A Better Link for Fairweather...

[Peter_Puget]

Peter-

There is absolutely nothing absurd about addressing the issue of the tragedy of the commons, or of the externality of the costs of production that come in the form of environmental degredation

 

To take an extreme (absurd) example, though, let me ask you this: Why did big tobacco continue to produce a toxic product, market it to kids, and even manipulate their product in order to make it more addictive after they KNEW they were killing people? The costs were "external." What are the chances that any government-run agency have done this?

 

We've been using a more day-to-day type example in discussing the hypothetical urban or suburban landowner using chemicals to maintain a green lawn. Indeed, I actually do not like it when my neighbors use a bunch of weed and feed on their lawns. You may think that is absurd, but I think they should not be allowed to do so, or at the very least they should be tightly regulated in their use of such products. Am I an evil socialist?

 

It is quite clearly absurd if you only look ant the cost side of the equation. You cannot find me arguing that externalities are absurd or that the "tragedy" of the commons is absurd. (sidebar: if everything was privately held could there be a tragedy of the commons?) Please show me where I have, but first explain why you think government is better at dealing with externalities than the market and how we are to judge good managment.

[Peter_Puget]

YOur obsesion with ignoring the benefits results in the glass always being half empty! Imagine a group stranded by a in a water hole. They survive by eating the last remaining giant pup fish. Now you can view this extinction as a tragedy? Or as the means to survival.

 

If you view only the death of the fish it is easy to see the harm. If you consider the lives saved it becomes more difficult to see a net bad thing.

[jjd]

Can you provide me with a theory as to why they would be better addressed by the government?

 

Externalities, by their nature, involve transferrence of costs from the beneficiary (say a factory owner) to the general public. Condsider a factory owner who can choose to install "scrubbers" on his smokestacks or not. If the scrubbers improve his operating efficiency to the point that he sees the requisite rate of return, he will do it. If the scubbers don't create the required rate of return, he won't do it. This analysis ignores the costs to the citizens who have to breathe dirty, polluted air. Relying solely on the altruism of a business owner to "do the right thing" is not sufficient. The profit motive is what makes capitalism a great thing. Returning to the factory example, air is a public good, as is water, radio waves, etc. The definition of a public good is such that you cannot exclude usage and thus doesn't have a "property owner" with a motivation to protect his investment. It is one of the limited roles of government to provide and mediate public goods. Markets alone do not generally provide enough incentive for firms to internalize these costs. The best solution is for government to play as limited a role as is necessary to create this incentive. Think about quasi-free market incentives, such as carbon credits or fish quotas, that can be freely traded. This type of action will provide the impetus for firms to internalize their external costs.

 

You can argue the best ways to determine these costs, their magnitudes, etc. but the theory is becoming more widely accepted.

 

P.S. I haven't yet read the entire thread, so I apologize if I've taken the above quote out of context. I assumed it applied to externalities.

[mattp]

When it comes to resource management, I believe that public management is likely to be better because the government, by not having the need to make a profit for their shareholders, CAN and ACTUALLY DOES take into account such things as externalities and the "public good." These are vague concepts, yes, and we can spend the next ten days defining them, but the public-run agencies and enterprises actually have staff members whose job it is to address these things. Private businesses almost never do, unless they are subject to specific regulation and government oversight of some kind. And as I've pointed out, I do not accept the anti-government rhetoric about how the government can never do anything right and private operations are always more efficient. When it comes to exploiting opportunity and deliberately externalizing costs, private industry will always do better. When it comes to managing some limited resource for public benefit, I'll place my favor in the government-run operation most of the time (not always).

 

How do we judge "good management?" Here is a question that I can't answer. I make these judgments all the time, but I can't begin to explain to you the factors that I rely upon in forming such opinons, or lay out some clear formula.

[Peter_Puget]

We hadnt come to where the market can be improved Mattp is arguing that Government control of resources results in better management.

[mattp]

YOur obsesion with ignoring the benefits results in the glass always being half empty!

 

What are you talking about? I badmouth my neighbors' pursuit of the perfect green lawn?

[jjd]

We hadnt come to where the market can be improved Mattp is arguing that Government control of resources results in better management.

 

Then I guess the question is: better for whom? For me, wild and open space is very valuable. I prefer these places to remain unchanged by humans, for them to remain in their natural state. What I value highly, however, is not the same for everyone. Further, there is little profit incentive (at this point in our histroy) to own undeveloped land and keep it that way long into the future. There is profit incentive to hold undeveloped land with the expectation of greater profit from future development. Government is often a terribly inefficient provider of goods and services, but there isn't a market incentive to provide what I (and others, I suspect) value - wild, open space.

