4 ms·

Phew. I assumed this was gonna be another catastrophe. Like Osborne Reef, where some yahoos dumped TWO MILLION car tires into the ocean and just hoped for the b

Phew. I assumed this was gonna be another catastrophe. Like Osborne Reef, where some yahoos dumped TWO MILLION car tires into the ocean and just hoped for the best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_Reef https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_Reef First try a little, see what happens, then maybe do more. Someone should have dropped 5 subway cars in. Then checked back in a few years. Worse than scream-and-leap policy making is the utter refusal to do any kind of follow up assessment. (Perhaps you've heard of the opioid crisis? Best intentions leading straight to Hell.) -- Tangent, from the OC: > ...artificial reefs were designed to boost recreational fishing, which in 2011 generated a whopping $15 billion in state and federal taxes. We should ban commercial fisheries. In my state, every salmon caught by a commercial fisherman costs the taxpayers $1. Whereas anglers make the state money. If this doesn't make sense to you, you simply don't understand Freedom Markets™.

bpodgursky 5y ago
Could you clarify what it means by "commercial fisherman costs the taxpayers $1"? The point of government is not to extract maximum rent from the tenant/citizens, so if your complaint is that fisherman are not paying the government enough to use common resources which the federal government is managing... you're thinking about the government wrong. (That salmon, fwiw, produces more than $1 in utility to the downstream consumers, which is the whole point of farming or fishing, or any economic exchange at all.)
- specialist 5y ago
  > ...you're thinking about the government wrong. Am I? A fraction of the revenue from anglers are reinvested in the fisheries. My state earns > $6bn year from the outdoors (fishing, hunting, birding, ecotourism). In my ledger, that's just smart business. > ...That salmon, fwiw, produces more than $1 in utility to the downstream consumers. Or you could pay $1 more for that delicious salmon yourself. Why am I bankrolling someone else's decadence? Let the Invisible Hand work it's magic. Without market distorting subsidies. Said another way, if BLM, Fish & Wildlife, Mining, etc agencies were run like "businesses", vs cash giveaways to campaign donors, then everyone would benefit, vs just some select corporations.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 5y ago
    Should government charge for roads, schools, and police as well?
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Hint: they do.
      - frosted-flakes 5y ago
        Where do you live that your government requires you to pay for those specifically? Those all come out of general taxes. The closest equivalent would be gas taxes, but that only covers a portion of road costs.
        obmelvin 5y ago
        Isn't that what this discussion is about? The OP said that it costs the taxpayers $1. I don't know about this specific situation - but the claim does not seem to be about paying directly for things.
        specialist 5y ago
        Angelers pay govt fees for priviledge to fish. The government subsidizes commercial fishers. Add everything up, positive ROI for angelers, negative ROI for commercial.
        rmbyrro 5y ago
        Not even that. Where I live, gas taxes or even car property taxes are not dedicated to road maintenance.
        mywittyname 5y ago
        I live in a place that charges taxes specifically earmarked for all of those items. We call them levies. Ostensibly, we vote on them, but some levies stay in place for 30 years. For example, a levy for a new police station that covers the mortgage for 30 years.
michaelt 5y ago
> Someone should have dropped 5 subway cars in. Then checked back in a few years. I imagine they didn't have anywhere to store the remaining nine hundred and ninety five subway cars.
- mertd 5y ago
  The second paragraph begins by saying most of them were retired more than ten years ago.
dematz 5y ago
In a happier example, New Orleans sinks old Christmas trees to fortify the receding wetlands. Not a totally happy example actually because overall there's still destruction of nature and increased risk of floods. At least it's a good policy though, even a nice tradition.

bpodgursky 5y ago

Could you clarify what it means by "commercial fisherman costs the taxpayers $1"? The point of government is not to extract maximum rent from the tenant/citizens, so if your complaint is that fisherman are not paying the government enough to use common resources which the federal government is managing... you're thinking about the government wrong. (That salmon, fwiw, produces more than $1 in utility to the downstream consumers, which is the whole point of farming or fishing, or any economic exchange at all.)

specialist 5y ago
> ...you're thinking about the government wrong. Am I? A fraction of the revenue from anglers are reinvested in the fisheries. My state earns > $6bn year from the outdoors (fishing, hunting, birding, ecotourism). In my ledger, that's just smart business. > ...That salmon, fwiw, produces more than $1 in utility to the downstream consumers. Or you could pay $1 more for that delicious salmon yourself. Why am I bankrolling someone else's decadence? Let the Invisible Hand work it's magic. Without market distorting subsidies. Said another way, if BLM, Fish & Wildlife, Mining, etc agencies were run like "businesses", vs cash giveaways to campaign donors, then everyone would benefit, vs just some select corporations.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 5y ago
  Should government charge for roads, schools, and police as well?
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Hint: they do.
    - frosted-flakes 5y ago
      Where do you live that your government requires you to pay for those specifically? Those all come out of general taxes. The closest equivalent would be gas taxes, but that only covers a portion of road costs.
      - obmelvin 5y ago
        Isn't that what this discussion is about? The OP said that it costs the taxpayers $1. I don't know about this specific situation - but the claim does not seem to be about paying directly for things.
        specialist 5y ago
        Angelers pay govt fees for priviledge to fish. The government subsidizes commercial fishers. Add everything up, positive ROI for angelers, negative ROI for commercial.
      - rmbyrro 5y ago
        Not even that. Where I live, gas taxes or even car property taxes are not dedicated to road maintenance.
      - mywittyname 5y ago
        I live in a place that charges taxes specifically earmarked for all of those items. We call them levies. Ostensibly, we vote on them, but some levies stay in place for 30 years. For example, a levy for a new police station that covers the mortgage for 30 years.

michaelt 5y ago

> Someone should have dropped 5 subway cars in. Then checked back in a few years. I imagine they didn't have anywhere to store the remaining nine hundred and ninety five subway cars.

mertd 5y ago
The second paragraph begins by saying most of them were retired more than ten years ago.

dematz 5y ago

In a happier example, New Orleans sinks old Christmas trees to fortify the receding wetlands. Not a totally happy example actually because overall there's still destruction of nature and increased risk of floods. At least it's a good policy though, even a nice tradition.