"Old Nick" wrote in message
...

Given that Carl seems to think only in economic terms, I agree that
such an imbalance as Gary mentions could possibly be maintained, and I
certainly do not have the figures to argue. But Gary's actual comment
carries more weight when you take the whole picture.

"Fuzzball philosophy"...it's "not fair" that 5% of the population
should use 30% of the resources, or that probably 20% of the
population uses 70%, or whatever, if we look wider and not just at the
US. I realise that Oz certainly has a very high impact per capita on
the environment. I feel (and as with most, spend a lot of my time
simply ignoring) the "unfairness".

Fairness is another issue, Nick. We aren't arguing about fairness. What Gary
and Carl are saying is that there is an *economic* reason for their claims.
I don't know of any, and no one has presented one here except in fuzzy,
qualitative terms.

A lot of these fuzzy ideas break down when you look at actual numbers and
actual patterns of economic events. This subject can't be discussed in real
terms without a lot of solid numbers to prove or disprove one idea or the
other. Gathering them is very hard work. Even finding them can be hard work.
That's the hard work on which I've spent so much of my time lately, and it
makes me skeptical about these off-the-cuff and anecdotal "theories." They
often collapse when you look at the numbers.

Ed Huntress