Do women make less than men?

[Woodruff]

Human beings are nowhere near the capacity of Earth's resources, no matter what the hippies say, so your limited resources argument is meaningless as well.

Yes and no. While I tend to agree with what you say here, it's also true that the loss of rain forests around the world is going to have an impact on the survivability on the planet. Thus, our actions against nature now really could have a serious impact on CREATING limited resources in the future (such as the ability to grow food, for instance).

[BigBallinStalin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Doc Brown, Neoteny, Haggis, and three unidentified persons are working on a machine which converts 100% poop into 100% oxygen.

[Mr_Adams]

Human beings are nowhere near the capacity of Earth's resources, no matter what the hippies say, so your limited resources argument is meaningless as well.

Yes and no. While I tend to agree with what you say here, it's also true that the loss of rain forests around the world is going to have an impact on the survivability on the planet. Thus, our actions against nature now really could have a serious impact on CREATING limited resources in the future (such as the ability to grow food, for instance).

True, however, as of now, the economic impact is unfelt, and so unrelated.

[Woodruff]

Human beings are nowhere near the capacity of Earth's resources, no matter what the hippies say, so your limited resources argument is meaningless as well.

Yes and no. While I tend to agree with what you say here, it's also true that the loss of rain forests around the world is going to have an impact on the survivability on the planet. Thus, our actions against nature now really could have a serious impact on CREATING limited resources in the future (such as the ability to grow food, for instance).

True, however, as of now, the economic impact is unfelt, and so unrelated.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you (seriously), but you seem to be saying that it's ok to think short-term as long as there isn't an economic impact yet?

[Woodruff]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Doc Brown, Neoteny, Haggis, and three unidentified persons are working on a machine which converts 100% poop into 100% oxygen.

Yes, but they haven't got the flux capacitor working right yet.

[Mr_Adams]

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you (seriously), but you seem to be saying that it's ok to think short-term as long as there isn't an economic impact yet?

When we are discussing the immediate impact on the economy? Yes. I'm speaking completely free of moral obligation, entirely in an analytical sense.

[Woodruff]

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you (seriously), but you seem to be saying that it's ok to think short-term as long as there isn't an economic impact yet?

When we are discussing the immediate impact on the economy? Yes. I'm speaking completely free of moral obligation, entirely in an analytical sense.

Well then I can't agree with you. That's unsound thinking.

[Mr_Adams]

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you (seriously), but you seem to be saying that it's ok to think short-term as long as there isn't an economic impact yet?

When we are discussing the immediate impact on the economy? Yes. I'm speaking completely free of moral obligation, entirely in an analytical sense.

Well then I can't agree with you. That's unsound thinking.

By my understanding, this conversation is primarily referring to the market in retrospect, and I maintain that that environmental considerations have been of minimal affect on the actual economy in the past. If you want to discuss things going forward, the natural progression of technology has been leading to cleaner and more efficient industry, so I don't see it becoming any more prevalent an issue in the future, either. In fact, the technology already having been developed here, with any luck, developing countries should be able to skip past the more dirty parts of our past in the progression to development, so even the development of other countries shouldn't have to drastic an affect on the environment in the long run, as compared our past here in the US, and other countries which took part in our industrial revolutions.

[Symmetry]

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you (seriously), but you seem to be saying that it's ok to think short-term as long as there isn't an economic impact yet?

When we are discussing the immediate impact on the economy? Yes. I'm speaking completely free of moral obligation, entirely in an analytical sense.

Well then I can't agree with you. That's unsound thinking.

By my understanding, this conversation is primarily referring to the market in retrospect, and I maintain that that environmental considerations have been of minimal affect on the actual economy in the past. If you want to discuss things going forward, the natural progression of technology has been leading to cleaner and more efficient industry, so I don't see it becoming any more prevalent an issue in the future, either. In fact, the technology already having been developed here, with any luck, developing countries should be able to skip past the more dirty parts of our past in the progression to development, so even the development of other countries shouldn't have to drastic an affect on the environment in the long run, as compared our past here in the US, and other countries which took part in our industrial revolutions.

Interesting, what's your stance on Iran developing nuclear power?

