THE LARGEST BMW 2-SERIES FORUM ON THE PLANET
2Addicts
2Addicts
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
2Addicts | BMW 2-Series forum BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board [Video]: GoDaddy CEO Shoots Elephant in Zimbabwe

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      03-31-2011, 10:28 PM   #67
-=Hot|Ice=-
Been There, Done That.
-=Hot|Ice=-'s Avatar
United_States
642
Rep
4,728
Posts

Drives: 2013 BMW M3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Maryland

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake View Post
derp
Herp
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaypod View Post
You sound like my buddies who have AMG's - Slam the gas, slam the brakes...
Appreciate 0
      03-31-2011, 10:30 PM   #68
scollins
Bootleggin' 'n Gunrunnin'
scollins's Avatar
134
Rep
2,371
Posts

Drives: 2024 X3 M40i
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Renton, WA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake View Post
derp
Quote:
Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=- View Post
Herp
derka derka
__________________
Scott
2024 G01 X3 M40i, Brooklyn Grey Metallic /// 2015 F15 X5 35i, Space Gray Metallic, 99K miles /// 2013 F30 320xi, Mojave Metallic, 112k miles
2019 Ford F450 STX, Oxford White
2013 Ducati Multistrada Touring S, Red
Appreciate 0
      03-31-2011, 11:56 PM   #69
BMWinNorthdakota
Banned
242
Rep
1,106
Posts

Drives: 2007 bmw 335i e90
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Fargo ND

iTrader: (0)

<----- not accepted/rejected by e90 ot


sigh*
Appreciate 0
      04-01-2011, 01:11 AM   #70
BTM
Banned
United_States
479
Rep
10,309
Posts

Drives: A///MERICAN!!!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: A///MERICA!!!

iTrader: (11)

