|
O P I N I O N |
|---|
 |
|---|
If your neighbor threw trash in your backyard, wouldn't you be angry? Wouldn't you expect him or her to clean up the mess or at least give you money to have someone clean it up for you?
I don't know about you, but I would.
This is how many people feel about the hundreds of toxic waste dumpsites that are poisoning the soil, water, and air in neighborhoods throughout the nation. They are the legacy of irresponsible use and disposal of toxic chemicals by polluters. These chemicals are responsible for known birth defects, cancer, and numerous illnesses in humans and animals.
For many years now, polluters have avoided cleaning up the toxic dumpsites and have forced the taxpayers to pay for the polluters' mess. Companies such as Exxon, General Electric, and Monsanto need to wake up to the cries of the nation and respond to our needs as humans. Each individual out there should defend the Toxics Superfund law in order to prevent the polluters from rolling back the law in Congress.
What is the problem that we face with the current condition of the Superfund sites? Well, there are more than 40,000 toxic waste dumpsites across the U.S. Over 1200 of those sites have been labeled as being Superfund sites or sites that are dangerous to humans. Also, more than one in four Americans--73 million people--live near the sites designated as being Superfund sites. A California study found that children born to mothers living within a quarter-mile of a Superfund site had a higher risk of increased birth defects related to the heart and nervous system. Among the most common toxics found at a Superfund site are lead, benzene, and mercury. Lead causes the onset of brain damage while benzene is known to cause severe anemia and genetic mutations in humans. Mercury is responsible for permanent damage to the brain and kidneys. (The effects of these chemicals was seen at Love Canal.)
Love Canal in Niagara Falls, NY was one of the sites of Superfund that was reopened to the general population after a few years of its closing in 1953. Scientific studies were conducted in the suburb when people started complaining of sicknesses. But it was too late. Many residents had already been affected with chromosomal mutations from the toxic material that had not been properly cleaned up by the polluters.
The federal Superfund law prevents this from ever occurring again. The law was initially passed in 1980 in response to the Love Canal disaster and the disasters in Times Beach, Mo., and Shepardsville, Ky., where similar effects were evident.
Support from the general population is needed if the core principle of the Superfund law is to stay in place. And that is to make the polluters pay for the mess they have created across the nation! The Superfund law requires a tax to be paid from toxic chemical producers to help finance cleanups and legal enforcement by the Environmental Protection Agency. One would assume that the polluter-pays principle would help to create a powerful disincentive for companies to continue to dispose of their wastes irresponsibly.
Unfortunately, instead of working to strengthen the Superfund law and improve public health, polluters, and their insurers are working with members of Congress to roll back the current Superfund program. The prime target of polluters is to attack the polluter-pays principle. The key opponents of Superfund are Exxon, General Electric, Monsanto, WR Grace & Co., and Dow. We, as a collective group, need to voice our opposition to the polluters and get the message across that we will not stand for anything less than 100% responsibility from the polluters. So, voice your opinion by writing and calling your representative in Congress to step up to the polluters and not roll back!
As soon as the Wolvernies beat Penn State last weekend, the M-Tracks began. Students, in search of big bucks, started hawking tickets to this weekend's Ohio State game over the B-school's intranet,and they haven't stopped. One student was so audacious, depending on your opinion of course, as to ask $800 for one ticket and $3200 for a set of four.
Some people around the B-school were of the mindset, "Hey, more power to him." Some of us, however, took a dim view of such avariciousness. The following is an exchange between Franz Klein (MSJ Opinions Editor) and staff writer Nicholas Kirk debating the argument for and against the idea of selling a ticket for $800.
Nicholas starts the debate with the negative:
I have two points to my argument. First the logical, then the emotional.
In a purely economic sense, the best price at which a producer can sell a product or good, or in this case a ticket, is where P=MC (price is equal to marginal cost). Without the benefit of having a demand schedule to work from, I will assume that the approximately $20 that U-M charges for a ticket is the marginal cost and the perfect competition rate. Therefore, an approximate price tag of $780 a ticket represents a monopolistic price. Such a price is capturing the excess consumer surplus that P=MC causes the producer to lose. But the monopolistic price is also causing DWL, or dead weight loss. This loss is evident of a market that is not performing adequately. Thus, his price causes the free market system, which we at UMBS so dearly love, to be thrown off kelter.
From a purely moralistic point, anyone who asks so much for a ticket is being a bit brazen, in my opinion: $780 is outrageous. What is more outrageous is the idiot who pays all that money to watch a game that will have little bearing on the welfare or survival of our republic. I could see $100 or maybe $200, but $780 is beyond the pale.
Franz retorts:
I think you have spent too much time hanging around your Econ profs. Nonetheless, let's break it down like true B-school geeks. Your economic analysis is flawed because it rests on the assumption that anyone who would ask so much for a ticket has a monopoly on tickets to the OSU game. While it is hard to get U-M tickets, there are 102,501 other people who have tickets that they would be willing to sell for a price and this particular person just happens to be advertising his price.
When assuming marginal cost, don't forget opportunity cost, which, in this case, is the price the person can get if he sells the ticket in the open market. Assuming OSU fans have paid $100 when the game had no national title implications, one can only speculate on the price,but $20 it surely is not.
As for whether this game has a bearing on the survival of our republic is questionable, but the welfare of the Midwest might actually be at stake. It was only 150+ years ago that Michigan annexed the Upper Penninsula to settle a Michigan-Ohio military dispute.
Nicholas replies:
It's every person's right to make money, as much as possible. But when that money comes at the expense of being greedy, then I have a problem. It is important to consider the fact that MBA1s and freshmen this year were not allowed season tickets for the entire season; they only received half-season tix. And then here comes this "seller," offeringt ickets for $800, well out of the price range of deserving first-years who only got season tickets for one half the year. This individual is attempting to screw over his fellow students and make an unhealthy profit. Some say "Well, he can sell for whatever price he wants." Fine, let him sell for whatever price he wants. But he won't find any buyers. He has priced himself out of the market.
It really doesn't matter. If Microsoft wins and beats Reno, Billy and his army (the Evil Empire) will forever be under a high powered electron microscope... In either case Netscape and others win.
Don't worry about it. Bill Gates has a majority interest in the FTC.
Yes. No. Who knows? But judging from the nasty tone of their written response to the Department of Justice, I think they need to get some sleep.
You're taking a big risk pissing off Janet Reno--she may decide to send the ATF in on the MSJ. Here's a more interesting question: who would win an Ultimate Fighting
Championship match between Bill Gates and Janet Reno going mano a mano? My bet's on Reno.
The bottom line is this: The Justice Department fines companies $1 million a day. Thi doesn't mean that much when you consider Microsoft has got $9 billion in cash, and they are generating another billion-plus every year. It's just a nuisance. If Microsoft loses and they are forced to separate Internet Explorer from the operating system, its a modest negative. It probably has more impact on market's perception of Netscape than anything else. A year ago Microsoft had a 30% share of the browser market, and Netscape had 70%. Now the market is almost split even at 50-50. Moral of the story: Old Chinese proverb--Dogs bark while the Elephant walks.