http://www.salon.com/mwt/food/eat_drink/2007/06/20/clover_qa/print.html
The end of the line
Author Charles Clover on the scourge of overfishing, disgraceful
restaurants, and yes, sustainable McDonald's.
By Samuel Fromartz
Jun. 20, 2007 | I first met Charles Clover, the environment editor for
Lon
Scientists reported last year that fish would be gone from the
oceans by 2048 if this behavior goes unchecked -- though Clover points
out that it's not as if the seas will be empty. In the absence of all
the fish we've eaten, we'll also experience a surfeit of species like
jellyfish because biodiv
I heard an interview on the radio (perhaps with Clover himself) that
pointed out that in some countries, people already eat jellyfish.
BTW, overfishing is a example of market failure that's well known
even among neoclassicals (the "tragedy of the commons"). Why don't
they respond?
--
Jim Devine
I asked, mostly rhetorically:
> ... overfishing is a example of market failure that's well known
> even among neoclassicals (the "tragedy of the commons"). Why don't
> they respond?
Louis quotes the Wikipedia:
Overfishing can be viewed as a case of the tragedy of the commons; in
that sense, s
Check out Peter Barnes' new book CAPITALISM 3.0 on how to deal with
the commons. He addresses a number of commons -- radio spectrum and
atmosphere included.
Gene Coyle
On Jun 21, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
I asked, mostly rhetorically:
> ... overfishing is a example of market fail
Jim Devine wrote:
BTW, overfishing is a example of
market failure that's well known
even among neoclassicals (the
"tragedy of the commons"). Why
don't they respond?
An example of market failure?
On 6/21/07, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
> BTW, overfishing is a example of
> market failure that's well known
> even among neoclassicals (the
> "tragedy of the commons"). Why
> don't they respond?
An example of market failure?
it's one that I heard about in grad
Jim Devine wrote:
it's one [market failure] that I heard
about in grad school (concerning
common-property resources or common-pool
resources).
If it concerns *common* property, how can it be a *market* failure?
Markets presuppose private property.
The Montana school agrees. All resources should become property rights. Give
the
rights to the fish to Omega Protein & they will manage it effectively -- just
as the
logging companies do.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 02:44:02PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
> On 6/21/07, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
I like what I have read of her, but she is also involved with Public Choice.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:43:30PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
>
> Another approach is that of Elinor Ostrom. In her _Governing the
> Commons_, she argues against this either/or approach. She talks a lot
> about intermediat
> it's one [market failure] that I heard
> about in grad school (concerning
> common-property resources or common-pool
> resources).
Julio:
If it concerns *common* property, how can it be a *market* failure?
Markets presuppose private property.
Oh, I see. Well instead of being called a market
Jim Devine wrote:
It's a market failure as we
of the Econ tribe typically
use the term: a deviation of
the real-world market from the
idealized Walrasian world.
I don't think that's the way economists understand a market failure.
A market failure is the inability of a market proper (i.e. with
me:
> It's a market failure as we
> of the Econ tribe typically
> use the term: a deviation of
> the real-world market from the
> idealized Walrasian world.
Julio:
I don't think that's the way economists understand a market failure.
A market failure is the inability of a market proper (i.e. wi
> me:
> the original T of C was anti-communist, yes. But the concept has taken
> on a life of its own, getting beyond Hardin, so that there's a
> government solution and a Ostrom solution too.
>
If I'm not mistaken, Ostrom also emphasizes the need for community
self-regulation, as well as the degr
But we know that in fact there was no "tragedy of the commons." Didn't
occur. Not at all.
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Overfishing
> I asked, mostly rhetor
Here is what I wrote in the Perverse Economy about the supposed Tragedy of the
Commons
The market figures prominently in two competing explanations for environmental
disasters, including extinctions such as that of the passenger pigeon.
According to
the earlier sections of this chapter, markets
Isn't market failure cost shifting success?
Gene Coyle
On Jun 21, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Julio Huato wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
It's a market failure as we
of the Econ tribe typically
use the term: a deviation of
the real-world market from the
idealized Walrasian world.
I don't think that's the
Jim Devine wrote:
My
question is instead: Are individual
property (private-ownership)
rights _ever_ "duly stipulated"?
aren't external costs and benefits
ubiquitous?
Private ownership rights can be duly stipulated. That is a legal
issue -- an issue of adjudication of formal rights.
