----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry Ross
To: UK Tree Care
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: CAVAT [Scanned]
This is the placing of a monetary value on something, so surely it
should be peer reviewed by economists.
You know, the people who gave us Enron and manage the affairs of of our
SC Shaw said something like "if you lined up all the economists, they would
not add up to a conclusion." In my earlier comments, I noted that economists
think like economists. They expect everyone else to think like economists.
They expect the world to comport to normative economics. Except the world
sometimes doesn't. And while normative economics sort of works in "perfect
markets in equilibrium," amenity trees are not really market goods. Well you
can reduce them to being market goods as if all anybody cares about is how
they affect the market value of the land where they sit. Or for publicly
owned trees (inalienable, public sector assets in RICS parlance) you can make
believe they are market goods. But methods like CAVAT and the CTLA methods
and Jim's FEM may be looking for something other than "economic value" or be
answering an non-economic question.
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:email@example.com
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre