3 ms·

It's a well known problem in economy: the tragedy of the commons. In a free market, even the river or the sea has an owner (might be a group of people), so you

It's a well known problem in economy: the tragedy of the commons. In a free market, even the river or the sea has an owner (might be a group of people), so you cannot throw your waste on a river that is not yours. But currently rivers are "common" or public property, so the state cannot limit who polutes the rivers unless they provide an alternative. In rich countries, such alternatives exist. In poor countries they just dump waste in public/common rivers.

hnbad 3y ago
It's a self-imposed problem however. The economical system requires every interaction to be transactional and disincentivizes activities outside the economical system itself. This leads to transactional relationships supplanting those which previously provided mutual benefit. In poor countries rivers used to be maintained by the community because of a shared interest in them. This works fine in a gift economy. But in a transactional free market economy the communal river is an externality because it isn't privately owned, which requires outside intervention to create a financial incentive (either via subsidies or regulations/fines). The tragedy of the commons is not a natural law, it's an emergent property of the economical system. There are three remedies: privatization of the commons (which has its limits unless you literally want to commodify every atom in the biosphere), state intervention (which is how most functional mixed market systems approach it) or changing the system (which goes against the interests of those currently benefiting from it and may as well lead to a worse system than a better one). EDIT: For sake of clarity: creating a gift economy alongside a transactional free market economy is extremely difficult in an open system. They keep being reinvented in peer groups (e.g. buying "rounds" of drinks among friends without keeping tabs on who spent how much) but they rapidly break down when exposed to a transactional system because "freeloading" becomes an optimal move without the "honor system" enforced by social pressure (e.g. your peers thinking you're taking advantage of them and no longer inviting you to drink with them or having a stern word with you).

hnbad 3y ago

It's a self-imposed problem however. The economical system requires every interaction to be transactional and disincentivizes activities outside the economical system itself. This leads to transactional relationships supplanting those which previously provided mutual benefit. In poor countries rivers used to be maintained by the community because of a shared interest in them. This works fine in a gift economy. But in a transactional free market economy the communal river is an externality because it isn't privately owned, which requires outside intervention to create a financial incentive (either via subsidies or regulations/fines). The tragedy of the commons is not a natural law, it's an emergent property of the economical system. There are three remedies: privatization of the commons (which has its limits unless you literally want to commodify every atom in the biosphere), state intervention (which is how most functional mixed market systems approach it) or changing the system (which goes against the interests of those currently benefiting from it and may as well lead to a worse system than a better one). EDIT: For sake of clarity: creating a gift economy alongside a transactional free market economy is extremely difficult in an open system. They keep being reinvented in peer groups (e.g. buying "rounds" of drinks among friends without keeping tabs on who spent how much) but they rapidly break down when exposed to a transactional system because "freeloading" becomes an optimal move without the "honor system" enforced by social pressure (e.g. your peers thinking you're taking advantage of them and no longer inviting you to drink with them or having a stern word with you).