[Mr_Adams]

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you (seriously), but you seem to be saying that it's ok to think short-term as long as there isn't an economic impact yet?

When we are discussing the immediate impact on the economy? Yes. I'm speaking completely free of moral obligation, entirely in an analytical sense.

Well then I can't agree with you. That's unsound thinking.

By my understanding, this conversation is primarily referring to the market in retrospect, and I maintain that that environmental considerations have been of minimal affect on the actual economy in the past. If you want to discuss things going forward, the natural progression of technology has been leading to cleaner and more efficient industry, so I don't see it becoming any more prevalent an issue in the future, either. In fact, the technology already having been developed here, with any luck, developing countries should be able to skip past the more dirty parts of our past in the progression to development, so even the development of other countries shouldn't have to drastic an affect on the environment in the long run, as compared our past here in the US, and other countries which took part in our industrial revolutions.

Interesting, what's your stance on Iran developing nuclear power?

Politically, the government doesn't give us enough information to have informed opinions. environmentally, if the US would work with the Iranians, a lot of pollution could be avoided.

[PLAYER57832]

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you (seriously), but you seem to be saying that it's ok to think short-term as long as there isn't an economic impact yet?

When we are discussing the immediate impact on the economy? Yes. I'm speaking completely free of moral obligation, entirely in an analytical sense.

Well then I can't agree with you. That's unsound thinking.

By my understanding, this conversation is primarily referring to the market in retrospect, and

If you see a small fire moving toward your house, do you try to put it out while it is still small (call the fire dept if you cannot) or do you wait until it is actually burning your house?

I maintain that that environmental considerations have been of minimal affect on the actual economy in the past. If you want to discuss things going forward, the natural progression of technology has been leading to cleaner and more efficient industry, so I don't see it becoming any more prevalent an issue in the future, either. In fact, the technology already having been developed here, with any luck, developing countries should be able to skip past the more dirty parts of our past in the progression to development, so even the development of other countries shouldn't have to drastic an affect on the environment in the long run, as compared our past here in the US, and other countries which took part in our industrial revolutions.

You are utterly ignorant of the world around you.
EVERYTHING you do depends on a healthy environment, particularly your ability to eat and have eadible food. But, the market is able to hide a lot of that temporarily. By the time the market IS impacted, it will be too late. Look around you, to what's actually happened, .. or even peruse some stats on things like fisheries takes/loss of agricultural land and production.. and consider how many of those are not reparable.

And, no, there are not nice neat fixes out there waiting. There are a few fixes for a few very small pieces of the problem, but any real solution will require far more change than the market alone will ever promote on its own.

[Symmetry]

Indeed, and it's worth noting that the "free market" solution relies on the idea that a massive problem will develop to necessitate free market solutions.

In essence, it argues that the market will deal with the issues after they happen. Markets are good at responding, and remarkably poor at anticipating problems.

[BigBallinStalin]

Indeed, and it's worth noting that the "free market" solution relies on the idea that a massive problem will develop to necessitate free market solutions.

In essence, it argues that the market will deal with the issues after they happen. Markets are good at responding, and remarkably poor at anticipating problems.

Firemen respond to calls or their alarm.

Policemen respond to 9-11 calls.

The armed forces respond after being attacked. (Caveat: US invaded Iraq preemptively for no good reason).

The Federal Reserve sort of anticipates recessions, but not the 2008 crisis--if judging them by their words up to that point. Nor does the Federal Reserve care much about the long-term effects of its previous policies (e.g. doesn't care about anticipating its long-term problems caused by its own meddling).


Bureaucracies and governments suffer from what's called the knowledge problem, which basically is the issue where information is asymmetric however prices can better organize this information. Firms acting within the market have a significant advantage over govt/bureaucracies. Profit and loss incentives also strongly encourage these firms to not do something stupid, or they'll tremendously pay for it (this requires being able to anticipate future problems). Govts/bureaucracies don't go bankrupt, nor are they often removed after completing their original goal (so, I guess they're ability to entrench themselves is seen as a good thing by the public, regardless of their performance?)

[BigBallinStalin]

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you (seriously), but you seem to be saying that it's ok to think short-term as long as there isn't an economic impact yet?

