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

[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. Quan y 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

[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

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

Demand curves are much more static than ultimate quan y 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 quan y 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.