The notio
me:
> My
> question is instead: Are individual
> property (private-ownership)
> rights _ever_ "duly stipulated"?
> aren't external costs and benefits
> ubiquitous?
Julio:
Private ownership rights can be duly stipulated. That is a legal
issue -- an issue of adjudication of formal rights.
Pri
ets are not small proprietors utilizing a common resource for
the reproduction of use values.
-Original Message-
>From: Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jun 22, 2007 9:54 AM
>To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
>Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Overfishing
>
>
s.artesian wrote:
This is really not an issue of
free and equal access to
resources becoming socially
inefficient... the very posing
of the issue in these terms
assumes atomized private property
holders competing for maximized,
mutually exclusive, use of
the "commons" resource-- in
short the utl
Julio wrote:>... the notion of "failure" of a given social structure
or institution must presuppose that such structure or institution is
in place or, at least, possible. If markets (private ownership rights)
are impossible, if they can't exist, then they can't fail.<
As usual, it depends on one'
Jim Devine wrote:
(I do get peeved by a lack of
communication...)
I read your reply twice. And, at this time, I feel it's better to
humbly accept the fact that human communication has its limits.
On 6/23/07, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
> (I do get peeved by a lack of
> communication...)
I read your reply twice. And, at this time, I feel it's better to
humbly accept the fact that human communication has its limits.
you're right. and I am in no way irritate
Michael, I think, sets out quite succinctly the critique of Hardin's
TofC. It is historically incorrect and it neglects the critical element
that the commons collapsed when the market encroached upon the commons,
frequently forcefully with the state as agency. Though I could refer to
the classic
On Monday, June 25, 2007 at 20:35:11 (-0700) Paul Phillips writes:
> The tragedy of the commons is, rather, the tragedy of capitalist
>imperialism upon the local social regulation that makes the commons an
>efficient community production resource.
Well said, Paul.
Bill
Paul Phillips wrote:
The tragedy of the commons is, rather,
the tragedy of capitalist imperialism
upon the local social regulation that
makes the commons an efficient
community production resource.
But isn't an aspect of the overall "efficiency" (historical viability)
of a social structure its
On Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 05:08:55 (-0400) Julio Huato writes:
>Paul Phillips wrote:
>
>> The tragedy of the commons is, rather,
>> the tragedy of capitalist imperialism
>> upon the local social regulation that
>> makes the commons an efficient
>> community production resource.
>
>But isn't an a
Paul Phillips wrote:
> The tragedy of the commons is, rather,
> the tragedy of capitalist imperialism
> upon the local social regulation that
> makes the commons an efficient
> community production resource.
Julio Huato wrote:
But isn't an aspect of the overall "efficiency" (historical viabili
Bill Lear wrote:
So, we should cheer on the Nazis as
they exterminate and rampage?
We should deplore the slaughtered
Czechs and Poles, Jews, gays,
leftists, and others?
I truly resent this insulting when-will-you-stop-beating-your-wife
kind of argument. With all these references to Nazism and
That follows seems we are moving toward a position that we can all accept. I
would
add that LeRoy Ladurie, Emmanuel. 1974. The Peasants of Languedoc, trans. John
Day
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press)
shows how the growth of internal (not just external) markets can undermine the
collectivity
On Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 10:22:34 (-0400) Julio Huato writes:
>Bill Lear wrote:
>
>> So, we should cheer on the Nazis as
>> they exterminate and rampage?
>> We should deplore the slaughtered
>> Czechs and Poles, Jews, gays,
>> leftists, and others?
>
>I truly resent this insulting when-will-you
Julio,
I don't think you read my post very carefully to respond in this way and
your response to Bill's objection suggests to me that you didn't read
his post carefully, or didn't understand it. Imperialism backed by
state coercive power, and after all, the origin of the state is to
protect priv
Paul Phillips wrote:
Imperialism backed by state
coercive power, and after all,
the origin of the state is to
protect private property. The
use of the British/Canadian
military to defeat the Metis
settlers at Batoche is hardly
a definition of 'efficiency'.
Nor was the sending in of land
surveyo
On 6/26/07, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We need to think of efficiency in the broadest sense, as optimal human
wellbeing. If protecting oneself against violence is not unrelated to
human wellbeing, then the efficiency criterion is germane to the
ability to wage war, defensive and offe
Bill Lear wrote:
I didn't say you were defending Nazis.
Not directly. It was a rhetorical question implying that my argument
amounted to a defense of the Nazis:
So, we should cheer on the Nazis as
they exterminate and rampage?