When we are discussing the immediate impact on the economy? Yes. I'm speaking completely free of moral obligation, entirely in an analytical sense.

Well then I can't agree with you. That's unsound thinking.

By my understanding, this conversation is primarily referring to the market in retrospect, and

If you see a small fire moving toward your house, do you try to put it out while it is still small (call the fire dept if you cannot) or do you wait until it is actually burning your house?

I maintain that that environmental considerations have been of minimal affect on the actual economy in the past. If you want to discuss things going forward, the natural progression of technology has been leading to cleaner and more efficient industry, so I don't see it becoming any more prevalent an issue in the future, either. In fact, the technology already having been developed here, with any luck, developing countries should be able to skip past the more dirty parts of our past in the progression to development, so even the development of other countries shouldn't have to drastic an affect on the environment in the long run, as compared our past here in the US, and other countries which took part in our industrial revolutions.

You are utterly ignorant of the world around you.
EVERYTHING you do depends on a healthy environment, particularly your ability to eat and have eadible food. But, the market is able to hide a lot of that temporarily. By the time the market IS impacted, it will be too late. Look around you, to what's actually happened, .. or even peruse some stats on things like fisheries takes/loss of agricultural land and production.. and consider how many of those are not reparable.

And, no, there are not nice neat fixes out there waiting. There are a few fixes for a few very small pieces of the problem, but any real solution will require far more change than the market alone will ever promote on its own.

Tell us a story, PLAYER. Expand on the underlined, if you don't mind.

[Symmetry]

Indeed, and it's worth noting that the "free market" solution relies on the idea that a massive problem will develop to necessitate free market solutions.

In essence, it argues that the market will deal with the issues after they happen. Markets are good at responding, and remarkably poor at anticipating problems.

Firemen respond to calls or their alarm.

Policemen respond to 9-11 calls.

The armed forces respond after being attacked. (Caveat: US invaded Iraq preemptively for no good reason).

The Federal Reserve sort of anticipates recessions, but not the 2008 crisis--if judging them by their words up to that point. Nor does the Federal Reserve care much about the long-term effects of its previous policies (e.g. doesn't care about anticipating its long-term problems caused by its own meddling).


Bureaucracies and governments suffer from what's called the knowledge problem, which basically is the issue where information is asymmetric however prices can better organize this information. Firms acting within the market have a significant advantage over govt/bureaucracies. Profit and loss incentives also strongly encourage these firms to not do something stupid, or they'll tremendously pay for it (this requires being able to anticipate future problems). Govts/bureaucracies don't go bankrupt, nor are they often removed after completing their original goal (so, I guess they're ability to entrench themselves is seen as a good thing by the public, regardless of their performance?)

This might well be traditional economic theory, but do you really want to stand up for those claims in the face of the current crisis? The losses you talk about as deterrents seem to be entirely within the market. A loss against less ruthless, or indeed criminal competitors. If you're talking about loss as a result of actually breaking the law, well, it seems negligible at best.

What loss incentive is there?

Surely, as I said, the incentive is to push the margin until you're caught. And after that, now there's gov't support.

Not exactly like the fire service, who'll teach kids how to prevent fires. Or the police, who'll try to prevent crime before it happens.

[BigBallinStalin]

Indeed, and it's worth noting that the "free market" solution relies on the idea that a massive problem will develop to necessitate free market solutions.

In essence, it argues that the market will deal with the issues after they happen. Markets are good at responding, and remarkably poor at anticipating problems.

Firemen respond to calls or their alarm.

Policemen respond to 9-11 calls.

The armed forces respond after being attacked. (Caveat: US invaded Iraq preemptively for no good reason).

The Federal Reserve sort of anticipates recessions, but not the 2008 crisis--if judging them by their words up to that point. Nor does the Federal Reserve care much about the long-term effects of its previous policies (e.g. doesn't care about anticipating its long-term problems caused by its own meddling).


