Free-market solution needed: A question for "righties"

[RandomGuy]

Problem:

Overfishing of various fish species.

In the normal action of free markets, if there is an economic profit to be made by producing a product it will be made.

If there is a demand for a certain type of fish, then there will be fishing to supply that demand.

At some point, the number/rate of fish caught commonly exceeds the rate at which those fish reproduce. This leads to a declining supply.

The overall demand for the fish will not change with increased prices, leading to more profit on a per fish basis, leading to more economic incentive to fish.

The scarcer the fish, the more profit there is in catching it. Eventually you get a collapse of a fish species, and occasionally, outright extinction.

What is the "free-market" solution for preventing this that requires no governmental intervention?

[clambake]

rent "The Freshman" and create your menu accordingly.

[Don Quixote]

Hmm ... I am not sure. I'm actually grappling with problems like this one right now. On the one hand, I have great confidence in the ability of business and the free market to meet the needs of consumers. On the other hand, I am not sure that certain industries (e.g., fishing) have the requisite mechanisms to encourage (or force, if necessary) conservation. This is particularly true of the fishing industry.

At the same time, consider foresty. The paper companies do rather well replanting and maintaining their forests. Gone are the days when they clear-cut and moved out. It makes much more economic sense to take care of their own trees and land.

Long story short -- I don't know.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

well this is racist

[101A]

The overall demand for the fish will not change with increased prices,

Fail

[Viva Las Espuelas]

ohhhhhh. it said "righties". nevermind.

[clambake]

Fail

i don't think he's talking about catfish.

[101A]

i don't think he's talking about catfish.

If price doesn't affect demand, then we are NOT talking about a free market, regardless of the commodity.

[1369]

Problem:

Overfishing of various fish species.

In the normal action of free markets, if there is an economic profit to be made by producing a product it will be made.

If there is a demand for a certain type of fish, then there will be fishing to supply that demand.

At some point, the number/rate of fish caught commonly exceeds the rate at which those fish reproduce. This leads to a declining supply.

The overall demand for the fish will not change with increased prices, leading to more profit on a per fish basis, leading to more economic incentive to fish.

The scarcer the fish, the more profit there is in catching it. Eventually you get a collapse of a fish species, and occasionally, outright extinction.

What is the "free-market" solution for preventing this that requires no governmental intervention?

In my opinion, the same thing that prompted the ban on the taking of species such as the "Jewfish" and saw the rise of entities like Ducks Unlimited and other conservation movements to prompt government entities to enact legislation to protect species/commodities.

Or maybe not.

[clambake]

If price doesn't affect demand, then we are NOT talking about a free market, regardless of the commodity.

overfishing of various species.

not the ENTIRE industry.

[RandomGuy]

The overall demand for the fish will not change with increased prices,

Fail

I thought that might catch someone, and should have antipated it.

Remember, demand curves are independent of supply curves.

You are likely thinking of "quantity supplied", i.e. the "X" axis value of the intersection of the supply and demand curves. This does change depending on where the supply curve intersects the demand curve.

The underlying demand does not change.

Click for a quick refresher. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand)

No biggie it is an easy mistake to make.

[101A]

I thought that might catch someone, and should have antipated it.

Remember, demand curves are independent of supply curves.

You are likely thinking of "quantity supplied", i.e. the "X" axis value of the intersection of the supply and demand curves. This does change depending on where the supply curve intersects the demand curve.

The underlying demand does not change.

Click for a quick refresher. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand)

No biggie it is an easy mistake to make.

As the fish become scarcer and harder to catch, the price will increase, eventually DRAMATICALLY. Very few people will choose to pay the price for THAT fish; the fisherman who search for it will go to other high volume species (because they've invested in equipment to do so) - and the catch and supply of the special fish you describe will fall to more niche fisherman. The fish population will then recover.

The "demand" for Ferrarris, after all, is VERY high. The actual number that get produced and sold, however, is very small.

[Extra Stout]

This is a case of the tragedy of the commons. The free-market solution is obvious.

How do we prevent hunting to extinction on land?

[jochhejaam]

Fail

So true, I just came back from Seminole, Fla, and went to Leverocks Restaurant looking for a Fried Grouper sandwich, Grouper is a bit scarce right now and the cost for the sandwich was listed at "Market Price". Not being a fool I inquired as to what the MP was before ordering. I told my fellow Diners that if was over $16 I wasn't going to get it.

[RandomGuy]

As the fish become scarcer and harder to catch, the price will increase, eventually DRAMATICALLY. Very few people will choose to pay the price for THAT fish; the fisherman who search for it will go to other high volume species (because they've invested in equipment to do so) - and the catch and supply of the special fish you describe will fall to more niche fisherman. The fish population will then recover.

The "demand" for Ferrarris, after all, is VERY high. The actual number that get produced and sold, however, is very small.

The fish will not recover. They will simply go extinct as have other valued animals in the past. Care to find a live carrier pigeon to prove otherwise?

Given a free market, and no government intervention at all, would there still be elephants? Tigers?

If you like I can give a list of fish whose populations have or are about to, collapse.

[RandomGuy]

So true, I just came back from Seminole, Fla, and went to Leverocks Restaurant looking for a Fried Grouper sandwich, Grouper is a bit scarce right now and the cost for the sandwich was listed at "Market Price". Not being a fool I inquired as to what the MP was before ordering. I told my fellow Diners that if was over $16 I wasn't going to get it.

Please tell me what the difference between a demand curve and a quantity demanded is.

[101A]

This is a case of the tragedy of the commons. The free-market solution is obvious.

How do we prevent hunting to extinction on land?

Give the deer guns?

[101A]

The fish will not recover. They will simply go extinct as have other valued animals in the past. Care to find a live carrier pigeon to prove otherwise?

Given a free market, and no government intervention at all, would there still be elephants? Tigers?

If you like I can give a list of fish whose populations have or are about to, collapse.

You didn't ask about ivory, or the Asian man's desire for a real penis. You asked about fish.

Now, would every conservative on the board who has a major problem with hunting seasons please raise their hands?

[Extra Stout]

If there is a demand for a certain type of fish, then there will be fishing to supply that demand.

Mistaken assumption #1: Wild fishing is the only way to supply fish.


The overall demand for the fish will not change with increased prices

Mistaken assumption #2: Demand curves do not move based upon information meta to price.


No biggie it is an easy mistake to make.

Apparently so.

[jochhejaam]

Government intervention is required, and catches of Gag and Red Grouper are listed at 2 per day on the Fla. Gulf Coast.

Here's the article;

New rules would limit grouper catch

Friday, June 6, 2008

It's not etched in stone yet, but federal regulators went a long way Thursday toward setting new rules for grouper fishing that would begin in January.

Recreational anglers will be able to land four grouper a day, but no more than two gag and two red, the two most common species. All recreational grouper fishing would shut down between Feb. 1 and March 31.

Those are the "preferred alternatives" voted Thursday by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. For bureaucratic reasons, the National Marine Fisheries Commission could still tweak the rules, but major changes are unlikely.

The council also set a commercial gag quota for the first time. The fleet could land 1.32-million pounds in 2009, rising slightly in later years. That is a bit more gag than were landed in 2007, but well below the average catch for the last five years. If the fleet exceeds the quota, regulators will shut down all commercial grouper fishing for the rest of the year.


http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/article609724.ece

[Extra Stout]

Give the deer guns?
If all the deer on a deer lease are gone, is anybody going to pay the landowner to hunt there anymore?

What might the landowner do to keep that from happening?

[RandomGuy]

Mistaken assumption #1: Wild fishing is the only way to supply fish.



Mistaken assumption #2: Demand curves do not move based upon information meta to price.



Apparently so.

I did not outline my stated assumptions.

Captive fishing, such as is done with catfish, is certainly a free-market solution. I was hoping someone might point it out.

Demand curves do not move according to changes in supply. Quantity demanded does.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate a bit, and I am missing something?

[Extra Stout]

To anybody who doesn't catch what free-market ideology would dictate, here is the answer:

Privatize the oceans .

That's probably a ridiculous and untenable idea, but it is the free-market solution.

[1369]

Government intervention is required, and catches of Gag and Red Grouper are listed at 2 per day on the Fla. Gulf Coast.

Here's the article;

New rules would limit grouper catch

Friday, June 6, 2008

It's not etched in stone yet, but federal regulators went a long way Thursday toward setting new rules for grouper fishing that would begin in January.