It's a low blow.
You said that a society that
lost out to on
Jim Devine wrote:
On the other hand, military efficiency
does not automatically imply efficiency
in general. In 1940, for example, the
Germans (arguably) were much more
efficient than France in military
matters. But wasn't France more efficient
at serving its population's wants and
needs at that
me:
> On the other hand, military efficiency
> does not automatically imply efficiency
> in general. In 1940, for example, the
> Germans (arguably) were much more
> efficient than France in military
> matters. But wasn't France more efficient
> at serving its population's wants and
> needs at tha
On Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 15:35:32 (-0400) Julio Huato writes:
>Bill Lear wrote:
>
>> I didn't say you were defending Nazis.
>
>Not directly. It was a rhetorical question implying that my argument
>amounted to a defense of the Nazis:
>
>> So, we should cheer on the Nazis as
>> they exterminate
On 6/26/07, Bill Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wouldn't including these monumental costs make it immediately
obvious that those raping and pillaging are extraordinarily
inefficient?
Expediency trumps efficiency.
The pillager and rapist get what they want.
Leigh
Bill Lear wrote:
You think that the word confers on the more efficient society (the
society more capable of developing the productive force of labor) some
sort of moral badge. It doesn't.
Well, I think it does, and I think
it's highly misleading to make the
mistake of most neoclassical
econom
Jim Devine wrote:
the empirical validity of the
concept of "hysteresis" or "path
dependence" tells us that concrete
short-run accidents can have
longer-run effects. That is, the
world is _not_ tending toward some
(unique) predetermined long-run
equilibrium (as, say G.A. Cohen's
theory of history
On Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 16:10:47 (-0400) Julio Huato writes:
>Bill Lear wrote:
>
>>>You think that the word confers on the more efficient society (the
>>>society more capable of developing the productive force of labor) some
>>>sort of moral badge. It doesn't.
>>
>> Well, I think it does, and
On 6/26/07, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Under which conditions a nation with a significantly lower productive
force of labor can retain their military supremacy over nations with a
higher productive force?
didn't Vietnam show that it could beat the US on the battlefield even
though i
On 6/26/07, Bill Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess you don't care what cost it is for a person to be raped. Where
is that in your efficiency calculus? If we include the lives lost in
the conquest of the Americas, that's, what, 50 million people, 10
million, 100 million? How much do their
We can do without this kind of exchange.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 03:53:04PM -0500, Bill Lear wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 16:10:47 (-0400) Julio Huato writes:
> >
> >When are you going to stop raping your mother?
>
> Good retort, schoolboy. As a matter of fact, my mother is dead. Can
>
Bill,
Can you not answer a simple question
without stooping to ad hominem
insults?
Nothing pushes my buttons like holier-than-thou crap. Yes, it is a
bit uncomfortable to be associated with the defense of Nazism and
rape. I just wanted you to notice *that*.
Now that I got your attention: If
On Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 17:45:23 (-0400) Julio Huato writes:
>Bill,
>
>> Can you not answer a simple question
>> without stooping to ad hominem
>> insults?
>
>Nothing pushes my buttons like holier-than-thou crap. Yes, it is a
>bit uncomfortable to be associated with the defense of Nazism and
This is getting too nasty to continue. You are talking past one another. Let's
drop it.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com
how about my point about "efficiency" (Kaldor-Hicks, Pareto), i.e.,
that before we talk about it, it should be defined.
On 6/26/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is getting too nasty to continue. You are talking past one another. Let's
drop it.
--
Jim Devine / "Bong Hits 4
Sure. Two other people were becoming a bit feisty -- out of character for
both. I
thought that your post yesterday represented a good summary of the discussion.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 03:41:11PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
> how about my point about "efficiency" (Kaldor-Hicks, Pareto), i.e.,
> t
Once Julio defined his version of efficiency, I dropped out of the
discussion. Since, for Julio, efficiency is defined as the 'survival of
the fittest' -- i.e. 19th C Spencerian social survival doctrine -- I
realized that there was no basis for dialogue. We just don't have the
same criteria of e
If Jim and Paul think that this can be carried on productively, then we
should go for it.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com
If we include the lives lost in
the conquest of the Americas,
that's, what, 50 million people,
10 million, 100 million? How
much do their lives count? If
you say these are included in
"capitalism as a whole" (your
phrase), then shouldn't
capitalism as a whole be counted
as incredibly inefficient
I lost Jim Devine's reply from my latest PEN-L feeds page. I read it
earlier this morning, but it's gone now. I'll just note that Vietnam
has not not succeeded in imposing its mode of production in the U.S.
