Negative Externalities and the Coase Theorem

[KyleClarkUSA]

But all streams, lakes, and rivers are owned by the government and what claim to the property do the fisherman have is it theirs it wasn't that clear?

[peastue]

This model is suspect: it assumes that all parties involved negotiate on equal terms and will be able to determine "true" costs by this direct market interaction. But how often do such negotiations occur on truly equal terms, in which neither party has a decisive advantage over the other? Granting legal ownership rights immediately skews this relationship. The cost of monitoring is simply relocated, not reduced by "natural" cause.

[stationTVC15]

NOT EXPLAINED: How did the monitoring coasts magically go down when done by the fishermen or the farmer???????????????????? In fact if they both had to do it -in order to work out the issue between themselves, the the cost would be DOUBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[worldofdraculas]

@stationTVC15 Because it's so cheap to get the government to do anything?

[ZacharySmith89]

Okay...so, how does this reduce monitoring costs, again?

[TheSmackerlacker]

This is stupid. Giving the farmer rights to the lake will do nothing to help the others, unless he finds such an arrangement profitable. If the farmer thinks he can make lots of money by using more fertilizer, he will, and all the fish will die, and his community will suffer and shrink, and all sorts of other external costs will result until ultimately, even the farmer suffers.

The only effective solution is to grant everyone equal rights to the lake, and equal control over its management.

[worldofdraculas]

@TheSmackerlacker Does that include equal rights to pollute it?

[TheSmackerlacker]

@worldofdraculas Yes, but if you weren't so determined to misunderstand, you would know that that would not happen, because the other parties have a strong desire to keep the lake unpolluted. Hence, equal control of management.

[ProfMike789]

Moral of the story: The Coase Theorem is SO RIDICULOUS, they had to buy a commercial to get non-economists to believe it.

[swu880]

@ProfMike789

so says someone who is totally economically illiterate and has not a clue what the 'structure of incentives' is- lol

[Romeowasbleeding1]

@ProfMike789 Sshhh. Before you embarrass yourself further

[bannanafruitsalad]

it seems like this solution would only bring about corruption.

i.e. the fisherman decides to let the farmer use as much fertilizer as he wants, provided the farmer pays the fisherman enough.

[KittenKoder]

@bannanafruitsalad How is that corruption? There is no law broken, all rights were honored and respected, and the economy still flourishes.

[poopranger]

@bannanafruitsalad well why would the fisherman let him pollute that much if its hurting the fisherman himself too? if he just lets him pay, then that money is probably better than the money earned from fishing, so hes better off anyways. this is no corruption. 2 parties making negotiations that benefit BOTH parties, otherwise they wouldnt have agreed to anything... lol

[52000rightwing]

I'm gonna dominate my property law final.

[13lackLight]

can someone show me how this deals with pollution and air? I mean nobody owns air

[swu880]

@13lackLight

actually you do own air- or at least you were legally able to some time ago. i suggest you actually read up on the history of 'annoyance cases' and the actual history of the smoke stack. you wont ever learn this stuff in any 'public school'

[libalchris]

@13lackLight Agreed These videos cover so much and show how free markets solve so many problems, except air pollution and global warming (a result of co2 increase in the atmosphere) The problem is that due to diffusion what you do to your air effects everyone else's air, so creating property rights for air doesn't actually solve the problem. In this case it seems the only solution is a government solution regulating the air. I'd love to hear if these guys or someone else has another idea.

[jeffsandychelsea]

@13lackLight You would pursue financial compensation if some nasty ass pollution was drifting over your property and reducing the value of your lot.

[13lackLight]

@jeffsandychelsea I don't mean that I just mean pollution in the atmosphere in general. L.A. for example and many Chinese megalopolises are known for having smog issues. What stops the pollution?

