3 ms·

This. It’s a shame a magazine called “Economist” eschews the simple answer any economist would provide and instead advocates a complicated regulatory scheme lik

This. It’s a shame a magazine called “Economist” eschews the simple answer any economist would provide and instead advocates a complicated regulatory scheme like this.

phaemon 6y ago
The problem with that simple answer, is that fish move. If you don't catch them on your patch, you don't get to reap the benefits next year - the person with the patch north of yours gets to catch them next month.
- rufusroflpunch 6y ago
  This is kind of like saying that, because farmers must occasionally let their field lie fallow, government must ban farming in some areas. Fish migratory patterns would naturally be priced into the fishing rights market.
  - phaemon 6y ago
    No, it's not. If a farmer leaves a field fallow they will benefit from it later because the field does not move. If you do not fish an area you will not benefit from it later because the fish do move. This is not a hypothetical; it's the reality fishermen have been dealing with for decades.
croissants 6y ago
The article explains why bans may be preferable to market-based solutions in this case. The gist is that it's easier to enforce a ban ("nobody is allowed to fish here until 2022! get out!") than any kind of pricing mechanism ("let's see, yesterday a random Chinese trawler came in and picked up, I guess, 4 tons of mackerel, so add that to the week's total and..."), and many of the relevant countries with depleted fisheries may not even have the regulatory capacity for the latter.
- stretchwithme 6y ago
  No one is motivated to stop poaching as much as the person whose property is being stolen. A ban works if it's enforced. But who's going to call the enforcers when there's a violation? This is the reason the tragedy of the commons exists.
- stretchwithme 6y ago
  I think it's easier to spend money protecting a resource when money is being earned from that resource. And it's also easier for those who want to use a resource to respect the law if there's still a legal way to access the resource.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

This. It’s a shame a magazine called “Economist” eschews the simple answer any economist would provide and instead advocates a complicated regulatory scheme like this.

phaemon 6y ago

The problem with that simple answer, is that fish move. If you don't catch them on your patch, you don't get to reap the benefits next year - the person with the patch north of yours gets to catch them next month.

rufusroflpunch 6y ago
This is kind of like saying that, because farmers must occasionally let their field lie fallow, government must ban farming in some areas. Fish migratory patterns would naturally be priced into the fishing rights market.
- phaemon 6y ago
  No, it's not. If a farmer leaves a field fallow they will benefit from it later because the field does not move. If you do not fish an area you will not benefit from it later because the fish do move. This is not a hypothetical; it's the reality fishermen have been dealing with for decades.

croissants 6y ago

The article explains why bans may be preferable to market-based solutions in this case. The gist is that it's easier to enforce a ban ("nobody is allowed to fish here until 2022! get out!") than any kind of pricing mechanism ("let's see, yesterday a random Chinese trawler came in and picked up, I guess, 4 tons of mackerel, so add that to the week's total and..."), and many of the relevant countries with depleted fisheries may not even have the regulatory capacity for the latter.

stretchwithme 6y ago
No one is motivated to stop poaching as much as the person whose property is being stolen. A ban works if it's enforced. But who's going to call the enforcers when there's a violation? This is the reason the tragedy of the commons exists.
stretchwithme 6y ago
I think it's easier to spend money protecting a resource when money is being earned from that resource. And it's also easier for those who want to use a resource to respect the law if there's still a legal way to access the resource.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]