[Peter_Puget]

that was my question I have asked how we are to judge good management of resources and how competing values are to be evaluated. to date no answer.

[Peter_Puget]

YOur obsesion with ignoring the benefits results in the glass always being half empty!

 

What are you talking about? I badmouth my neighbors' pursuit of the perfect green lawn?

 

Matt -

again you twist my quote out of context. reread my entire post and reread my earlier posts.

[Peter_Puget]

I say absent a free market they have no way to value things such as externalities and public good. Governmental agencies over time have consistently shown no better long term vision or better management in fact they have often sacrificed long term objectives to short term goals exactly what you consider private industry greatest flaw. I believe we have more to fear from government controls than private industry governed by the marketplace. Jjd’s post is quite relent and shows how the problem of externalities can be somewhat solved and the problems of government control avoided.

 

That said I find that public ownership of the National Forests and Parks is a good thing because it helps foster a sense of community and shared identity. I know that sounds silly but to me that is a very important issue.

[mattp]

Here we go again, Peter.

 

In the post immediately above your complaint just now, I believe that I DID honestly address your question about how we judge "good managment." By saying "to date, no answer" I take it you are ignoring my statement that I can't begin to describe the factors or analysis that I apply but that I do it all the time. I bet you do, too. (Don't you say to yourself, on a daily basis, that "this government program is poorly managed but that private business really has its act together?")

 

If you want a correct or clear answer, go talk to somebody in the business school at the U.W. But lack of some detailed checklist and scoring system in no way need prevent us from talking about what we think is good management or bad in general terms, and I've said that among other things I think good management of public resources includes accounting for externalities and engaging in long-term planning as well as providing efficient or cost-effective ways to extract resources for commercial use.

 

In your next post, you complain that I have taken your quote out of context and twisted it. The fact is that I didn't put it in any context. I merely asked what you meant by that particular passage and offered a joke. I really don't know what you meant when yo asserted that I have some obsession about ignoring the benefits.

[Peter_Puget]

Here we go again, Peter.

 

In the post immediately above your complaint just now, Timing is critical in these things I was writing the post you refer to while you were posting yours! See the two minute difference in timing! Consider that in relation to your following sentences Ok edit I just reviewed and relaized that I missed your post entirely we got out of synch. SO when I wrote my post I was unaware you had written yours. I believe that I DID honestly address your question about how we judge "good managment." By saying "to date, no answer" I take it you are ignoring my statement that I can't begin to describe the factors or analysis that I apply but that I do it all the time. I bet you do, too. (Don't you say to yourself, on a daily basis, that "this government program is poorly managed but that private business really has its act together?")

 

If you want a correct or clear answer, go talk to somebody in the business school at the U.W. But lack of some detailed checklist and scoring system in no way need prevent us from talking about what we think is good management or bad in general terms, and I've said that among other things I think good management of public resources includes accounting for externalities and engaging in long-term planning as well as providing efficient or cost-effective ways to extract resources for commercial use.

 

In your next post, you complain that I have taken your quote out of context and twisted it. The fact is that I didn't put it in any context. I merely asked what you meant by that particular passage and offered a joke. I really don't know what you meant when yo asserted that I have some obsession about ignoring the benefits. As I said reread! By the way it wasn't a comlaint it was a comment

Edited May 19, 2004 by Peter_Puget

[JoshK]

I say absent a free market they have no way to value things such as externalities and public good. Governmental agencies over time have consistently shown no better long term vision or better management in fact they have often sacrificed long term objectives to short term goals exactly what you consider private industry greatest flaw. I believe we have more to fear from government controls than private industry governed by the marketplace.

 

Example please.

[j_b]

the simple matter is all human actions require trade off - require future projections - that hints at the first problem: knowledge. It is never perfect we make mistakes.

 

would this be due to known unknowns or unknown unknowns?

 

Yes pesticide runoff is a good thing if we judge the effects of the runoff to be less costly thant he benefits.

 

unless you are talking about non-toxic pesticides, this is so rarely the case that i don't think it's really worthy of mention

 

I consider that to be obvious.

 

shouldn't be a problem to cite a few examples then ...

 

I consider your isolation of the runoff problem to be more of a dodge than any request for definitions on my part. Here is an example: Due to "enviromental considerations" the use of DDT has been curtailed to the extent that Malaria control projects in the poorest section sof Afric have been stopped due to lack of $$$. Some estimate 2million mostly children and mostly in Africa die of malaria every year. The UN wont even fund any indoor residential spraying and yet people die. My point here is not to say that the deaths that spraying should go on but to merely point out that many could reasonably conclude that a but of pesticide runoff is a small price to pay for reduced malaria rates.