[jeffsandychelsea]

@13lackLight I think paying out millions of residents' and landowners' damage claims would be an extreme drain on the finances of polluting industries (insurance companies could pay the claim to the customer, and then go after the industries themselves to get that money back), to the point where it would simply become unfeasible to even build near a populated area. They would either find ways of reducing pollution or build elsewhere.

[jonescomplete]

@13lackLight smog damages local trade, lowers living standards, and thus effects property value.

[jonescomplete]

@13lackLight pollution can be hindered through threat of compensation towards an individual that is harmed by the externality. property is not defined in China... in essence, the government can suddenly own anything at any time therefore there is less interest in land value. The government is often the prime mover in the local Chinese economies, and politicians are often own all of the land (indirectly), and do not care if they pollute a less profitable sector

[nobleheight]

@13lackLight You are wrong. I own air.

[KyleClarkUSA]

@13lackLight Look up Milton Friedman on Libertarianism there will be 4 parts i think its in the second one.

[therichardking4242]

Stupid example farmer and fisherman. Try a lead refinery and parents of young children. When the negative externality is destroyed lives its not worth it!

[NathanJosephCole]

Hey HEy HEY, THE CAMERA IS OVER HERE!!!

[vonGleichenT]

Profit = Positive

Loss = Negative

really easy to understand. 

[vjm3]

Wanna know how I got these scars?

[WoodCroftwoodcroft]

The problem is that the natural environment is not divisible!

If the fish on that river went extinct, the whole food chain would be broken. The damage would be totally unpredictable.

[donfolstar]

This is an interesting idea, but it leaves me with several questions.

-How are fisherman going to know more than government regulators?

-Wouldn't any claims of a breach of contract require the same monitoring costs Coase Theorem was attempting to avoid?

-If the fisherman pays the farmer to stop polluting what is to stop others from polluting the lake just to receive funds to stop doing so?

I am guessing there are explanations for all this in the theory, it winning a Nobel Prize and all.

[bsabruzzo]

@donfolstar "How are fisherman going to know more than government regulators?"

Gov't in DC, nowhere near river in IA. Sends a bureaucrat (of only a small number... 1 for every 10000 miles?).

Fisherman owns 10 miles of river and monitors the fish because it is how he lives.

"breach of contract require the same monitoring costs" No. Fisherman sues Farmer. They pay for testing and court.

"what is to stop others" Jail. Deliberate harm is punishable by law. Accidental is negotiated.

[donfolstar]

@bsabruzzo Thank you taking the time to answer. I do not know if it is the choppy nature of your answers, but they all seem pretty unsatisfying.

1. Are we to assume the fisherman is a marine biologist with a specialty in toxicity and has a lab adequate for testing? He would have to pay someone to do the testing. Though why should the fisherman pay to test water that other people use too? DC might be 1k miles away but field offices are a thing. Walmart doesn't fail outside Arkansas.

[bsabruzzo]

@donfolstar It's the choppy nature maybe.

No the Fisherman isn't a marine biologist. However, he is an expert on the fish he catches, or well read at any rate. If there is something wrong, he'd be the 1st to know by observation and, to protect his property, he'd pay for his own study... so no gov't expense there.

Why should he pay? Because it is his property and livlihood being harmed. And if 100 other people are also having the same problem, a lawsuit accurs.. and wins.

[donfolstar]

@bsabruzzo

2. Exactly, they end up paying for the tests anyway and the only way of knowing if there has been a breach (to know to sue) is by paying for the tests constantly to monitor the situation.

3. Who is going to establish "deliberate harm"? It is hard to call someone a fraud for hypothetical future non action. If the next farmer plants 50 acres instead of 100 (to halve pollution) who can say he did/did not intend to plant 100?

There has to be better answers to all this.

[bsabruzzo]

@donfolstar #2) Yes, the Fisherman pays. And he has a right to protect his property and "persuit of happiness". If gov't runs constant monitoring, there won't be enough people watching, the gov't guys don't really care about the profitability so they won't find the best solution, and they will do the minimal amount of work for their pay.

