X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY  	autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.0
Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <improvetheworld-errors &AElig umich.edu>
Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j9PGRm7E027672 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:27:48 -0400
Received: from ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu (ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.93.144]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.2/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9PGRkVd017041; 	Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:27:47 -0400
Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	BY ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 435E5D01.8CF8C.9108 ;  	25 Oct 2005 12:27:45 -0400
Received: from kepler.eecs.umich.edu (kepler.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.81]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.2/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9PGRij1017026 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); 	Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:27:44 -0400
Received: from kepler.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) 	by kepler.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9PGRhYU023842; 	Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:27:43 -0400
Received: from localhost (klochner &AElig localhost) 	by kepler.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id j9PGRhmn023839; 	Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:27:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0510251219460.28813 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0510251223190.23580 &AElig kepler.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <200510251246.j9PCkTXA030517 &AElig newman.eecs.umich.edu>  <Pine.LNX.4.64.0510251219460.28813 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on  	newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS
X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:27:43 -0400 (EDT)
To: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Kevin Lochner <klochner &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Behind Gold's Glitter: Torn Lands and Pointed   Questions
Status: O
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 232

Wouldn't a land-damage tax be more appropriate?  That's what economics
dictates for negative externalities, and probably a stronger incentive
than guilt trips.  Of course, it's harder to impose taxes in foreign
countries than to stop buying gold, but our (US consumer) gold consumption
pales in comparison to the far east (esp india).


On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Daniel Reeves wrote:

> Never buy anything gold.  Check.
>
> --- \/   FROM mjste &AElig umich.edu AT 05.10.25 08:46 (Today)   \/ ---
>
> > This page was sent to you by: mjste &AElig umich.edu.
> >
> > This article is fascinating. I would love your comments on this. Do you
> > think that it is worth it?
> >
> >
> > INTERNATIONAL | October 24, 2005
> > The Cost of Gold | 30 Tons an Ounce: Behind Gold's Glitter: Torn Lands
> > and Pointed Questions
> > By JANE PERLEZ and KIRK JOHNSON
> > Much of the gold left to be mined is microscopic and is being wrung from
> > the earth at enormous environmental cost.
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/international/24GOLD.html?emc=eta1
>
> --
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  google://"Daniel Reeves"
>
> "This isn't right.  This isn't even wrong."
>    -- Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
>