Yet.
And again, I say the probability distribution has a central tendency,
near which yo
Paul Phillips wrote:
Once Julio defined his version of
efficiency, I dropped out of the
discussion. Since, for Julio,
efficiency is defined as the
'survival of the fittest'
Well, my view is a bit more complicated than that. I appreciate
Paul's thoughtfulness and restrain.
On 6/27/07, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I lost Jim Devine's reply from my latest PEN-L feeds page. I read it
earlier this morning, but it's gone now. I'll just note that Vietnam
has not not succeeded in imposing its mode of production in the U.S.
Yet.
Yes, Vietnam won the battle --
I agree with much of what Julio says below, but I think he should
avoid the word "efficiency," which is usually seen as a normative
goal. Perhaps "productivity" is a better word.
On 6/27/07, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The usual meaning of efficiency is "best use" of -- ultimately --
Jim Devine wrote:
I don't think the leaders of Vietnam
_wanted_ to impose their mode of
production on the US.
My point is that, in thinking about the efficiency (historical
viability) of capitalism vis-a-vis alternative social structures, we
need to include the ability of capitalism to violent
Jim Devine wrote:
I agree with much of what Julio says
below, but I think he should avoid
the word "efficiency," which is
usually seen as a normative
goal. Perhaps "productivity" is a
better word.
That doesn't get us around the issue. Productivity is not a purely
positive term. It's normativ
On 6/28/07, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Efficiency (historical viability) is normative (in the sense of
determining a choice or "policy") to the extent people indeed choose
their economic structures.
As economists and political economists generally use the term
"efficiency," it's not
Jim Devine wrote:
>
> But I do get you point (I hope): if a mode of production -- such as
> the one that used to prevail in the old Soviet Union -- cannot get the
> job done of producing and distributing goods and services with a
> reasonable degree of efficiency compared to other existing modes of
Jim Devine wrote:
As economists and political economists
generally use the term "efficiency,"
it's not the same as historical viability.
I had written:
if we contrast markets (not necessarily
capitalism) to communism in general and
in the abstract, as the tragedy of the
commons argument does
Carrol Cox wrote:
No socialist system is going to
produce a mass of goods to match an
advanced capitalist society -- and
that will be an advantage, not a
disadvantage. Total production has
to fall (from US/EU/Japan levels) or
the human species won't survive.
Don't think in terms of stuff. Th
There are different kinds of efficiency -- short-run and long-run. The native
american group can have superior long-run efficiency to the Europeans but still
lose
out to their superior force.
In utilities, a peaker plant is not an efficient producer of base power.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics
me:
> if a mode of production -- such as the one
> that used to prevail in the old Soviet Union
> -- cannot get the job done of producing and
> distributing goods and services with a
> reasonable degree of efficiency compared to
> other existing modes of production, it's
> bound to fail eventuall
On 6/28/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are different kinds of efficiency -- short-run and long-run. The native
american group can have superior long-run efficiency to the Europeans but still
lose
out to their superior force.
good point! this corresponds roughly to the d
Carrol, I think is entirely correct here, particularly when we are
talking about systemic viability. I would argue, as suggested below,
that capitalism is not historically viable in the long run because it is
dependent on growth. Here, I will quote Herman Daly at some length.
"Economists should
me:
> But I do get [Julio's] point (I hope): if a mode of production -- such as
> the one that used to prevail in the old Soviet Union -- cannot get the
> job done of producing and distributing goods and services with a
> reasonable degree of efficiency compared to other existing modes of
> produ
Paul Phillips wrote:
I would argue, as suggested below,
that capitalism is not historically
viable in the long run because it
is dependent on growth. Here, I
will quote Herman Daly at some length.
[...]
Sustainable development must be
development without growth -- but
with population contro
On 6/29/07, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess Paul is right. His way of looking at the historical viability
of capitalism, growth, and efficiency is completely at odds with mine.
I will answer telegraphically and let the chips fall where they may.
The historical viability of a soc
I hope that this is the missive that Julio lost. If not, I can look again.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jun 26, 2007 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Overfishing
To: PEN-L list
On 6/26/07, Bill Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
72 matches
Mail list logo
