And that would be a "woo woo" moment. It merely refers to exploitation effort greater than the socially optimum level. Not exactly brain surgery!
I guess we have a semantics problem. Equality and fariness are exact opposites. Equality means treating people equally. Government should treat everyone equally. Fairness is the opposite. It is the concept of "evening the score" by treating people unequally. I think your entire response to my post was "nonsense, literally.". There is no need to rude while debating, son.
I'm distinguish between the two with the use of trade. Equality would refer to 'free trade'. Here, as you remark, you can refer to non-discriminatory practices. 'Fair trade', however, is a different beast. It has to take into account power distinctions and how that can lead to a corrupted final result. Tariff discrimination can then be seen as economically rational
No, that's false. It says nothing whatever about exploitation effort. It says that when private interests are empowered to appropriate public resources for their own profit without making just compensation to those whom they deprive of them, they will tend to appropriate excessively in order to pocket the value created by others, thus degrading the resource and impoverishing all, including themselves. It might as well be, for all you apparently understand of it.
Tut tut and there you were suggesting that you were knowledgeable on the subject. My summary was perfectly correct. In terms of the bland theory that effort would refer to exploitation to the point where short run marginal revenues are exhausted
If only it were that simple! What we actually have is a powerful-financial-interests-threatened-by-the-truth problem. No, that's false and absurd. No, that's false and absurd, as it implies that government should put no one in prison unless all go to prison. I doubt you can support that claim with a dictionary citation. The essence of fairness is impartiality. <yawn> I have clients who pay me well, as well as a degree with honors from an internationally respected university, that testify to my skill with the English language. Is that what you thought you were doing? Debate is normally understood to involve presenting facts and logic that support your viewpoint.
You certainly can support that claim with economics, as illustrated by the fair trade example (and the consequences for discriminatory trade policy practices)
At least I have read Hardin's article and understood it, making me incomparably more knowledgeable on the subject than you. No, it was an outright fabrication. But of course, it doesn't. That's just some stupid $#!+ you made up. Effort normally implies making a productive contribution. Exploitation is the opposite of making a contribution: it's the appropriation of OTHERS' contributions. You're just spewing dishonest garbage because you have been caught in an obvious prevarication and you know it. Nope. Read the frickin' article. Nothing to do with short run marginal revenues. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.
You can huff and puff as much as you want but my comment was perfectly correct (and you've only shown that you're unaware of how the Commons has been used in modern economics) Again you show an ignorance of the economics! As I said, to show the tragedy of the commons, we only need to show a result where marginal revenues are exhausted. That's over-exploitation, by definition. Bit obvious really, but you do seem to struggle with Econ 101
Nope. Wrong again. "Fair" trade (which has about as much to do with fairness as the "Fair"Tax) is merely a rationalization for subsidies based on the notion of countering privilege with privilege -- which is the basic stock in trade of socialists (like you).
Empty humph, nothing more. Fair trade informs us, for example, of the distinction between static and dynamic comparative advantage. It therefore enables us how specialisation can be improved through temporary use of discriminatory trade policy. You may not understand that though as I know you struggle with the economics
<yawn> Nope. You're flat wrong, and now you're flat-out lying in a hilarious attempt to cover it up. Again you show you will tell any lie whatever! No, it's not. That's just you proving your ignorance and dishonesty. Again. Nope. You flunked logic 001 again, as well as economics 001. We do NOT need to show a result where marginal revenues are exhausted to show a tragedy of the unmanaged commons. That's just you proving you know no logic as well as no economics. If you knew anything, or were willing to learn anything, of either subject (you don't and you aren't), you would be aware of the fact that over-exploitation is rarely characterized by exhaustion of marginal revenues. See, e.g., fisheries, which can be over-exploited to the point of collapse before marginal revenues are exhausted. Hardin's own article, which you so ludicrously purport to be "summarizing," shows over-exploitation needn't ever be accompanied by exhaustion of marginal revenues.
You think I'm wrong as you don't know the subject area. Everything I've said is perfectly correct. It amuses me to see you huff'n'puff and argue against the obviousness though The tragedy is the over-exploitation. We'd have marginal revenues exhausted if we had maximiser behaviour. Bit obvious really. Again, you've only described how little you know on this stuff (despite your previous amusing claims otherwise)
You can't argue against the point. The fellow made a correct statement and that is clearly supported by how fair trade analysis is applied. The distinction between static and dynamic comparative advantage assuredly supports discriminatory practices
I KNOW you are wrong, because I've read Hardin's article. It might well be correct about another subject. It just isn't correct about this subject. It amuses me to see you pretending superior knowledge (you clearly don't know how to do anything else) by spewing non sequiturs and ignoratio elenchi fallacies on a subject of which you obviously have no understanding. That is your invariable modus operandi. Yes, and obviously a fallacy: affirming the consequent. The fact that maximizer behavior that exhausts marginal revenue would demonstrate over-exploitation does not in any way imply that over-exploitation can't happen without maximizer behavior that exhausts marginal revenue. It's an obvious point of logic that completely escapes you (either that or you are just lying in order to fabricate a pretext for attacking me because I tell the truth about land, as usual). <yawn> I have actually read Hardin's article, and his own commentary on it. You have self-evidently read neither, and have no understanding of what he was saying. That is not really arguable. Everything you have posted on the subject proves it.