Recreational anglers will be able to land four grouper a day, but no more than two gag and two red, the two most common species. All recreational grouper fishing would shut down between Feb. 1 and March 31.

Those are the "preferred alternatives" voted Thursday by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. For bureaucratic reasons, the National Marine Fisheries Commission could still tweak the rules, but major changes are unlikely.

The council also set a commercial gag quota for the first time. The fleet could land 1.32-million pounds in 2009, rising slightly in later years. That is a bit more gag than were landed in 2007, but well below the average catch for the last five years. If the fleet exceeds the quota, regulators will shut down all commercial grouper fishing for the rest of the year.


http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/article609724.ece

Problem with this (When I was living/working in Florida and diving this is a real hot topic with the rec fishermen and spearos) is the gov't appointed council is punishing the rec fisherman and not the commercial fishermen, but it is interesting to see the rec guys score a win with the commercial limits (although since it exceeds the 2007 numbers it really isn't a win, but a start).

[101A]

If all the deer on a deer lease are gone, is anybody going to pay the landowner to hunt there anymore?

What might the landowner do to keep that from happening?

I feel you, just having fun.

In PA, you can hunt ANYWHERE that is not within 300 yards of a house, and isn't CLEARLY marked "No Hunting". Step onto somebody elses turf and open fire - fully legal.

[101A]

To anybody who doesn't catch what free-market ideology would dictate, here is the answer:

Privatize the oceans .

That's probably a ridiculous and untenable idea, but it is the free-market solution.

You're right; it was obvious, didn't see it.

[Extra Stout]

Demand curves do not move according to changes in supply. Quantity demanded does.
Principles like supply/demand curves are simplified. They are not perfect. Economics deals with the behavior of human beings who do not conform to easy mathematical laws all the time.

It is entirely plausible that a person could learn that the reason fish prices are high is because of overfishing. He might then decide that the environmental effects of overfishing outweigh the taste or health benefits of eating fish, and therefore choose to eat something else even though he could still afford to eat the fish.

[RandomGuy]

Principles like supply/demand curves are simplified. They are not perfect. Economics deals with the behavior of human beings who do not conform to easy mathematical laws all the time.

It is entirely plausible that a person could learn that the reason fish prices are high is because of overfishing. He might then decide that the environmental effects of overfishing outweigh the taste or health benefits of eating fish, and therefore choose to eat something else even though he could still afford to eat the fish.

It might surprise you that I agree with this. Economics is useful, but is not by any stretch of the imagination an exacting science.

I do find the intersection of where individualism leaves off and collectivism begins to be where most people tend to differ politically.

If one was a total individualist and didn't give a rats ass about anything but his own gratification, he would still eat the fish. In a truly free market, such decisions can, and often are, still made.

[byrontx]

Treating free-market capitalism like religous dogma is ridiculous. In any given market/situations are variables that must be delt with (monopolies, health of children, whatever). Some form of regulation is always to be needed and desirable.

[Wild Cobra]

What is the "free-market" solution for preventing this that requires no governmental intervention?
I don't know there is a non-interference solution.

Keep in mind, those of us to the right are not for completely unrestricted freedoms, nor are libertarians. Both will agree there comes a point when protective rules and regulations are needed. A common theme among traditional republicans, libertarians, and our founding fathers is that with freedom comes responsibility. It is proper to curtail irresponsibility. Liberals prefer to reward irresponsibility with redistribution of wealth, and government programs.

[Wild Cobra]

If price doesn't affect demand, then we are NOT talking about a free market, regardless of the commodity.
Give him a break. He's a liberal. He thinks the economy is static rather than dynamic. Go with the question as posted. Is there an answer?

[Wild Cobra]

Given a free market, and no government intervention at all, would there still be elephants? Tigers?

Elephants are a bad example. In the countries Ivory is legal to harvest from Elephants, the people treat the animals like chickens, cows, or any other commodity. They raise them for profit. It's the countries the action is illegal in that elephants are hunted by poachers.

[spurster]

Liberals prefer to reward irresponsibility with redistribution of wealth, and government programs.

Conservatives prefer to reward irresponsibility with no punishment and no regulation (Iraq, torturing prisoners, outing Plame, wiretapping without warrants, subprime crisis).

