Economics Questions

Re: the village people

Stephen Adkins — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:23:09 GMT

@Mikachusetts You beat me to the punch; but you did a way better job than I was going to so i don't mind. I lost it on the "dumping" part.

Re: the village people

mikachusetts — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:02:54 GMT

The village people get cancer

Yes, one of the village people did die from cancer. Another from AIDS.

since the village people are far away from the consumers (lets say the consumers are in california and the village people are in the middle of the united states), the consumers wont care about the village people since they are so far away.

The village people are actually from New York City, but have fans all over the world. As long as they keep an active touring schedule, I'm sure consumers will continue to care about the village people.

then how do we stop the village people from dieing?

Well death is a fact of life, we can't stop it. All we can do is continue to play the village people's music at our weddings and gay clubs, and the village people's memory will live on forever.

there is probably going to be a point where dumping on the village people becomes too costly (too much waste)

I'm sure some of the village people actually enjoy being dumped on, and would gladly let you do it for free.

So then what do I say?

Its fun to stay at the Y M C A.

Re: the village people

Jargon — Mon, 07 May 2012 06:01:38 GMT

How do you know?

Re: the village people

Kelvin Silva — Mon, 07 May 2012 05:59:58 GMT

but then the company wins the lawsuit

Re: the village people

Jargon — Mon, 07 May 2012 05:54:42 GMT

The village is entitled to sue the dumpers for property (their bodies and the land) damage.

Re: the village people

Aristippus — Mon, 07 May 2012 05:43:27 GMT

The company is a tortfeasor in this scenario.

the village people

Kelvin Silva — Mon, 07 May 2012 05:38:54 GMT

So lets say that there is a company that makes a product, but then they dump the waste on village people's land. The village people get cancer, however since the village people are far away from the consumers (lets say the consumers are in california and the village people are in the middle of the united states), the consumers wont care about the village people since they are so far away. So therefore if government cant step in to tell the company to stop hurting the environmental waste, then how do we stop the village people from dieing?

I argued this point by saying, well there is probably going to be a point where dumping on the village people becomes too costly (too much waste) to be dumped (paying the trash company to dump ur stuff), and then the company will research technologies to minimize waste and therefore enchance their profit.

But then the counter argument was that, well dumping is generally much cheaper, and the amount of waste required to make dumping expensive is unreachable, so therefore if the government tells the company to stop dumping waste on the village people, the village people will not die off and the company can still make the profit (the government forces the company to research new technology)

So then what do I say?