Bureaucracies and governments suffer from what's called the knowledge problem, which basically is the issue where information is asymmetric however prices can better organize this information. Firms acting within the market have a significant advantage over govt/bureaucracies. Profit and loss incentives also strongly encourage these firms to not do something stupid, or they'll tremendously pay for it (this requires being able to anticipate future problems). Govts/bureaucracies don't go bankrupt, nor are they often removed after completing their original goal (so, I guess they're ability to entrench themselves is seen as a good thing by the public, regardless of their performance?)

This might well be traditional economic theory, but do you really want to stand up for those claims in the face of the current crisis? The losses you talk about as deterrents seem to be entirely within the market. A loss against less ruthless, or indeed criminal competitors. If you're talking about loss as a result of actually breaking the law, well, it seems negligible at best.

What loss incentive is there?

Surely, as I said, the incentive is to push the margin until you're caught. And after that, now there's gov't support.

Not exactly like the fire service, who'll teach kids how to prevent fires. Or the police, who'll try to prevent crime before it happens.

Great example of anticipating events: Wal-Mart logistics.

Parents can't teach their kids how to prevent fires? This never happens, does it?

The police, who'll try to prevent crime before it happens. Okay. What's with the 9-11 response system? A crime is committed, then they're called, then they arrive--usually after the criminal has fled. How is that crime prevention?


You seem to be confused about what profit and loss incentives mean. I'll outsource the job of explaining that.

http://www.learnliberty.org/content/price-system-part-ii-profits-losses


Here's an article that explains this concept in practice (when theory meets reality):

Gambling with Other People's Money: How Perverted Incentives Caused the Financial Crisis
http://mercatus.org/publication/gambling-other-peoples-money

[Symmetry]

I simply responded to your post.

If you can't explain it yourself, or even explain why I'm wrong, why post?

The police and fire-service examples, of course, were your own. I simply point out that they are not merely reactionary.

[PLAYER57832]

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you (seriously), but you seem to be saying that it's ok to think short-term as long as there isn't an economic impact yet?

When we are discussing the immediate impact on the economy? Yes. I'm speaking completely free of moral obligation, entirely in an analytical sense.

Well then I can't agree with you. That's unsound thinking.

By my understanding, this conversation is primarily referring to the market in retrospect, and

If you see a small fire moving toward your house, do you try to put it out while it is still small (call the fire dept if you cannot) or do you wait until it is actually burning your house?

I maintain that that environmental considerations have been of minimal affect on the actual economy in the past. If you want to discuss things going forward, the natural progression of technology has been leading to cleaner and more efficient industry, so I don't see it becoming any more prevalent an issue in the future, either. In fact, the technology already having been developed here, with any luck, developing countries should be able to skip past the more dirty parts of our past in the progression to development, so even the development of other countries shouldn't have to drastic an affect on the environment in the long run, as compared our past here in the US, and other countries which took part in our industrial revolutions.

You are utterly ignorant of the world around you.
EVERYTHING you do depends on a healthy environment, particularly your ability to eat and have eadible food. But, the market is able to hide a lot of that temporarily. By the time the market IS impacted, it will be too late. Look around you, to what's actually happened, .. or even peruse some stats on things like fisheries takes/loss of agricultural land and production.. and consider how many of those are not reparable.

And, no, there are not nice neat fixes out there waiting. There are a few fixes for a few very small pieces of the problem, but any real solution will require far more change than the market alone will ever promote on its own.

Tell us a story, PLAYER. Expand on the underlined, if you don't mind.

Gladly.

One classic example is found in fisheries CPU or "catch per unit effort". Because it is so difficult to assess fish stocks directly (in the past has been impossible), indirect methods like CPU are used. Theoretically, if there are more fish, you should catch them more readily. If there are fewer, it should take more time. Right off, I am sure you can see quite a few problems. People's skill varies, etc. Those can be corrected for to a large extent. When direct assessments were lacking, it was one of the data points used to assess fishery stocks, just taken with the understanding of its limits.

So, what happens when a fishery stock starts to go?

The first thing is that people wind up spending more time and get better equipment. They keep the catch rates up, but it takes longer. According to standard market economics, the price increases. In fisheries, that happens slowly because there are a lot of different fish out there and a lot of options for buying things other than fish. Even so, it does happen. This fuels the already wealthier fishermen to improve their boats more, to keep up their fishing take.

