I followed a link regarding public lands and will come back to it when I have the proper time, but it brought to mind a thought that I considered a number of years ago. It is a different topic, but it had to do with our money standard. The US went off the gold standard to a Federal Reserve currency, which is a shift from a tangible asset to vapor. So the thought was that we could devise a dollar pegged to federal public land. It would tag the money to the land, but not in the manner that you could use the piece of land as you wish. Foreign countries could use and own the currency, but not take it away, or build on it. Federal land could be increased or decreased, if needed, to adjust the money supply up or down, but not necessary, as the existing money could be allocated up or down to each unit. (or the size of units adjusted). Public State and Federal (and Native) lands could aslo be swapped out.
So, my question to you is this concept has feasability?
I've never heard anything like this and fear I haven't the expertise in economics to think it through thoroughly. My initial reaction is that too much history and legal precedent would likely preclude something of this nature.
Fantastic piece. I can't help but think about parallels between the crises facing wildlife today and the crisis facing birds at the turn of the century. During the progressive era, people finally recognized the scale of destruction caused by market and sport hunting, and worked together to pass the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 which dramatically restricted hunting and forms the foundation of bird conservation today. A society-spanning change was necessary to mobilize activists, hunters, children, and eventually legislators to get the law passed, and it had a hugely positive impact on bird populations. The threats facing birds today are a lot harder to recognize - they're not hunters that we can point fingers at - but they're even more serious. What will it take for us to mobilize our society to prevent the disappearance of wildlife before it's too late?
Thanks for this comment. Indeed, today's culprits are broader and far more complicated than hunters. Habitat change and loss for important things (like food production) drive a lot of this, but much of that can be done better. The "industry" that opposes the sorts of actions you describe from a century ago was not nearly as strong then as it is now.
I followed a link regarding public lands and will come back to it when I have the proper time, but it brought to mind a thought that I considered a number of years ago. It is a different topic, but it had to do with our money standard. The US went off the gold standard to a Federal Reserve currency, which is a shift from a tangible asset to vapor. So the thought was that we could devise a dollar pegged to federal public land. It would tag the money to the land, but not in the manner that you could use the piece of land as you wish. Foreign countries could use and own the currency, but not take it away, or build on it. Federal land could be increased or decreased, if needed, to adjust the money supply up or down, but not necessary, as the existing money could be allocated up or down to each unit. (or the size of units adjusted). Public State and Federal (and Native) lands could aslo be swapped out.
So, my question to you is this concept has feasability?
I've never heard anything like this and fear I haven't the expertise in economics to think it through thoroughly. My initial reaction is that too much history and legal precedent would likely preclude something of this nature.
Fantastic piece. I can't help but think about parallels between the crises facing wildlife today and the crisis facing birds at the turn of the century. During the progressive era, people finally recognized the scale of destruction caused by market and sport hunting, and worked together to pass the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 which dramatically restricted hunting and forms the foundation of bird conservation today. A society-spanning change was necessary to mobilize activists, hunters, children, and eventually legislators to get the law passed, and it had a hugely positive impact on bird populations. The threats facing birds today are a lot harder to recognize - they're not hunters that we can point fingers at - but they're even more serious. What will it take for us to mobilize our society to prevent the disappearance of wildlife before it's too late?
Thanks for this comment. Indeed, today's culprits are broader and far more complicated than hunters. Habitat change and loss for important things (like food production) drive a lot of this, but much of that can be done better. The "industry" that opposes the sorts of actions you describe from a century ago was not nearly as strong then as it is now.