<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Vindicating the Word &#8220;Economic&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.TheTransactionCompany.com/blog/vindicating-economic/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.TheTransactionCompany.com/blog/vindicating-economic/</link>
	<description>Organise your business with monetary transactions</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 10:00:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ron Davison</title>
		<link>http://www.TheTransactionCompany.com/blog/vindicating-economic/comment-page-1/#comment-216</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Davison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.TheTransactionCompany.com/2007/11/18/vindicating-the-word-economic/#comment-216</guid>
		<description>Hello Vladimir.

I think that there are two elements to this. One, economic and ecological have been in conflict. Two, at the proper discount rate, a forest in 100 years has a value of zero - a perfectly rational conclusion to make economically and an absurd one to make ecologically. 
I think that this can be addressed. Ultimately, I think this is where you're going, there is sufficient demand for a beautiful habitat and biodiversity, stable climate, etc., that economics and ecology can get along, but it's going to take some changes to put those two in harmony.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Vladimir.</p>
<p>I think that there are two elements to this. One, economic and ecological have been in conflict. Two, at the proper discount rate, a forest in 100 years has a value of zero - a perfectly rational conclusion to make economically and an absurd one to make ecologically.<br />
I think that this can be addressed. Ultimately, I think this is where you&#8217;re going, there is sufficient demand for a beautiful habitat and biodiversity, stable climate, etc., that economics and ecology can get along, but it&#8217;s going to take some changes to put those two in harmony.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