Garage List
An Economic Perspective of the International Ban on Ivory Trade

Despite that the existing international ban on ivory trade is nearly 30 years old; controversy and uncertainty continue to impede on efforts to accurately evaluate its ecological success—and economic consequences. The policy’s ecologically-centric objective—to restore elephant populations to ecologically acceptable levels—ignored inevitable consequences to be incited upon the unstable and underdeveloped economies characteristic to the main elephant-range states . This paper will inform upon the economics of ivory markets, examine the economic and ecological consequences of the ivory trade ban, and describe stratagem conducive to both economic development and ecological protection.
In order to understand the economic consequences imposing the ivory ban has had on development on the Southern African elephant-range, a basic knowledge of how ivory markets function when unrestricted is essential. Because elephant poaching is the primary means of generating ivory, and because guns are a relatively cheap and efficient means of poaching, there exists a relatively low cost of entry into ivory markets. (Raffolovich, 2006) Additionally, as elephants are an open-access resource , elephants roaming non-federally protected land are vulnerable to (legal) consumption (e.g. poaching). Open access provides an equal opportunity for poachers to attain resources, promoting intense competition to secure as many elephant carcasses as possible before other market participants—behavior which can result in a “tragedy of the commons” .
The consequences made possible by these market determinants were exacerbated by the (relatively) recent increase in efficiency of resource generation (afforded for by higher availability of modern weapons), and have provided for ivory markets’ expansion to levels at which exists the potential for significant ecologic and economic impact associated with increased poaching. Exploitation of elephants was further worsened by government failure to accurately assess and value the non-use economic benefits elephants provide (such as attracting tourism) and rapidly increasing international demand for ivory (championed by Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan)—resulting in elephant populations depleted to ecologically threatening levels by the end of 1980’s—hence prompting the subsequent international ban on ivory trade by CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) in 1990. (Raffalovich, 2006)
Imposing the ivory trade ban as an instrument to reduce elephant poaching, is, on the surface, a logically sound and intuitive response. Economists, however, fundamentally object to this conclusion, instead contending that the ban will cede only a minor ecological improvement, if any. (The theory is as follows.) Criminalizing ivory trading effectively reduces the quantity of ivory supplied legally available for trade to zero. As a result, the total ivory supply is severely decreased to include only traders willing to accept the heightened risk of illegal trading; and as demand remains unaffected , the price of ivory soars as relative non-use benefits plummet. This dramatic increase in value subsequently strengthens incentives for elephant poaching while abating incentives for elephant conservation. Additionally, the ivory ban relegates all ivory exchange to the black market, rendering economic benefits achieved through ivory-export as unobservable, non-taxable and non-accruable in traditional measures of economic development, such as GDP.
Conversely, empirical evidence shows a considerable resurgence in elephant numbers since 1990. In fact, demand for ivory has decreased—some citing that the ban, (along with environmental organizations and educational programs), erected a “moral barrier” stigmatizing the consumption of ivory products. (Raffalovich, 2006) This decrease in ivory demanded offset the decreased ivory supply, leading to a decrease, rather than increase, of ivory prices, which have since fallen below pre-trade ban levels. (Sack, 1993) Accordingly, ivory’s relatively low value has disincentivized poaching, allowing elephant populations to achieve levels exceeding the specified endangered species population levels mandated by CITES. (Raffalovich, 2006)
From an economic perspective, CITES’ ban on ivory trade (resulting in elephant overpopulation) is inciting economic repercussions detrimental to developing Southern African elephant-range countries. (Bennett, 1997) Botswana and Kenya, for example, have been significantly affected by these unanticipated consequences. Originally opposing the ban and experiencing favorable pre-ban conditions—which include prosperous ivory markets and stable elephant populations—conditions in Botswana and Kenya are now such that overinflated elephant populations are in direct competition with rural peoples for land and water resources. (Raffalovich, 2006) Elephants are further impinging on the communal areas (which are used mainly for subsistence agriculture), trampling crops and causing increasingly meager harvests as elephant populations continue growing. (African Wildlife Foundation)
It is thus evident that the ivory ban’s ecologically positive results have been achieved at the expense of economic development—attaining a better balance between ecological conservation and economic expansion must be sought. Many ban-critics argue the optimal solution, which maximizes benefits to both facets, is to “maximize revenue from the consumptive use of (ivory) while at the same time maintain a stable population to maximize the non-consumptive use and to protect the ecosystem.” (Bennett, 1997) Accomplishing this requires developing economic incentives that increase the non-use economic value of elephants to levels exceeding their potential consumptive value, effectively disincentivizing ivory trading. Ecotourism, greatly dependent on (living) elephants, has been proposed as just such a solution. In Zimbabwe, for example, tourism generates $100 million annually, with (measured) ivory trading accounting for only $4 million. (Hara, 2008) Expanding ecotourism can promote economic stimulus in creating more stable sources of income, employment, and development—the benefits from which are realizable by all Southern African citizens. Improving overall well-being will undoubtedly facilitate disincentives for ivory extraction and encourage elephant conservation.












/thread
Appreciate 0
      04-01-2011, 01:38 AM   #71
ghosthi32
Banned
37
Rep
2,504
Posts

Drives: Water camel
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: strait of hormuz

iTrader: (0)

so this is that essay...
Appreciate 0
      04-01-2011, 01:42 AM   #72
Blake
Banned
No_Country
750
Rep
4,649
Posts

Drives: Chevy Aveo
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Parent's Basement

iTrader: (7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BTM View Post
An Economic Perspective of the International Ban on Ivory Trade

