Forcing its citizens to reduce consumption has only limited value. Resources have and always will be scarce. Historically rationing and other limiting methods have eventually backfired and created black markets. It could work in the short term while the public is agreeable but in the long term it probably would not.
2006-07-07 03:19:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by Huey from Ohio 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sounds logical but it isn't. If you limit consumption of something you put people out of work then they either starve or become a burden on the state.
Supply and demand is at the heart of western economies. Alter that in such a significant way and the effects could be catastrophic.
This is a good question to illustrate the need to use the model of following the thought to a rational end listing the variables on the way.
With carefull thought your idea might be made to work but an awful lot would have to be considered and acted on before it was even tried.
2006-07-07 10:18:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you allow the govt to control consumption, you are granting the govt authority to manage virtually all the countries resources. If you trust the govt to manage the resources of a society, so be it. History seems to proving out that free enterprise is a better allocator of resources than govt's. One obvious shortcoming of the free enterprise/market system is that some "greater good" objectives such as preservation of precious resources such as the environment can be overshadowed by the quest for next quarter's profits.
Some answers to this econmic delimma may be found in Nash's equilibrium theory.
2006-07-07 11:57:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by cigarnation 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
A "green" government in the USA :) probably should, or one
in Europe. But what about a Somalian, Guatemalan or any
other undeveloped country's government...?
Its all about the distribution of wealth, there are deeply
wealthy people who must be forced out of their
treasures so that the masses can have all their basic
needs satisfied (including clean air to breath and steady
climate to grow their potatoes)
2006-07-07 10:26:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by m_jamc 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
"Green" governments do limit consumption by taxing both income and goods, as do "non-Green" ones. These two things work to raise the price of consumption. In return, these same governments vote themselves superior benefit and pension packages than is available to the lowly taxpayer, while telling that same taxpayer they're too stupid to manage their own consumption and money. It's called "leadership," and is based on the premise that people need it.
2006-07-08 12:02:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by szydkids 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Do you know, darling, I really think we should each be concerned about how we handle our own consumption. Where we do not rule ourselves someone will always step in to rule us and force us to do any number of things those with power think we ought to be doing. If you or I work on proper stewardship relative to consumption then we affect the people around us and get them thinking. It's worth a try, don't you think?
2006-07-07 10:22:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. There is a much milder mechanism available. It's called taxation. Right now, most European countries have excise taxes on gasoline that account for more than half of its price at the pump.
2006-07-07 14:26:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by NC 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
What do you mean by a "green government"? If you mean a communist country, then sure. Otherwise a democracy can't justify 'forcing' it's citizens to do anything unless they make it a law.
2006-07-07 10:15:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Smoothie 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
are u talking about the green party, not sure if that is really one of thier issues
2006-07-07 10:21:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Some people NEED to be dragged kicking and screaming.
2006-07-07 10:14:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by dhebert244 3
·
0⤊
0⤋