No, you think you know I'm wrong. This reflects poor reading on your part as my summary was correct and, to be frank, darn obvious! Superior knowledge? This stuff is just very basic stuff. You're the one pretending to be knowledgeable, but then being caught out. One has to refer to selfish behaviour else one cannot predict over-exploitaiton. The tragedy, for example, wouldn't occur in some communal utopia of no relevance to actual markets. You certainly haven't read any of the abundant literature on this subject. Your posts prove that without doubt
No, you are objectively wrong about what Hardin wrote, which said nothing about maximizer behavior or exhausting marginal revenues. There's just no arguing that. All you can do is lie about it. So that is what you do. <yawn> You're the one who always has to lie about what I have plainly written. ALWAYS. And now you are lying about what Hardin wrote. OK, so you agree that I was indisputably correct, and you either lied or made a kindergarten-level error in logic. Good. OK, thanks for agreeing that your stupid non sequiturs and ignoratio elenchi fallacies are just irrelevant bloviation to make yourself feel superior. As all your posts always are. You are certainly lying, and you know it. The subject is Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" and the economic problem it explains. I have read it, and understood it. You have done neither, and are merely lying about what Hardin wrote, as well as about what I wrote. That is not disputable. Your posts prove you are either lying or gibbering nonsensically.
That's another lie from you, as you know I already refuted it. No, he made an elementary error in English usage, and you are compounding it by engaging in equivocation. In your uninformed and ill-considered opinion.
I've referred to how the tragedy is used in the literature, a literature that you haven't read despite pretending to have knowledge. Again you've been found out! You won't be able to attack my comment with anything reasonable as it is completely accurate. Let's illustrate it with a quote from a recent article on the subject in the Journal of Economic Psychology by Villena and Zecchetto (chosen randomly): The standard economic theory on common property resource exploitation predicts a non-cooperative result in the commons implying the economic overexploitation of the resource. In a non-cooperative game theoretic context, this implies that the Nash equilibrium of the CPR game is inefficient, entailing an exploitation effort level greater than the Pareto efficient, i.e. where marginal revenue equals marginal cost Golly, just what I've been saying and you've been arguing against as you're poorly read!
This is empty humph again! The fellow made a statement consistent with economic analysis. The problem is that you don't like that economic analysis as you just don't understand it, ensuring you go through your bile routine rather than respond with sense
Economic "analysis" that ignores the pertinent fact: common resources need not go unmanaged. <yawn> I understand it fine; it's just based on fallacious assumptions that serve the interests of the takers.
<yawn> Wrong again. I DEMOLISHED Frank's feeble attempt at argument by identifying the fact that ACCORDING TO ITS AUTHOR HIMSELF, the way the "tragedy" is used "in the literature" is a fraud perpetrated by right-wing propertarian thugs. Again you resort to lying! Except for being based on false and dishonest assumptions that ignore historical fact, of course... The "standard economic theory" is just neoclassical crap designed to rationalize privilege, especially the privileges of those who take from common property resources and do not make just compensation to those whom they deprive of them. A "non-cooperative game theoretic context" is not reality, dumpling, sorry. Your fools simply define away the real issue: that over-exploitation has nothing to do with the exploiters' marginal costs equalling their marginal revenues, and everything to do with TOTAL revenues being lower than they would be under less intense exploitation. I realize you can't deal with reality, and have chosen to live in a dream world of "Pareto optimality," "game theoretic results," "maximizer behavior," Coasian "solutions" to resource allocation problems, blah, blah, blah. It's all just stupid crap epistemologically equivalent to the medieval scholastics' interminable debates over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin -- but less honest, as it is designed to rationalize privilege and justify injustice on a massive scale. There just are no such angels, sorry; and the more interesting question is how pins are made.
Try and respond with something that makes sense. You have this weird idea that all modern economics is wrong and you can make that evaluation because of one debating tool: repetitive 'cos I say so'. The fellow was correct. The distinction he made between efficiency and fairness is used in economic output. We've seen that with the fair trade literature (and how easily it is explained as a practice of discriminatory policy to remove problems such as first mover advantage). You may not like it. You may want to drag your dictionary out and say its all wrong. Won't wok sonny jim! He's 100% correct and the economic literature proves it. <yawn> I understand it fine; it's just based on fallacious assumptions that serve the interests of the takers.[/QUOTE]
You really are struggling today. Try an extra weetabix! You attached my summary of the tragedy of the commons. It was 100% correct and, through your attack, you've only described an ignorance of the economic analysis on the topic. I've since quoted directly from a publication in a reputable journal. Given it shows your approach up as an exercise in sham and shallowness, you've reacted with your usual rant response. Rather than adopting a rational response (i.e. read the literature and conclude with 'oops, he's right'), you've coupled your hatred for economic comment with conspiracy theory. Georgism for you!