The Fisherman is already monitoring his property by fishing and noting that there is something wrong (fewer fish born, dead fish, etc)

[shogu666]

@bsabruzzo You are trying to make a wolrd a shitty place where all natural resources are monopolized and people need to pay to access nature FU , while ignoring the main solution that we should not be polluting environment on purpose in the first place.

Unfortunately current economic paradigm forces people to do it in order to stay competitive.

Stupid free market utopia.

[bsabruzzo]

@shogu666 "ignoring the main solution that we should not be polluting environment on purpose in the first place"

The system I explained creates an incentive other than force to not polute. Fisherman won't polute because he needs fish. Farmer stops his ACCIDENTAL polution (you may not have realize fertilizer run-off might have been not intentional) by monetary incentive.

Deliberate pollution is a violation of property rights and, under the US Constitution in the USofA, is punishable

[bsabruzzo]

@shogu666 "Oh yes because law actually works" Yes, private property law actually works when it is local and protecting individual rights

"there is different kind of law for common people and different for celebrities, loaded or connected people " Yes, there is. But there is the fact that in the USofA (not Europe, you poor serfs), the individual has equal rights, and multiple individuals have more power.

"much useless economic activities" Jobs and more business is bad to you?

[shogu666]

@bsabruzzo "much useless economic activities" Jobs and more business is bad to you?

Everyone suing everyone is just a waste of resources and human intellect.

"But there is the fact that in the USofA (not Europe, you poor serfs), the individual has equal rights,"

In theory yes in practice no.

[bsabruzzo]

@shogu666 "punishment assumes everyone get cough and proven guilty "

Yes, you can't stop a-holes who sneak around. But eventually an a-hole farmer will do damage to fishermen and camper and so on. In a free market, an announcement that Farmer is an a-hole will cause farmer to lose business and he will be in trouble.

On top of that, Lawyer will see a payday and help Fisherman and Camper etc

As long as government does its job and protects individual rights from harm... not collective

[bsabruzzo]

@shogu666 "all natural resources are monopolized and people need to pay to access nature "

Also, in the USofA (the only system I am truly familiar with) people pay to access nature everywhere, either by property ownership or via taxes. And the "public lands" are all owned by monopolies, often restricted.

Now, if you like name calling rather than thinking, I understand. YouTube is your place for certain. out here in the real world we look at real life and what is really possible.

[shogu666]

@bsabruzzo people pay to access nature everywhere, either by property ownership or via taxes. And the "public lands" are all owned by monopolies, often restricted.

I dont live in USA only in Europe, and we are not so retrograded in here.

If your public land is indeed owned by monopolies and often restricted then you already got what you bargain for so what the problem ??? Not enough of control over your life by private interests ???

[bsabruzzo]

@shogu666 "If your public land is indeed owned by monopolies and often restricted then you already got what you bargain for so what the problem "

Well, the monopoly is called government and it closes down land that would normally be open for people. We call one huge portion of government land Utah.

What I bargabed for? I "barganed for" individuals owning their own property... hundreds of thousands of people, not one big organization. More owners, more options, lower costs, less harm.

[shogu666]

@bsabruzzo "hundreds of thousands of people, not one big organization"

How long do you think such a situation would last when someone would smell business by acquiring nature, you cant produce more of it and its crucial so acquiring it would bring exponential more profit . Monopoly would be formed very quickly but this time instead of government which you can vote out it would be in the hands of private ownership which you cant vote out.

Total enslavement.

[bsabruzzo]

@shogu666 "Monopoly would be formed ... instead of government which you can vote out it would be in the hands of private ownership which you cant vote out"

If you believe that enslavement from ownership is enevitable, you live with a no win event. Gov't will then buy all the land (just as thousands of induviduals) and then you are enslaved by them. If you think you can vote polititians out, then you believe you can vote out CEOs...

Free market means voting out by not shopping there.