Note the problem? The lack of/increase in demand is not really tied to the base stock, it is tied to the amount delivered to the market. In fisheries, the end result is that by the time a fishery becomes untenable, the stocks have already been depleted too far to readily rebound. This happened with Cod, with just about every stock you can think about.

There are various "fixes" that have been tried. I won't go into all of that because you just asked for an explanation of why the market is too slow to respond. If you want me to get into the biology , I can.


OR-- take agriculture.

Agriculture is a different case. I will take just one problem. A lot of the arable land west of the Sierras, over to roughly the Mississippi get their water from several underground aquifers. These aquifers are being depleted and not restored. The water is essentially being "mined", not cycled. Even when the "natural" water cycle is all that is being used for agriculture, we find that the water is being polluted, being withdrawn or diverted in various ways. Note.. I am not saying that farms don't pollute. Large factory farms, in particular are a big problem. (smaller farms usually are not, though there can be exceptions). BUT.. there is nothing in the market place to reflect these losses.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you see a small fire moving toward your house, do you try to put it out while it is still small (call the fire dept if you cannot) or do you wait until it is actually burning your house?

I maintain that that environmental considerations have been of minimal affect on the actual economy in the past. If you want to discuss things going forward, the natural progression of technology has been leading to cleaner and more efficient industry, so I don't see it becoming any more prevalent an issue in the future, either. In fact, the technology already having been developed here, with any luck, developing countries should be able to skip past the more dirty parts of our past in the progression to development, so even the development of other countries shouldn't have to drastic an affect on the environment in the long run, as compared our past here in the US, and other countries which took part in our industrial revolutions.

You are utterly ignorant of the world around you.
EVERYTHING you do depends on a healthy environment, particularly your ability to eat and have eadible food. But, the market is able to hide a lot of that temporarily. By the time the market IS impacted, it will be too late. Look around you, to what's actually happened, .. or even peruse some stats on things like fisheries takes/loss of agricultural land and production.. and consider how many of those are not reparable.

And, no, there are not nice neat fixes out there waiting. There are a few fixes for a few very small pieces of the problem, but any real solution will require far more change than the market alone will ever promote on its own.

Tell us a story, PLAYER. Expand on the underlined, if you don't mind.

Gladly.

One classic example is found in fisheries CPU or "catch per unit effort". Because it is so difficult to assess fish stocks directly (in the past has been impossible), indirect methods like CPU are used. Theoretically, if there are more fish, you should catch them more readily. If there are fewer, it should take more time. Right off, I am sure you can see quite a few problems. People's skill varies, etc. Those can be corrected for to a large extent. When direct assessments were lacking, it was one of the data points used to assess fishery stocks, just taken with the understanding of its limits.

So, what happens when a fishery stock starts to go?

The first thing is that people wind up spending more time and get better equipment. They keep the catch rates up, but it takes longer. According to standard market economics, the price increases. In fisheries, that happens slowly because there are a lot of different fish out there and a lot of options for buying things other than fish. Even so, it does happen. This fuels the already wealthier fishermen to improve their boats more, to keep up their fishing take.

Note the problem? The lack of/increase in demand is not really tied to the base stock, it is tied to the amount delivered to the market. In fisheries, the end result is that by the time a fishery becomes untenable, the stocks have already been depleted too far to readily rebound. This happened with Cod, with just about every stock you can think about.

There are various "fixes" that have been tried. I won't go into all of that because you just asked for an explanation of why the market is too slow to respond. If you want me to get into the biology , I can.

.

This is a property rights issue. It isn't only markets because property rights are also intertwined with the laws of whatever community that relate to common pool resources. Therefore, the evidence you presented does not support your position: "But, the market is able to hide a lot of that temporarily. By the time the market IS impacted, it will be too late" or "why the market is too slow to respond" (which is now a different conclusion from your previous position).

I'll just pause here, so you can clarify which position you're defending at the moment.

[PLAYER57832]

If you see a small fire moving toward your house, do you try to put it out while it is still small (call the fire dept if you cannot) or do you wait until it is actually burning your house?

