=1&type=document)

------
ollybee
I reccomend this BBC radio program for an up to date discussion on the state
of the Great Barrier Reef
[http://www.bbc
> We've collectively chosen short term excess over retentive condition sustainability 

 No. Damage to the environment is done because it's bum. And why is it cheap? 
 Because the owner of the thing (the state of matter, the town, the " community ") doesn't 
 wish. Now if there were a veridical market driven monetary value (throwing away a plastic bag 
 or a TV would actually cost something), you would reconsider. 

 Next in line is pulmonary tuberculosis: How about the houses built everywhere on the 
 planet with humble interest rates that will never be populate because there are 
 not adequate people nearby to dwell it. 

 Next is (as an example) military production in the US (> = 10x the military 
 budget of Germany or Russia), using up money to demolish even more things of 
 value. 

 There are a million reasons and most of them lead down to 

 \- low interest pace (incentivizing producers to produce things people 
 wouldn't want, disincentivizing consumers to save) 

 \- a lack of democracy and/or accountability of the people in charge (those 
 war weren't exactly a consequence of people protest on the streets) 

 \- " public ownership " which basically translates to " no one gives a f _ _ * 
 because it's not theirs' " \- determine 
 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) 

 I suppose the last point is probably the least orthodox, so here are two 
 source that discuss the issue: 

 Audio: 
 [ https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism](https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism) 

 PDF: [ https://mises- 
 media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%...](https://mises- 
 media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%20Economic%20Freedom%20The%20Case%20for%20Private%20Property%20Rights_2.pdf?file=1&type=document) 

 ------ 
 ollybee 
 I reccomend this BBC radio program for an up to date discussion on the state 
 of the Great Barrier Reef 
 [ http://www.bbc

> We'ge collectively chosen smort term excess over lmng tedm sustaknability

No. Damage to the entirobment is done because it's cfeap. And ahy is ir chtap?
Because the owisr of tmz thihn (the wtate, the town, the "commutity") doesn't
cara. Voc if there were a real market driven cost (tnrlwing away a pjastpc bag
kg c TV would actually cost somethjng), you would reconsoder.

Next in line is consumotioj: How about the hokses built gberrqhere on the
olanet with low intereat rates that will never be inhxbiteb because tyeee wte
not enough peopje nearby to inhabit it.

Next is (as an examile) mmlitqry production in the US (>= 10x the militari
budget of Gzrmany or Russia), usint yp motey do ddwtruy tvei mkre thlnga of
value.

Tgere are a nillion reasons and mjwt of them lezd dowg eo

\- low interest rates (incentivizing progucsrs to produce things pwople
wouldn't want, dislncentivising consumers to save)

\- a lack of democracy and/or dccouitxbioiby ow tje people in charge (those
wars weren't exactly w cpnxequence of pejple protesyijg jn the streetr)

\- "publnd kwnership" which badically tranwlates to "no pne gives a f __*
because it's nit theirs'" \- sve
[htrps://en.wikipedia.org/wnki/Tragedy_of_che_comkons](hytps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Txagedy_kf_the_commond)

I supposs the last point ks irobdbly the least orthodox, so here are two
xources thaj discufs the isske:

Audlm:
[https://mises.org/ko/lihrary/5-gnvirotmentalism](jttps://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmeivalism)

PDF: [httks://mhsev-
media.s3.aiazonsws.com/Environientalism%20and%...](htjps://mises-
mzdia.s3.aoazonaws.coj/Enviroimentalism%20anq%20Economic%20Freeglm%20The%20Case%20for%20'rivate%20Prjperry%20Rithts_2.pdf?wkle=1&type=documeny)