[bsabruzzo]

@shogu666 "I dont live in USA only in Europe, and we are not so retrograded in here"

The beauty of this system is Country A will be free like this and Country B can be a government dictatorship. Country A will thrive and Country B will go into riots over school loans and vacation time.

People will be free to choose in which country to live.

And if Country B messes up the water/air/etc for Country A, then they are hurting themselves also, just like Farmer hurting himself.

[shogu666]

@bsabruzzo "People will be free to choose in which country to live."

Well i wish you good luck in your adventure toward dehumanization and enslavement by private interest ( which is allready the case Goldman Sachs, Monsanto and such are USA government , you should get a grasp )

I look at your history and see politics of Regan who declared war on bureaucracy and government only dragged you down to the point where Bankers and private big business do as they please.

[bsabruzzo]

@shogu666 "i wish you good luck in your adventure toward dehumanization and enslavement by private interest " But private ownership humanizes the system. Every farm has an owner, 1000s of them are people who deal with their customers as people and cater to their needs in order to maintain their income.

"the case Goldman Sachs, Monsanto and such are USA government " Right, which says that it is gov't, not indivitual ownership and free market that was at fault..

Grasp, mine.

[shogu666]

@bsabruzzo "How about the 100+ years the US didn't have heafty regulations where it went from 3rd world nation to super power?"

US had plenty of regulation long before FED especially the tariffs. You are uneducated.

"hey play by gov't's rules, not a free market."

Again if you buy a gun and use it, you are the problem not the gun.

"If this is your idea of a "good job", Europe can keep it."

Governments sucks but they aren't a problem they are a result of underlaying mechanism.

[bsabruzzo]

@shogu666 "your adventure toward dehumanization and enslavement"

I see you did not watch the video.

If gov't regulates, soon they run the farms or have a corporate-gov't relationship. They don't have people who know how to run the farms choosing the fertilizer, which means poor usage, the wrong type of fert. or the shortage of the "required" fert.

Prices increase, polution is out of control, Fishermen and Farmers lose jobs.

If this is your idea of a "good job", Europe can keep it.

[bsabruzzo]

@shogu666 "soon they run the farms or have a corporate-gov't relationship"

Let's look at the "big bad" of Oil Cos.

Evil free marker monopolies, right?

Not exactly.

They aren't a monopoly, not even in the USofA.

In the US, they were required to be "uniform" with gas, creating shortages during forced seasonal switch-overs.

The US required an additive to make them burn "cleaner". The 1st was toxic to people and environment. 2nd is expencive and doesn't work. 3rd doesn't exist.

(more)

[bsabruzzo]

@shogu666 (Big Oil Co, cont)

Those additives were gov't approved and one replaced the next, increasing the cost of gasoline and harmong the environment. (The current one is non-exustent, but Big Oil is being fined for not using it, increasing cost/prices).

Gov't also halts oil exploration even where there is plenty of oil... well, the US companies can't get it. China and Brazil and Russia can (and they pollute more).

(More)

[bsabruzzo]

@shogu666 (Big Oil Co, cont - 3)

In the past Oil cos got more efficient AND cleaner on their own. Yes, they poluted and yes, the US gov't HAD to step in to protect individual rights (in the USofA, these exist). But there was a point that gov't overstepped it's place.

Protections of farms, oil, fishing, loggin and so on decreased competition, thus the owners lost their perspective on their customers.

But if you like it that way, big gov't in bed with big corp, reducing their human co

[shogu666]

@bsabruzzo Stupid youtube comment box it is to small to have a discussion and it would require much more space to explain since are ignorant about basic market mechanics and their inner working such as cost efficiency, cyclical consumption or supply and demand law.

[shogu666]

@bsabruzzo @oil

You still dont get it. Where are money to be made there will always be control if not by state then by different means.

Are you really that naive to believe that state is the only option available for private interests to gain control over or destroy weaker ???