I maintain that that environmental considerations have been of minimal affect on the actual economy in the past. If you want to discuss things going forward, the natural progression of technology has been leading to cleaner and more efficient industry, so I don't see it becoming any more prevalent an issue in the future, either. In fact, the technology already having been developed here, with any luck, developing countries should be able to skip past the more dirty parts of our past in the progression to development, so even the development of other countries shouldn't have to drastic an affect on the environment in the long run, as compared our past here in the US, and other countries which took part in our industrial revolutions.

You are utterly ignorant of the world around you.
EVERYTHING you do depends on a healthy environment, particularly your ability to eat and have eadible food. But, the market is able to hide a lot of that temporarily. By the time the market IS impacted, it will be too late. Look around you, to what's actually happened, .. or even peruse some stats on things like fisheries takes/loss of agricultural land and production.. and consider how many of those are not reparable.

And, no, there are not nice neat fixes out there waiting. There are a few fixes for a few very small pieces of the problem, but any real solution will require far more change than the market alone will ever promote on its own.

Tell us a story, PLAYER. Expand on the underlined, if you don't mind.

Gladly.

One classic example is found in fisheries CPU or "catch per unit effort". Because it is so difficult to assess fish stocks directly (in the past has been impossible), indirect methods like CPU are used. Theoretically, if there are more fish, you should catch them more readily. If there are fewer, it should take more time. Right off, I am sure you can see quite a few problems. People's skill varies, etc. Those can be corrected for to a large extent. When direct assessments were lacking, it was one of the data points used to assess fishery stocks, just taken with the understanding of its limits.

So, what happens when a fishery stock starts to go?

The first thing is that people wind up spending more time and get better equipment. They keep the catch rates up, but it takes longer. According to standard market economics, the price increases. In fisheries, that happens slowly because there are a lot of different fish out there and a lot of options for buying things other than fish. Even so, it does happen. This fuels the already wealthier fishermen to improve their boats more, to keep up their fishing take.

Note the problem? The lack of/increase in demand is not really tied to the base stock, it is tied to the amount delivered to the market. In fisheries, the end result is that by the time a fishery becomes untenable, the stocks have already been depleted too far to readily rebound. This happened with Cod, with just about every stock you can think about.

There are various "fixes" that have been tried. I won't go into all of that because you just asked for an explanation of why the market is too slow to respond. If you want me to get into the biology , I can.

.

This is a property rights issue. It isn't only markets because property rights are also intertwined with the laws of whatever community that relate to common pool resources. Therefore, the evidence you presented does not support your position: "But, the market is able to hide a lot of that temporarily. By the time the market IS impacted, it will be too late" or "why the market is too slow to respond" (which is now a different conclusion from your previous position).

I'll just pause here, so you can clarify which position you're defending at the moment.

Clarify? Twisting more like. I gave you 2 very simplistic examples of why the markets don't respond. That property right changes might fix that is irrelevant. The point is, it won't happen through market forces alone. You need an outside entity (i.e. the government) to establish boundaries, in this case property designations.

I have brought up other examples in other threads. Pollution is another key example, even basic product safety. Establishing harm in a product means that the product has to have been sold for long enough for people to already have been harmed. Kids suffering serious birth defects, adults getting cancer, other illnesses. If I go out and harm someone's leg or eye , never mind kill them, then I go to jail. A company can sell a harmful product and as long as they do the very minimal in testing, cannot really be held liable. Even when they are "held liable", they get a fine, may be forced to take the product off the market. A very few of the worst injured might get some kind of compensation. But, all too often the worst offenders just go out of business.

Maybe you think "oh, gee, I just did not know that my product would make your child be born with webbed feat.. or a major hear defect" is reasonable. I don't.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you see a small fire moving toward your house, do you try to put it out while it is still small (call the fire dept if you cannot) or do you wait until it is actually burning your house?

I maintain that that environmental considerations have been of minimal affect on the actual economy in the past. If you want to discuss things going forward, the natural progression of technology has been leading to cleaner and more efficient industry, so I don't see it becoming any more prevalent an issue in the future, either. In fact, the technology already having been developed here, with any luck, developing countries should be able to skip past the more dirty parts of our past in the progression to development, so even the development of other countries shouldn't have to drastic an affect on the environment in the long run, as compared our past here in the US, and other countries which took part in our industrial revolutions.