 

it would be because such people do not know any better

 

"When we combine data from North America on preterm delivery or duration of lactation and DDE with African data on DDT spraying and the effect of preterm birth or lactation duration on infant deaths, we estimate an increase in infant deaths that is of the same order of magnitude as that from eliminating infant malaria. Therefore, the side effects of DDT spraying might reduce or abolish its benefit from the control of malaria in infants, even if such spraying prevents all infant deaths from malaria."

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol9no8/03-0082.htm

 

you consider a nice lawn not worth the price of pesticide runoff here in seattle that ok thats you evaluation - you are not willing to make that trade off. my guess is some are.

 

it is clear that each case has to be assessed on its merit. but we are really far from such process in decision making, on the contrary, the private sector has little accountalibity to the public (by opposition to public officials), and little incentive to promote environmental conservation.

 

This leads to a second problem: How do we coordinate and evaluate all these often mutually exclusive values?

 

a) don't politicize the epa, i.e. let the scientists do their jobs free of political influence

 

b) enforce standards of emissions, toxicity levels, etc ... as determined by science

 

c) institute widespread carbon credit schemes, etc ... to integrate environmental costs to that of doing business. environmental ideals are not only abstract concepts such as that of open space but also every day matters that have life and death consequences. for example, global warming causes the expansion of the range of mosquito-borne deseases to speak of only one example related to malaria.

[rbw1966]

Am I the only one who finds PP's writing style nearly incomprehensible?

[Peter_Puget]

NO! But in my defense I have only seconds to write each post

[Peter_Puget]

the simple matter is all human actions require trade off - require future projections - that hints at the first problem: knowledge. It is never perfect we make mistakes.

 

would this be due to known unknowns or unknown unknowns?

 

Yes pesticide runoff is a good thing if we judge the effects of the runoff to be less costly thant he benefits.

 

unless you are talking about non-toxic pesticides, this is so rarely the case that i don't think it's really worthy of mention

 

I consider that to be obvious.

 

shouldn't be a problem to cite a few examples then ...

 

I consider your isolation of the runoff problem to be more of a dodge than any request for definitions on my part. Here is an example: Due to "enviromental considerations" the use of DDT has been curtailed to the extent that Malaria control projects in the poorest section sof Afric have been stopped due to lack of $$$. Some estimate 2million mostly children and mostly in Africa die of malaria every year. The UN wont even fund any indoor residential spraying and yet people die. My point here is not to say that the deaths that spraying should go on but to merely point out that many could reasonably conclude that a but of pesticide runoff is a small price to pay for reduced malaria rates.

 

it would be because such people do not know any better

 

"When we combine data from North America on preterm delivery or duration of lactation and DDE with African data on DDT spraying and the effect of preterm birth or lactation duration on infant deaths, we estimate an increase in infant deaths that is of the same order of magnitude as that from eliminating infant malaria. Therefore, the side effects of DDT spraying might reduce or abolish its benefit from the control of malaria in infants, even if such spraying prevents all infant deaths from malaria."

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol9no8/03-0082.htm

Your study while not conclusive considers only ifnat deaths thus if it is accurate it does not contradict my contention

 

you consider a nice lawn not worth the price of pesticide runoff here in seattle that ok thats you evaluation - you are not willing to make that trade off. my guess is some are.

 

it is clear that each case has to be assessed on its merit. but we are really far from such process in decision making, on the contrary, the private sector has little accountalibity to the public (by opposition to public officials), and little incentive to promote environmental conservation.

 

This leads to a second problem: How do we coordinate and evaluate all these often mutually exclusive values?

You response below show that you missed the my problem. (probably my fault) Restated: How can all the different and often mutually exclusive values that Americans hold be coordinated and evaluated.

 

 

a) don't politicize the epa, i.e. let the scientists do their jobs free of political influence

 

b) enforce standards of emissions, toxicity levels, etc ... as determined by science

 

c) institute widespread carbon credit schemes, etc ... to integrate environmental costs to that of doing business. environmental ideals are not only abstract concepts such as that of open space but also every day matters that have life and death consequences. for example, global warming causes the expansion of the range of mosquito-borne deseases to speak of only one example related to malaria.

[j_b]

Imagine a group stranded by a in a water hole. They survive by eating the last remaining giant pup fish. Now you can view this extinction as a tragedy? Or as the means to survival.