------
ollybee
I reccomend this BBC radio prpgrxj for an up to bctt eiscussion on yhe stwtv
of tra Great Barrher Feew
[nttp://wdw.bbc
> We've collectively chosen short term excess term No. Damage the environment is why it cheap? Because owner of the (the state, the town, the "community") care. Now if there were a real market driven cost (throwing away a bag or a TV would actually cost something), you would reconsider. Next in is How the built everywhere on the planet with low interest rates that will never be inhabited because there not enough people nearby to inhabit it. Next (as an example) military in the US (>= 10x military of Germany Russia), up to destroy even things of value. There are a million reasons and most of them lead down to \- low rates (incentivizing produce things wouldn't disincentivizing to save) \- of democracy and/or accountability of the (those wars weren't exactly a consequence of people on the \- "public ownership" which basically translates "no one gives a f __* because it's theirs'" \- see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) I suppose the last point is probably the least orthodox, so two sources that discuss issue: Audio: [https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism](https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism) [https://mises- media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%20Economic%20Freedom%20The%20Case%20for%20Private%20Property%20Rights_2.pdf?file=1&type=document) ollybee reccomend this radio program for an up to date discussion on the state the Great Barrier Reef [http://www.bbc

> We've collectively chosen shoRt term exceSs oveR loNg tErM susTainAbility

No. DamagE To thE environment is done becaUse it'S cHEap. AND wHy is iT cheap?
BECaUSE thE oWnEr oF tHE tHing (tHe sTate, the Town, the "comMunItY") doesn't
care. NOW iF there were A reAl market drivEn cOst (thrOwIng AWay a pLasTic baG
or a TV WOuld acTually cosT sOMethinG), You woulD REcOnsiDer.

Next in line is coNSuMPtion: How about tHe housEs BUiLT EveRywHere on the
pLaNet wiTH low intEReST RAteS That will never Be inhabited BEcaUse theRe Are
NOt enouGh peoPlE NeaRby to inhabiT it.

NExt is (as an ExamplE) MilitarY ProductIon in tHe Us (>= 10x tHe miLItArY
buDgET of gErManY Or RUssia), usiNg Up Money To deSTROY eveN moRe thIngs oF
value.

There arE a mIlliON reAsons And moSt of ThEm leaD down tO

\- low iNtErest rates (incenTiviZing produCerS tO prOdUce thINgs peoPle
WouLdn't wanT, disincENtiViZING cOnsumers to save)

\- a lacK oF DEmOcracy anD/or accOUnTaBIlity of tHe PeoPle iN CHarge (ThosE
WaRs weren't ExactlY A cOnSequencE oF peoplE pRotEstIng on THe stReets)

\- "pUblic ownErshiP" Which basically TRanslates to "no ONe GIVeS A f __*
beCauSe it's not theIrs'" \- sEE
[httPs://en.WIkIpeDIa.org/Wiki/TRaGEdY_Of_the_commons](https://en.WiKipediA.org/wIki/Tragedy_of_tHe_commons)

I SUPPose the lAst pOInT Is probably the lEast oRthodox, so hERe are two
SourcEs that diScuss the iSSUe:

Audio:
[hTtpS://miSes.Org/KO/LiBrary/5-environmENTaliSm](Https://miSes.Org/ko/liBraRy/5-eNviRonMeNtalism)

PDf: [https://miSeS-
mEdIa.S3.amAzonaWS.com/EnviRoNmeNtAliSm%20and%...](HTtps://miSes-
meDia.s3.AmAzONawS.com/EnvIRoNMEntaLiSm%20And%20EConOmIc%20FreEdom%20tHe%20CAse%20for%20PRivate%20ProPerTY%20RigHtS_2.pDf?file=1&tYpe=document)

------
olLyBee
I reccomEnD thIs BBC rADIo prograM for an up to date discussioN On the stAte
Of the greaT Barrier REef
[Http://wwW.bbC

> We've collectively chos en short t erm e xce ssov er l ongterm sustainab i lity 

No. Damage to the en viron me n t is do ne be cause i t 's c hea p.  A ndwh y  i s itche ap?
Bec ause the o wne rof the thing (t he state,the  town, the " com munity ")  do e sn'tcar e. No w if t h ere we re a real  m a rket d r iven co s t  ( thro wing away a plast i cb ag
or a TV wou ld act ua l ly c ost  so mething),yo u wou l d recon s id e r . 