Despite that the existing international ban on ivory trade is nearly 30 years old; controversy and uncertainty continue to impede on efforts to accurately evaluate its ecological success—and economic consequences. The policy’s ecologically-centric objective—to restore elephant populations to ecologically acceptable levels—ignored inevitable consequences to be incited upon the unstable and underdeveloped economies characteristic to the main elephant-range states . This paper will inform upon the economics of ivory markets, examine the economic and ecological consequences of the ivory trade ban, and describe stratagem conducive to both economic development and ecological protection.
In order to understand the economic consequences imposing the ivory ban has had on development on the Southern African elephant-range, a basic knowledge of how ivory markets function when unrestricted is essential. Because elephant poaching is the primary means of generating ivory, and because guns are a relatively cheap and efficient means of poaching, there exists a relatively low cost of entry into ivory markets. (Raffolovich, 2006) Additionally, as elephants are an open-access resource , elephants roaming non-federally protected land are vulnerable to (legal) consumption (e.g. poaching). Open access provides an equal opportunity for poachers to attain resources, promoting intense competition to secure as many elephant carcasses as possible before other market participants—behavior which can result in a “tragedy of the commons” .
The consequences made possible by these market determinants were exacerbated by the (relatively) recent increase in efficiency of resource generation (afforded for by higher availability of modern weapons), and have provided for ivory markets’ expansion to levels at which exists the potential for significant ecologic and economic impact associated with increased poaching. Exploitation of elephants was further worsened by government failure to accurately assess and value the non-use economic benefits elephants provide (such as attracting tourism) and rapidly increasing international demand for ivory (championed by Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan)—resulting in elephant populations depleted to ecologically threatening levels by the end of 1980’s—hence prompting the subsequent international ban on ivory trade by CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) in 1990. (Raffalovich, 2006)
Imposing the ivory trade ban as an instrument to reduce elephant poaching, is, on the surface, a logically sound and intuitive response. Economists, however, fundamentally object to this conclusion, instead contending that the ban will cede only a minor ecological improvement, if any. (The theory is as follows.) Criminalizing ivory trading effectively reduces the quantity of ivory supplied legally available for trade to zero. As a result, the total ivory supply is severely decreased to include only traders willing to accept the heightened risk of illegal trading; and as demand remains unaffected , the price of ivory soars as relative non-use benefits plummet. This dramatic increase in value subsequently strengthens incentives for elephant poaching while abating incentives for elephant conservation. Additionally, the ivory ban relegates all ivory exchange to the black market, rendering economic benefits achieved through ivory-export as unobservable, non-taxable and non-accruable in traditional measures of economic development, such as GDP.
Conversely, empirical evidence shows a considerable resurgence in elephant numbers since 1990. In fact, demand for ivory has decreased—some citing that the ban, (along with environmental organizations and educational programs), erected a “moral barrier” stigmatizing the consumption of ivory products. (Raffalovich, 2006) This decrease in ivory demanded offset the decreased ivory supply, leading to a decrease, rather than increase, of ivory prices, which have since fallen below pre-trade ban levels. (Sack, 1993) Accordingly, ivory’s relatively low value has disincentivized poaching, allowing elephant populations to achieve levels exceeding the specified endangered species population levels mandated by CITES. (Raffalovich, 2006)
From an economic perspective, CITES’ ban on ivory trade (resulting in elephant overpopulation) is inciting economic repercussions detrimental to developing Southern African elephant-range countries. (Bennett, 1997) Botswana and Kenya, for example, have been significantly affected by these unanticipated consequences. Originally opposing the ban and experiencing favorable pre-ban conditions—which include prosperous ivory markets and stable elephant populations—conditions in Botswana and Kenya are now such that overinflated elephant populations are in direct competition with rural peoples for land and water resources. (Raffalovich, 2006) Elephants are further impinging on the communal areas (which are used mainly for subsistence agriculture), trampling crops and causing increasingly meager harvests as elephant populations continue growing. (African Wildlife Foundation)
It is thus evident that the ivory ban’s ecologically positive results have been achieved at the expense of economic development—attaining a better balance between ecological conservation and economic expansion must be sought. Many ban-critics argue the optimal solution, which maximizes benefits to both facets, is to “maximize revenue from the consumptive use of (ivory) while at the same time maintain a stable population to maximize the non-consumptive use and to protect the ecosystem.” (Bennett, 1997) Accomplishing this requires developing economic incentives that increase the non-use economic value of elephants to levels exceeding their potential consumptive value, effectively disincentivizing ivory trading. Ecotourism, greatly dependent on (living) elephants, has been proposed as just such a solution. In Zimbabwe, for example, tourism generates $100 million annually, with (measured) ivory trading accounting for only $4 million. (Hara, 2008) Expanding ecotourism can promote economic stimulus in creating more stable sources of income, employment, and development—the benefits from which are realizable by all Southern African citizens. Improving overall well-being will undoubtedly facilitate disincentives for ivory extraction and encourage elephant conservation.