 

are you saying it's ok to destroy the environment (with associated consequences) because otherwise we'd starve to death? isn't it like being a fear-mongering catastrophist?

[JoshK]

I say absent a free market they have no way to value things such as externalities and public good. Governmental agencies over time have consistently shown no better long term vision or better management in fact they have often sacrificed long term objectives to short term goals exactly what you consider private industry greatest flaw. I believe we have more to fear from government controls than private industry governed by the marketplace.

 

Example please.

 

 

PETER...EXAMPLE PLEASE.

[Peter_Puget]

Easy Josh several have been given by MAtt:

 

Specifically:

 

Forest Service Management of Timer Resources

 

Range Management for Live stock

 

If you want the basic background for my assertion about lack of ability to value withotu private enterpise I would suggest reading Socialism by Mises. The calssic rejoinder that at the time seemed the destroy Ludwig's argument is by Oscar Lange I forgot the name of the book right now but it will be obvious if you do a search. After reading those two go on and do a search on more recent discussion of the issues and come to your own opinion.

[JoshK]

I am just wondering where you get the idea that public management of our forest lands is worse off than private management. I am talking the entierty, not just the subset for logging. On public lands we have parks, wilderness, etc. if all those lands were private they would be torn down for logging.

 

It simply isn't true that companies will respect the land and the environment unless they are regulated by the government to do so.

[j_b]

it would be because such people do not know any better

 

"When we combine data from North America on preterm delivery or duration of lactation and DDE with African data on DDT spraying and the effect of preterm birth or lactation duration on infant deaths, we estimate an increase in infant deaths that is of the same order of magnitude as that from eliminating infant malaria. Therefore, the side effects of DDT spraying might reduce or abolish its benefit from the control of malaria in infants, even if such spraying prevents all infant deaths from malaria."

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol9no8/03-0082.htm

Your study while not conclusive considers only ifnat deaths thus if it is accurate it does not contradict my contention

 

it certainly shows that the problem isn't as simple as you make it to be. it also does not account for other problems associated with the use of ddt in the tropics such as contamination of northern latitudes and evolution of ddt-resistant strains of malaria vectors. moreover, my link is the synthesis of a scientific study so it probably won't ever present "proof" (to address your mention of it being 'inconclusive') by oppositon to the non-scientific references on the problem that you no have no qualm buying a 100%.

 

You response below show that you missed the my problem. (probably my fault) Restated: How can all the different and often mutually exclusive values that Americans hold be coordinated and evaluated.

 

my response addresses your question. assessing the cost of environmental damage based on scientifically sound standards and making sure the real cost is paid by those who make a profit destroying the environment account for all values of americans (which aren't really mutually exclusive).

[Peter_Puget]

You response below show that you missed the my problem. (probably my fault) Restated: How can all the different and often mutually exclusive values that Americans hold be coordinated and evaluated.

 

my response addresses your question. assessing the cost of environmental damage based on scientifically sound standards and making sure the real cost is paid by those who make a profit destroying the environment account for all values of americans (which aren't really mutually exclusive).

 

You completely miss my question and I question you understanding of the term "cost"

[j_b]

You response below show that you missed the my problem. (probably my fault) Restated: How can all the different and often mutually exclusive values that Americans hold be coordinated and evaluated.

 

my response addresses your question. assessing the cost of environmental damage based on scientifically sound standards and making sure the real cost is paid by those who make a profit destroying the environment account for all values of americans (which aren't really mutually exclusive).

 

You completely miss my question and I question you understanding of the term "cost"

 

where is your argument?

[Luna]

This is one of the most absurd arguments I've seen, even for Spray! All you have to do is compare privately owned land to public. At least in publicly owned land there is a remnant of ecological integrity left in some places. Hmmm, wonder why the timber companies are always banging on the door of the USFS to log old growth, could it be because they managed their privately owned land into the ground years ago?

 

And private grazing land is hammered compared to public lands. And I would argue that the areas of public land mismanagement are not from internal mis-comings but from external pressures from those with strong economic self interests and political interests.

 

Many studies have been done on logging on public land and grazing on public land. The resounding results are that these activities cost the public (me and you) money and return few benefits except to a few users - individual logging companies and ranchers. Besides the cost of road building, time to manage these operations, fencing, etc. there is the severe environmental cost to public lands. These costs are no calculated and are spread thru the public "commons". So not only are these individuals getting a sweetheart deal, the true costs, including degradation of natural resources, is being picked up by the public.

 

Peter - I suggest you talk to some folks in resource management and actually go and and get you shoes muddy before spouting off this theoritical crap.