[RandomGuy]

Elephants are a bad example. In the countries Ivory is legal to harvest from Elephants, the people treat the animals like chickens, cows, or any other commodity. They raise them for profit. It's the countries the action is illegal in that elephants are hunted by poachers.

This actually alludes to the "farm raised fish" option that is probably the best "free market" solution.

If you can build a farm that allows you to grow and harvest the fish while the wild fish are hunted to extinction, you have a monopoly, and THAT can be very profitable.

[RandomGuy]

[Randomguy] thinks the economy is static rather than dynamic.

No, I don't.

Economies funtion in time and deal with change, and one should treat them as such.

[Wild Cobra]

This actually alludes to the "farm raised fish" option that is probably the best "free market" solution.

If you can build a farm that allows you to grow and harvest the fish while the wild fish are hunted to extinction, you have a monopoly, and THAT can be very profitable.
This is true and a wise person would do just that. However, present laws on endagered species prevent that doesn't it? That's an area I don't know of. It would involve the governemnt somehow.

Still, even few libertarians believe in no government. I think very few people would say there isn't a time and place for government interference.

I do prefer free market solutions. I guess I was taking the question to the extreme.

[Wild Cobra]

No, I don't.

Economies funtion in time and deal with change, and one should treat them as such.

The overall demand for the fish will not change with increased prices
If demand doesn't change with price, it is static. Not dynamic. The free market supply and demand is dynamc. Price is a factor. That is what I was responding to. I skipped past your responce that came later, but can you disagree with the assumption drawn from your statement? You linked a nice wiki piece, it is similar to this in basic theory when applies to tax rates:

The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm)

[RandomGuy]

If demand doesn't change with price, it is static. Not dynamic. The free market supply and demand is dynamc. Price is a factor. That is what I was responding to. I skipped past your responce that came later, but can you disagree with the assumption drawn from your statement? You linked a nice wiki piece, it is similar to this in basic theory when applies to tax rates:

The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm)

You are confusing quantity demanded/supplied with the underlying demand curve.

Demand curves are much more static than ultimate quantity supplied/demanded.

When the price of something goes up, that indicates one of two things:

Underlying demand has shifted up

or

The supply curve has moved to the right

sometimes a bit of both.

In this case the fish becomes rarer, and the supply curve has shifted to the left, moving the intersection of the two lines up (higher price) and to the left (lower quantity demanded/supplied).

The underlying demand may change over time in reaction to the availability of alternate products and so forth, but the price movement in the very short term is more likely due to the obvious change in supply.

[boutons_]

Kinda sucks when free market ideology fails totally, the market members on a path to committing commercial suicide, and Big Bad Govt must intervene to try to prevent irreversible disaster.

It's not as if we didn't have examples. The cod populations in N. Atlantic and North Sea have collapsed. The one in the N.Atlantic has not come back after 10 years of no fishing.

[sabar]

I'm pretty sure no one seriously believes in a 100% free-market. Everyone with a basic economics education knows that a community will enforce regulations to prevent misuse.

Anyways, this is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons and the only two solutions are regulation and privatization. The third solution would be for human beings to somehow be rid of greed and filled with compassion, but that is obviously science fiction.

Technically the solution would solve itself eventually. As species become unprofitable to fish because of their scarcity, world fish population would dwindle to the point that fishers have to create fish farms or risk losing their entire business venture. The economic incentive to create fish farms for scarce fishes would be pretty massive. If lobsters were $200 a pound because they were so overfished, you bet someone would be breeding them like rabbits for money.

Of course the side-effect would be that the oceans would become a barren wasteland.

[LocosPorJuana]

catch a man a fish, and you can sell it to him. Teach a man to fish, you kill Heb Mercado. I love salmon fish =)

[Guru of Nothing]

Problem:

Overfishing of various fish species.

In the normal action of free markets, if there is an economic profit to be made by producing a product it will be made.

If there is a demand for a certain type of fish, then there will be fishing to supply that demand.

At some point, the number/rate of fish caught commonly exceeds the rate at which those fish reproduce. This leads to a declining supply.

The overall demand for the fish will not change with increased prices, leading to more profit on a per fish basis, leading to more economic incentive to fish.

The scarcer the fish, the more profit there is in catching it. Eventually you get a collapse of a fish species, and occasionally, outright extinction.

What is the "free-market" solution for preventing this that requires no governmental intervention?

Fear, of course.