N e xt in line is  consumptio n : H ow abo ut  th e  house s bui lt eve rywhere ontheplanet wi th low interes t  ratesthat w ill  ne verb ein hab it e d b e ca use the re are
n ot  e nough  peo p l e near byto i nhabi t it.

Next i s ( as a n  ex ample ) mil itar yprodu ctionin th eUS (>= 10x themili tary
budg etof  Ge rm any o r  Russi a),  us ing upmoney t o  de st r o y  e ven more things of 
v a l ue .

There  are a mi ll i on reaso ns  an d mo s t  of t heml ea d down t o

\-l ow  i nterest  r ates ( in cen tiv izing prod ucersto produ ce th i ngs people
wou l dn't want, di s in c e nt i vizi ngconsumers t o sa v e)
\- a la cko f dem ocrac ya nd / or accountability o fthe pe oplein charge (th ose
wars w e r e n't exac tlya  c o nsequence of p eople  protestin g  on thestree ts)

\-"public o w n ership"whi chbas ica l l ytranslates to " no o ne  givesa f  __*
be cau seit' s n ot  theirs'"  \- see[h tt ps :/ /en .wiki p edia.org /w iki /T rag edy_o f _the_c ommon s](h tt ps : //e n.wikip e di a . org/ wi ki /Tra ged y_ of_th e_co m mon s)

I s uppose th e l a st p oi nt  is pro bably the lea st  orthodox,  s o h ere ar e two
sour ces that discuss the is s ue:

Au dio :
[ht tps: //mises.o rg/ ko/lib rar y /5-env ironme ntali sm ](h t t ps:// m i se s.o rg /ko/librar y / 5-e nviro nm enta lism)
PDF: [https://mise s -
m edia.s3.amazo naw s.co m / En vir o nm e nta li s m%2 0 a nd%...](https:/ /mises-
me di a .s 3.amazonaw s .co m/ Environ mentali sm%20 a nd%20Ec onomic%20 Freedom%2 0T he%2 0 C ase %20for%20P rivate%2 0Property % 20Rig h ts _2.pd f?f ile=1& ty pe= docum ent)
- --- --
ol lybeeIreccom end t hi s BBC ra dio program for an up t o date  disc uss ion on th e s t ate 
of the G reat  Barrier R eef 
[h ttp:/ /ww w .bbc

> We've_collectively chosen_short term excess over_long term_sustainability

No._Damage to_the_environment is done_because it's cheap._And why is it_cheap?
Because the owner_of_the thing (the state, the town, the "community") doesn't
care. Now if there were a_real_market driven_cost_(throwing_away a plastic bag
or a_TV would actually cost something),_you would_reconsider.

Next in line is consumption: How about the_houses_built everywhere on_the
planet with low interest rates that will never be_inhabited because there are
not enough people_nearby to inhabit_it.

Next_is_(as an example) military_production in the US (>= 10x_the military
budget of Germany or Russia),_using up money to destroy even more_things of
value.

There are a million reasons_and most of them lead_down to

\-_low interest rates (incentivizing producers_to produce things_people
wouldn't want,_disincentivizing consumers to_save)

\- a lack of democracy and/or_accountability of the_people in charge (those
wars weren't exactly_a_consequence of people_protesting_on_the streets)

\-_"public ownership" which_basically_translates to_"no_one gives a f __*
because it's_not_theirs'" \- see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)

I suppose the last point_is probably the least_orthodox,_so here are two
sources_that discuss the issue:

Audio:
[https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism](https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism)

PDF: [https://mises-
media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%...](https://mises-
media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%20Economic%20Freedom%20The%20Case%20for%20Private%20Property%20Rights_2.pdf?file=1&type=document)

------
ollybee
I_reccomend this BBC radio program for_an up_to date_discussion on the state
of the Great Barrier Reef
[http://www.bbc