[bsabruzzo]

@donfolstar 3) Harm is determined by the courts AFTER the farmer and the fisherman (and the campers and the guy who just likes to sit on the docks of the bay) have talked.

If fish are dying and it is attributable to the fertilizer, that's harm. If the farmer is just using the "cheap stuff" or using more than he might need, that's for the courts.

There's always the possibility of using better fertilizer, using less, controling run-off and so on. Again, that is where courts of law co

[bsabruzzo]

@donfolstar "There has to be better answers to all this"

As the gov't and the courts are a matter of force, the better way is for the parties to sit and figure things out. There are 2 thoughts on human behaviour:

1) People are generally good and will find a way or

2) People are generally bad and must be forced

It is always better to assume #1 and protect against #2, if it happens. That gives you more options to fix the problem. The other way starts with the punishment 1st.

[UncleIrv]

@bsabruzzo

No offense, but your explanation does not identify the right issue.

The key of the "property rights" solution has nothing to do with assuming people are "good" or "bad." The key is the optimization of SELF INTEREST.

(1) With the STATIST solution (force) depends on a third party (bureaucrat) whose own self interest is not directly tied to the outcome.

(2) With the property rights solution, the parties are MOTIVATED BY THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST toward the best outcome.

[Axbent]

The Coare theorem encourages corruption. Let's say an industry has a prob with poisoning the land, and it will stay poisoned for hundreds of years even after they are gone. If the industry is able to pay off nearby landowners and even towns, it can do that w o regulation. Future generations must have rights too, and they are never protected in Coase's Theorem.

[mechadamuramu]

Can you explain how you can use Coase theorem to calculate externalities if there is more than one legitimate owner of an externality? The river in this example is neither the wholly owned property of the farmer nor the fisherman, but is both also that of the public when it enters public parks, a power company that needs clean water to cool their plant, and the city's municipal water treatment plant. How do multiple parties negotiate appropriate "fees" to charge others in this case?

[bsabruzzo]

@mechadamuramu "more than one legitimate owner of an externality... How do multiple parties negotiate appropriate"

Individually.

Simple, huh?

Fisherman want's fish alive and edible. Negotiates less toxin to keep him making a living.

Public park (community owned?) and the community board of supervisors and the township negotiage their part.

Power Co. tests the water, tracks the source and negotiates their requirements.

They all want something other than money anyway.

[LivingOddity]

@LearnLiberty What about non point source polluters that may or may not be contributing to the negative externatities? During my studies of natural resource management I have learned that lawn care is a larger contributor of nutrient pollution than agriculture. How might this model suggested here hold home owners fairly accountable with out penalizing their neighbor whose land practices are not contributing to nutrient pollution in their water shed. With out investigation, tax, or trespass?

[LivingOddity]

Take these people and expand them to organizations, businesses, and representatives. And you will have a bureaucratic nightmare.

@hekata That solution does not exist but its on the right track. The farmer should use a fertilizer that is appropriate for the needs of the crops and soil. And only use enough to meet those needs and not applied in excess for "good measure" during the right time of year to avoid washing out the fertilizers and other needed assistant substances into water bodies.

[burkash]

These videos on LearnLiberty seem to be very one-sided, glossing over the negatives of their proposed solutions. For example, using property rights for negative externalities will have plenty of costs, and those costs will have to be handled and negotiated by this ragtag gang of fisherman. Sorry. I'm not convinced this is any better than gov regulation.

[bsabruzzo]

@burkash "those costs will have to be handled and negotiated by this ragtag gang of fisherman. Sorry. I'm not convinced this is any better than gov regulation. "

So John Smith, politician, who knows nothing about fish, pollution or farms, says you can't eat transfat because he has been given the power to run your life.

Oh, sorry, I mean, tell you to use inferior fertilizer, or less water (to save the delta smelt).

Vs those who know what they are doing and must live with the results.

[hekata5]

In this example the solution is not taxation - it's fertilizers that do not polute... Good God!