You are utterly ignorant of the world around you.
EVERYTHING you do depends on a healthy environment, particularly your ability to eat and have eadible food. But, the market is able to hide a lot of that temporarily. By the time the market IS impacted, it will be too late. Look around you, to what's actually happened, .. or even peruse some stats on things like fisheries takes/loss of agricultural land and production.. and consider how many of those are not reparable.

And, no, there are not nice neat fixes out there waiting. There are a few fixes for a few very small pieces of the problem, but any real solution will require far more change than the market alone will ever promote on its own.

Tell us a story, PLAYER. Expand on the underlined, if you don't mind.

Gladly.

One classic example is found in fisheries CPU or "catch per unit effort". Because it is so difficult to assess fish stocks directly (in the past has been impossible), indirect methods like CPU are used. Theoretically, if there are more fish, you should catch them more readily. If there are fewer, it should take more time. Right off, I am sure you can see quite a few problems. People's skill varies, etc. Those can be corrected for to a large extent. When direct assessments were lacking, it was one of the data points used to assess fishery stocks, just taken with the understanding of its limits.

So, what happens when a fishery stock starts to go?

The first thing is that people wind up spending more time and get better equipment. They keep the catch rates up, but it takes longer. According to standard market economics, the price increases. In fisheries, that happens slowly because there are a lot of different fish out there and a lot of options for buying things other than fish. Even so, it does happen. This fuels the already wealthier fishermen to improve their boats more, to keep up their fishing take.

Note the problem? The lack of/increase in demand is not really tied to the base stock, it is tied to the amount delivered to the market. In fisheries, the end result is that by the time a fishery becomes untenable, the stocks have already been depleted too far to readily rebound. This happened with Cod, with just about every stock you can think about.

There are various "fixes" that have been tried. I won't go into all of that because you just asked for an explanation of why the market is too slow to respond. If you want me to get into the biology , I can.

.

This is a property rights issue. It isn't only markets because property rights are also intertwined with the laws of whatever community that relate to common pool resources. Therefore, the evidence you presented does not support your position: "But, the market is able to hide a lot of that temporarily. By the time the market IS impacted, it will be too late" or "why the market is too slow to respond" (which is now a different conclusion from your previous position).

I'll just pause here, so you can clarify which position you're defending at the moment.

Clarify? Twisting more like. I gave you 2 very simplistic examples of why the markets don't respond. That property right changes might fix that is irrelevant. The point is, it won't happen through market forces alone. You need an outside entity (i.e. the government) to establish boundaries, in this case property designations.

I have brought up other examples in other threads. Pollution is another key example, even basic product safety. Establishing harm in a product means that the product has to have been sold for long enough for people to already have been harmed. Kids suffering serious birth defects, adults getting cancer, other illnesses. If I go out and harm someone's leg or eye , never mind kill them, then I go to jail. A company can sell a harmful product and as long as they do the very minimal in testing, cannot really be held liable. Even when they are "held liable", they get a fine, may be forced to take the product off the market. A very few of the worst injured might get some kind of compensation. But, all too often the worst offenders just go out of business.

Maybe you think "oh, gee, I just did not know that my product would make your child be born with webbed feat.. or a major hear defect" is reasonable. I don't.

Okay, PLAYER. If you refuse to state which conclusion you're trying to support, then there's not much I can logically do here.

Please continue babbling about markets and how property rights aren't relevant to common pool resources.

[BigBallinStalin]

Regarding your (now new) point, "The point is, it won't happen through market forces alone. You need an outside entity (i.e. the government) to establish boundaries, in this case property designations," this is entirely false. There are cases where a government is not needed to "establish boundaries," while a group didn't exhaust their common pool resource. I know this won't help, but here's my source: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. an okay summary. There's plenty of examples in there if you care to learn about this.

Regarding the development of property rights, that institution (rules of the game) came about before governments... So, again, I'm not sure where you're pulling your facts from, but... oh f*ck it, nevermind. I'm wasting my time, again, with you. I'm sure you'll bring up something unrelated as a response. Maybe if I ask for you to clarify which conclusion you'll be trying to support, you'll dodge entirely because in order to appear correct, you probably feel that it's best to never provide an opportunity to be proven wrong. It's mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant, but apparently it's very effective.

[PLAYER57832]

[
Okay, PLAYER. If you refuse to state which conclusion you're trying to support, then there's not much I can logically do here.

Please continue babbling about markets and how property rights aren't relevant to common pool resources.

Nice try. If you ever decide to actually read or answer honestly, I might post again.

until then.. blather on. I care about honesty, not stupid blather.

[BigBallinStalin]

[
Okay, PLAYER. If you refuse to state which conclusion you're trying to support, then there's not much I can logically do here.

Please continue babbling about markets and how property rights aren't relevant to common pool resources.

Nice try. If you ever decide to actually read or answer honestly, I might post again.

until then.. blather on. I care about honesty, not stupid blather.

Are you really this stupid? Or are you insane?


"But, the market is able to hide a lot of that temporarily. By the time the market IS impacted, it will be too late."

does not equal

"why the market is too slow to respond"


How are you failing to understand this? Surely, there must be something wrong with your brain.


Also, how can you continue thinking that legal institutions are irrelevant for common pool resources? Then you say that they are not ("Derp, guv'ments needed"). I think you will do this whenever you perceive that you're disagreeing with me, or when you simply don't know what you're talking about. The first reason is crazy, the second is heedless idiocy. I think you fit both of these categories most of the time.


Remember when we already had a discussion similar to this? You went on writing a story in support of a previously held conclusion which you dropped at the end and replaced with an entirely different conclusion. After I pointed this out, you became infuriated, refused to clarify, and refused to even acknowledge that what you did made no sense at all. This indicates to me that there's something wrong with your brain, e.g. psychological issues.

[Mr_Adams]

One classic example is found in fisheries CPU or "catch per unit effort". Because it is so difficult to assess fish stocks directly (in the past has been impossible), indirect methods like CPU are used. Theoretically, if there are more fish, you should catch them more readily. If there are fewer, it should take more time. Right off, I am sure you can see quite a few problems. People's skill varies, etc. Those can be corrected for to a large extent. When direct assessments were lacking, it was one of the data points used to assess fishery stocks, just taken with the understanding of its limits.

So, what happens when a fishery stock starts to go?

The first thing is that people wind up spending more time and get better equipment. They keep the catch rates up, but it takes longer. According to standard market economics, the price increases. In fisheries, that happens slowly because there are a lot of different fish out there and a lot of options for buying things other than fish. Even so, it does happen. This fuels the already wealthier fishermen to improve their boats more, to keep up their fishing take.

Note the problem? The lack of/increase in demand is not really tied to the base stock, it is tied to the amount delivered to the market. In fisheries, the end result is that by the time a fishery becomes untenable, the stocks have already been depleted too far to readily rebound. This happened with Cod, with just about every stock you can think about.

There are various "fixes" that have been tried. I won't go into all of that because you just asked for an explanation of why the market is too slow to respond. If you want me to get into the biology , I can.


OR-- take agriculture.

Agriculture is a different case. I will take just one problem. A lot of the arable land west of the Sierras, over to roughly the Mississippi get their water from several underground aquifers. These aquifers are being depleted and not restored. The water is essentially being "mined", not cycled. Even when the "natural" water cycle is all that is being used for agriculture, we find that the water is being polluted, being withdrawn or diverted in various ways. Note.. I am not saying that farms don't pollute. Large factory farms, in particular are a big problem. (smaller farms usually are not, though there can be exceptions). BUT.. there is nothing in the market place to reflect these losses.

Wait, I thought to markets had already solved this with enclosed hatcheries and modern fish farms? Plus, there is a bit of a regular market cycle with the wild caught fishes. Several times in the last 20 years, the most popular fishes have been over fished, making other fish more cheaper, at which point, they become popular for accessibility. The former species have years to replenish, while the later is fished. Currently, Tilapia is fairly popular. I've also noticed an unusual amount of salmon in stores (which is excellent, but that might not be related, since it's often river caught, and rivers tend to, you know, belong to people).