David Hillary wrote: The allocation of > natural resources in these circumstances is characterised by > inefficiency and imprudent use (e.g. a fishery will by inefficiently > over-harvested if many fishers can access it without restriction). In > order to use the price mechanism to ration the limited supply of natural > resources efficiently, normally it requires government to establish > exclusive rights in natural resources, which are government created > property rights. Examples include fishing quota and land titles. This presupposes that government employees that don't fish know more about the fish than the fisherman that fish. That ain't never going to happen. Necessary government quotas are a myth promoted by government, and tree huggers that are making a killing off of federal and state tax revenues. You'd be amazed at the number of non-profits in the US getting federal and state tax dollars. Talk about a growth industry in the US. High Tech, move over. A number of years ago, IBD did an article about the number of and growth rates of .org offices opening (and moving existing offices to) in DC to be closer to where the money is. There's a sword fisher that runs out of New Bedford. To stay profitable it has to spread it's fishing over a large area. It runs down to the Canaries off of the NW corner of Africa, then west to the Dominican Republic, then north and home. About a month and a half. Try sending out a USD 2,000,000 hunk of steel to the Grand Banks and meet it's fixed operating costs and it's mortgage. Remember, the owners labor costs are zeroe if it comes back with an empty hole. Despite that, a round trip is very very expensive. If it comes back 1/2 full the owner has to decide if it is the fish or the skipper. He gives the skipper a second chance. It comes back 1/2 full again. Now the owner is sweating bullets. By this time if it's the fish he'll have a good sense for that. He now has to sell it or spend a lot of money (if he has it to spend) to re-rig it for for other fishing or other use. It's a high risk, tough business to consistently make money in. Boat ownership turnover is high. You have to have some cowboy in you to play. Tree huggers and government employees are clueless. The reason they don't go away is that they can *afford* to remain clueless. A free market will conserve the fish just fine. Now *government* subsidized fishing boats is another whole story that doesn't get told. When, when one looks close enough, is government *not* the problem? Bob --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