/thread
Appreciate 0
      04-01-2011, 01:47 AM   #73
bmwmthree
Captain
bmwmthree's Avatar
113
Rep
695
Posts

Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: so cal

iTrader: (8)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWinNorthdakota View Post
New idea... we make avatars of our bods and talk about super cool high protein low carb meals/get jacked...
misc? lol
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuvMyRide View Post
And BMWM3 ..I will be filing a harrasment suit against you and/or charges. See you in court very very soon. Thanks.. Have fun with your nonsense.
Appreciate 0
      04-01-2011, 02:32 AM   #74
Comet
Troll Harder
Comet's Avatar
Lebanon
383
Rep
596
Posts

Drives: 997 GT3, 997 4 GTS, X6M
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Montreal, Beirut

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
April Fools possibly?
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-01-2011, 04:10 AM   #75
Small Yellow
Track Addict
Small Yellow's Avatar
Taiwan
110
Rep
813
Posts

Drives: 2010 BMW M3 E92 | 2008 Z4M E86
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Orange County, California

iTrader: (0)

Those villagers are like ants.
__________________
BMW ///M3 Coupe
Completed November 16, 2009
Received December 29,2009
Appreciate 0
      04-01-2011, 07:58 AM   #76
BTM
Banned
United_States
479
Rep
10,309
Posts

Drives: A///MERICAN!!!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: A///MERICA!!!

iTrader: (11)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake View Post
YESSSSS
Appreciate 0
      04-01-2011, 09:26 AM   #77
escobar929
Brigadier General
escobar929's Avatar
154
Rep
4,528
Posts

Drives: M2 CS
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Hollywood, FL

iTrader: (14)

Garage List
2020 M2 CS  [10.00]
2020 M240i  [0.00]
too bad he didnt kill one of those peta phags
Appreciate 0
      04-01-2011, 10:44 AM   #78
jpsum
Major
jpsum's Avatar
United_States
257
Rep
1,088
Posts

Drives: 2010 TSX
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Haven area

iTrader: (4)

what's the problem here? Did he kill an endangered specie? If not, I don't see what the fuzz is about.
Appreciate 0
      04-01-2011, 10:52 AM   #79
BTM
Banned
United_States
479
Rep
10,309
Posts

Drives: A///MERICAN!!!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: A///MERICA!!!

iTrader: (11)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpsum View Post
what's the problem here? Did he kill an endangered specie? If not, I don't see what the fuzz is about.
If this is a serious question, read the essay I posted. Elephant poaching is not a black and white topic.
Appreciate 0
      04-01-2011, 10:57 AM   #80
007MCoupe
Lieutenant Colonel
007MCoupe's Avatar
United_States
91
Rep
1,546
Posts

Drives: '18 Sakhir M3 ZCP
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ( ///// )

iTrader: (5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug View Post
Not to mention bringing in a CEO from a major US company to go big game hunting is cheaper than dousing crops in chili.
dousing crops in chili? sounds delicious. was it made with elephant meat?!?!?!
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-01-2011, 11:01 AM   #81
jpsum
Major
jpsum's Avatar
United_States
257
Rep
1,088
Posts

Drives: 2010 TSX
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Haven area

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BTM View Post
If this is a serious question, read the essay I posted. Elephant poaching is not a black and white topic.
Didn't read your essay (too long). But if it's not black and white, then there is no right or wrong. Also, Poaching implies that he broke some kind of law here. So what law did he break?
Appreciate 0
      04-01-2011, 11:04 AM   #82
BTM
Banned
United_States
479
Rep
10,309
Posts

Drives: A///MERICAN!!!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: A///MERICA!!!

iTrader: (11)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpsum View Post
Didn't read you essay. But if it's not black and white, then there is no right or wrong.
Right and wrong in this case is subjective, and that's what the fuss is about. It is illegal in Zimbabwe IIRC
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
thkcockinsmllgrlsftw

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 PM.




2addicts
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST