futurepundit smokes too many the end is near doobies
I think Obama should appoint a Shark Czar to look into it straight away.
True dat.
Besides, sharks aren’t the apex predator, we are. So by the theory there espoused if we stop predating on the sharks, all hell will break loose in the entire ecosystem.
I guess I should add that I actually favor good integrated management of fisheries.
If sharks disappear, wouldn’t whatever is in second place just take over?
It’s not like sharks are there by design, fulfilling some specific ecological purpose. They are the best at what they do, but it’s not like some other critter couldn’t come along (dolphins perhaps) to take their place. Am I missing something here?
If sharks disappear, wouldn’t whatever is in second place just take over?
Not on a human time scale. Like scallops? Kiss them goodbye, unless you want to engage in a massive ray extermination. Which I guess we could — they’re shark like, and probably good eating.
No, like other predators. Sharks are the apex hunters, not the only ones.
Killer Bees would replace them.
Well, those lasers on their heads will put them back on top.
“Countries should stop doing this.”
That would require action by the government instead of the free market
I’m sure there is an application of the precautionary principle here somewhere.
What happens when sharks disappear?
We’ll have to get lawyers from somewhere else.
That would require action by the government instead of the free market
Indeed. Glad to see you learned something. Gold star day for you.
…unless you want to engage in a massive ray extermination.
Chuck Norris could with his fist.
If we lost sharks, what would we strap lasers onto? Maybe dolphins.
“That would require action by the government instead of the free market
Indeed. Glad to see you learned something. Gold star day for you.”
it’s an issue, the free market is wiping out this top predator.
There is no market incentive not to.
the tragedy of the commons ensues unless some socialist decides to
enforce rules.
I’m sure leland would prefer life without scallops.
Er…jack, wasn’t the point the Nat Geo guy made that overfishing sharks would wipe out scallops? Isn’t that a free market economic incentive to limit shark fishing? I mean, do you think he said that because (1) people find scallops soooooo cute — like Hello Kitty! only eyeless and limbless as well as mouthless — or (2) people like to harvest scallops, sell them, and eat them?
Er…jack, wasn’t the point the Nat Geo guy made that overfishing sharks would wipe out scallops? Isn’t that a free market economic incentive to limit shark fishing?
Among scallops fishermen, sure. They have a vested economic interest in being able to harvest scallops. However, the shark fishermen have a vested economic interest in catching sharks. Since the union set of scallops fishermen and shark fishermen is probably zero, simple economic interests of one group isn’t likely to overcome the interests of the other group. Comparitively speaking, I suspect the market for shark is greater than the market for scallops. That’s a pity – I like eating scallops more than I like eating shark. This may be one of those cases where market forces alone won’t solve the problem.
There is no market incentive not to.
the tragedy of the commons ensues unless some socialist decides to enforce rules.
Another obvious comment, environmentalist argument is for socialist control. All the little people eat what ever rations are enforced by rules.
Among scallops fishermen, sure.
You forget about scallop consumers, which I would bet outnumber shark consumers. In the US at least.
The have a voice too, and a way of exerting market forces.
unfortunately shark consumers are heavily in asia and scallop consumers more in america and europe.
the interests of these markets are not aligned, and it would require the evll socialist obama administration to protect scallop consumers from freedom loving capitalists in china.
the teabag people will never stand for that.
Gold star day ended yesterday. jack’s back to being stupid.
There is no market incentive not to
Of course there is. Sharks have value. Those that value sharks will work to keep them from going extinct. It’s when they have no value they are subject to extinction. Control freaks just can’t trust the free market.
Same with scallops. I love breaded scallops. Unbreaded scallops in butter turns my stomach. Weird huh?
Now if we developed a taste for rays, that would give rays value.
When something with value becomes rare, it’s value goes up and the work to preserve it does as well.
Things with no value have no champion.
“Of course there is. Sharks have value. Those that value sharks will work to keep them from going extinct. ”
That means people who value scallops must value sharks now.
That means paying money to preserve sharks but scallops suppliers who don’t will get market share over scallops suppliers who are not contributing to
shark survival. Unless you tax scallops to protect sharks.
That requires government action.
Unless Ken can describe a better action.
That requires government action.
You have made no justification for ‘govt.’ action. Action itself is the only issue and it has to be the right action or combination of actions.
People motivated by the self interest of preserving value are better at coming up with the right set of actions than people motivated by anything else like the self interest of holding political power. You have given a perfect example…
That means people who value scallops must value sharks now.
No, that’s an assumption and a perfect example of why government can’t manage any resource efficiently. It may be true or not. If the government decides it’s true they may take action which historically would definitely be inflexible, likely be of the wrong scale, and quite likely to make the issue worse. Even if it is true and they haven’t guessed wrong they still can not produce a flexible solution that deals with a dynamic environment.
Cash for clunkers is a perfect example of all three historical problems inherent in government action. There are thousands of examples of the government getting it wrong and few of them getting it right. This is part of the reason people expect the government to screw things up.
A person wanting to preserve value is going to be very flexible and pay close attention to results, both immediate and long term. They are not going to get stuck on one concept like ‘we need to preserve sharks so I can have my scallops.’ Instead they will see a bigger picture and make better decisions, rejecting those that don’t work. The government can never meet this level of refinement in there decisions.
That means paying money to preserve sharks but scallops suppliers who don’t will get market share over scallops suppliers who are not contributing to shark survival. Unless you tax scallops to protect sharks.
No. You do not know that. You can not. That’s part of inflexibility. A free market person would try something, see the results and make adjustments. Actually, many would try different things, some working while others don’t. Failure leads to success, but with government failure is just failure.
Unless Ken can describe a better action.
Again a perfect example of government thinking that leads to failure. I do not have to describe a better action. Many people trying different things leads to results and only those that are successful are kept. No government is capable of doing that and the more centrally controlled the worse it gets.
The best result a government can have on the free market is no effect, anything else screws up the correct valuation of things. For example, if they set a minimum wage but employers always pay more anyway, they haven’t screwed up the market place; otherwise they have putting people out of work who can no longer gain the experience needed for better pay.
…I suspect the market for shark is greater than the market for scallops.
Not likely, but even if true, as scallops become rare there value goes up leading to more incentive to preserve them.
This is exactly why government action is not required. The general population doesn’t know enough about fishing. It cannot make reasonable decisions about how to tweak an industry in order to improve it. The industry can make decisions for itself far better than the general voting population. If jack represented the majority of the population (which perhaps he did in the 2008 election); a very bad decision would be made to overprice scallops “for the preservation of sharks”, while absolutely doing nothing to preserve sharks.
“Of course there is. Sharks have value. Those that value sharks will work to keep them from going extinct. ”
nice theory. Factually utterly unsupported.
What happens is the fishermen fish until the population crashes.
futurepundit smokes too many the end is near doobies
I think Obama should appoint a Shark Czar to look into it straight away.
True dat.
Besides, sharks aren’t the apex predator, we are. So by the theory there espoused if we stop predating on the sharks, all hell will break loose in the entire ecosystem.
I guess I should add that I actually favor good integrated management of fisheries.
If sharks disappear, wouldn’t whatever is in second place just take over?
It’s not like sharks are there by design, fulfilling some specific ecological purpose. They are the best at what they do, but it’s not like some other critter couldn’t come along (dolphins perhaps) to take their place. Am I missing something here?
If sharks disappear, wouldn’t whatever is in second place just take over?
Not on a human time scale. Like scallops? Kiss them goodbye, unless you want to engage in a massive ray extermination. Which I guess we could — they’re shark like, and probably good eating.
No, like other predators. Sharks are the apex hunters, not the only ones.
Killer Bees would replace them.
Well, those lasers on their heads will put them back on top.
“Countries should stop doing this.”
That would require action by the government instead of the free market
I’m sure there is an application of the precautionary principle here somewhere.
We’ll have to get lawyers from somewhere else.
That would require action by the government instead of the free market
Indeed. Glad to see you learned something. Gold star day for you.
Chuck Norris could with his fist.
If we lost sharks, what would we strap lasers onto? Maybe dolphins.
“That would require action by the government instead of the free market
Indeed. Glad to see you learned something. Gold star day for you.”
it’s an issue, the free market is wiping out this top predator.
There is no market incentive not to.
the tragedy of the commons ensues unless some socialist decides to
enforce rules.
I’m sure leland would prefer life without scallops.
Er…jack, wasn’t the point the Nat Geo guy made that overfishing sharks would wipe out scallops? Isn’t that a free market economic incentive to limit shark fishing? I mean, do you think he said that because (1) people find scallops soooooo cute — like Hello Kitty! only eyeless and limbless as well as mouthless — or (2) people like to harvest scallops, sell them, and eat them?
Er…jack, wasn’t the point the Nat Geo guy made that overfishing sharks would wipe out scallops? Isn’t that a free market economic incentive to limit shark fishing?
Among scallops fishermen, sure. They have a vested economic interest in being able to harvest scallops. However, the shark fishermen have a vested economic interest in catching sharks. Since the union set of scallops fishermen and shark fishermen is probably zero, simple economic interests of one group isn’t likely to overcome the interests of the other group. Comparitively speaking, I suspect the market for shark is greater than the market for scallops. That’s a pity – I like eating scallops more than I like eating shark. This may be one of those cases where market forces alone won’t solve the problem.
There is no market incentive not to.
the tragedy of the commons ensues unless some socialist decides to enforce rules.
Another obvious comment, environmentalist argument is for socialist control. All the little people eat what ever rations are enforced by rules.
Among scallops fishermen, sure.
You forget about scallop consumers, which I would bet outnumber shark consumers. In the US at least.
The have a voice too, and a way of exerting market forces.
unfortunately shark consumers are heavily in asia and scallop consumers more in america and europe.
the interests of these markets are not aligned, and it would require the evll socialist obama administration to protect scallop consumers from freedom loving capitalists in china.
the teabag people will never stand for that.
Gold star day ended yesterday. jack’s back to being stupid.
There is no market incentive not to
Of course there is. Sharks have value. Those that value sharks will work to keep them from going extinct. It’s when they have no value they are subject to extinction. Control freaks just can’t trust the free market.
Same with scallops. I love breaded scallops. Unbreaded scallops in butter turns my stomach. Weird huh?
Now if we developed a taste for rays, that would give rays value.
When something with value becomes rare, it’s value goes up and the work to preserve it does as well.
Things with no value have no champion.
“Of course there is. Sharks have value. Those that value sharks will work to keep them from going extinct. ”
That means people who value scallops must value sharks now.
That means paying money to preserve sharks but scallops suppliers who don’t will get market share over scallops suppliers who are not contributing to
shark survival. Unless you tax scallops to protect sharks.
That requires government action.
Unless Ken can describe a better action.
That requires government action.
You have made no justification for ‘govt.’ action. Action itself is the only issue and it has to be the right action or combination of actions.
People motivated by the self interest of preserving value are better at coming up with the right set of actions than people motivated by anything else like the self interest of holding political power. You have given a perfect example…
That means people who value scallops must value sharks now.
No, that’s an assumption and a perfect example of why government can’t manage any resource efficiently. It may be true or not. If the government decides it’s true they may take action which historically would definitely be inflexible, likely be of the wrong scale, and quite likely to make the issue worse. Even if it is true and they haven’t guessed wrong they still can not produce a flexible solution that deals with a dynamic environment.
Cash for clunkers is a perfect example of all three historical problems inherent in government action. There are thousands of examples of the government getting it wrong and few of them getting it right. This is part of the reason people expect the government to screw things up.
A person wanting to preserve value is going to be very flexible and pay close attention to results, both immediate and long term. They are not going to get stuck on one concept like ‘we need to preserve sharks so I can have my scallops.’ Instead they will see a bigger picture and make better decisions, rejecting those that don’t work. The government can never meet this level of refinement in there decisions.
That means paying money to preserve sharks but scallops suppliers who don’t will get market share over scallops suppliers who are not contributing to shark survival. Unless you tax scallops to protect sharks.
No. You do not know that. You can not. That’s part of inflexibility. A free market person would try something, see the results and make adjustments. Actually, many would try different things, some working while others don’t. Failure leads to success, but with government failure is just failure.
Unless Ken can describe a better action.
Again a perfect example of government thinking that leads to failure. I do not have to describe a better action. Many people trying different things leads to results and only those that are successful are kept. No government is capable of doing that and the more centrally controlled the worse it gets.
The best result a government can have on the free market is no effect, anything else screws up the correct valuation of things. For example, if they set a minimum wage but employers always pay more anyway, they haven’t screwed up the market place; otherwise they have putting people out of work who can no longer gain the experience needed for better pay.
…I suspect the market for shark is greater than the market for scallops.
Not likely, but even if true, as scallops become rare there value goes up leading to more incentive to preserve them.
Unless you tax scallops to protect sharks
WTF? According to environmentalist: Overfishing of sharks is lowering the scallop population as well, so how does making scallops artificially higher in price help the shark population?
This is exactly why government action is not required. The general population doesn’t know enough about fishing. It cannot make reasonable decisions about how to tweak an industry in order to improve it. The industry can make decisions for itself far better than the general voting population. If jack represented the majority of the population (which perhaps he did in the 2008 election); a very bad decision would be made to overprice scallops “for the preservation of sharks”, while absolutely doing nothing to preserve sharks.
“Of course there is. Sharks have value. Those that value sharks will work to keep them from going extinct. ”
nice theory. Factually utterly unsupported.
What happens is the fishermen fish until the population crashes.
its what they did to Cod in the atlantic.
They crashed cod and it’s still in disaster a decade later.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/diversit/extra/cod/cod.htm
please explain why your theory failed with Cod?