[quidnick]

As long as money exists, no entity can take power over everything. It is the finite 'limit' to supreme control that the government hates.

[asimpleenigma]

Where is the model giving the property rights to the fish?

[chuckfrmgamestop]

@asimpleenigma type in Public Property Predicament in youtube and watch the cartoon about Lillyput. It shows how property rights help maintain the population of valuable animals.

[domvasta]

@asimpleenigma fish can't have rights, if they did we wouldn't hook their mouths and pull them up to the surface and suffocate them to death.

[EvolutionaryThinker]

@asimpleenigma When fish can recognize the property of others then they have developed the right to property.

[tsilb]

@asimpleenigma Fish have no rights.

[meghaljani]

@chronDiggity Finally, reason foundation study shows that deaths from extreme weather have gone down by 90% in one century despite increase in population. Human technological and financial progress has diminished effects of weather extremes. Why do your 98% scientists not answer these questions? Are you sure that you are not a tool for left wingers?

[chronDiggity]

@meghaljani

WOW! So we're doing better than a time when airplanes had just been invented. <PROOF GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH.

hahahahahahahahahahaha

You moron of MORONS. You cannot possibly be this stupid. The denier camp sure has churned out some dumb mother fuckers before, but you take the God damn cake. Ho LEE SHIT. I am ROARING with laughter.

So our technology has improved. Why not say fuck it? Fuck the coral reef, it's not like it supports any life we depend on. ROFL.

[Randal1980po]

A fisherman negotiating with a huge Agribusiness? You've got to be joking.

[RKAddict101]

You provided an example of the Coase Theorem where it works with liberty. In many situations, it in fact does not, and is hostile to private property rights.

[Zimnyification]

What if the farmer doesn't want to cooperate?

[jagorzynski]

What if I (the landowner, fisherman, or recreationist) don't want money...? What if I just want a clean lake or stream...? Money isn't everything.

[jahs389]

Why can't the farmer just lie about the fertilizer, under current litigation it could be very costly for those downstream to bring legal action against the farmer and he might have very little incentive to comply. These models fall short in all practical areas.

[objectivistathlete]

Something not mentioned... it's oftentimes difficult if not impossible to actually measure the magnitude of an externality, making government intervention impractical. However, the Coase theorem goes around that by actively internalizing the externality.

[mooseclamps]

This is the most pathetic attempt at a solution to corporate pollution I've ever seen. In my city, a major metropolitan area, a gigantic copper mine which primarily sells it's resources overseas, poisoned the entire aquifer for half the valley ~400,000 people. You're solution makes no sense whatsoever, the mine has absolutely no incentive to do anything about it. under your idiotic system the people would be better off taking RPG's to the company

[metsubo]

by which I mean you are an idiot if you think human beings are rational and economics is based on that idea.

[masluxx]

i think i am going to go to you yard and poison it with some random thing.  I will not tell you when or where or with what. So you have to test your property before you use it or take a raisk incuring enormus expeces becuase of my bad behavior. Yea, i think i like your idea.....Did you think thew this at all or are you just looking for rational to suport your wants?

[chronDiggity]

Taxing pollution is pure bullshit drummed up by big government progressives without a care in the world as to how such things affect the rest of the economy.

[ihatemoses]

Since pollution effects everyone, you wouldn't even need to have the government keep it but redistribute it amongst all the nation's citizens equally. This would be a synthesis of point 1 and 3 because someone may own part of a lake but they don't own the whole environment.

[ihatemoses]

Yes, it would be hard to tax pollution as they describe it but you could simply add a tax on gasoline that would create less gas consumption. People like to drive cars but won't drive as much if gas was more expensive. This would create incentives for car companies to produce more efficient cars or even cars that don't run on gasoline. Coal energy could be taxed the same way. I'm a "leftist" libertarian who hates all taxes EXCEPT for those on negative externalities and on the value of land.

[grifteamgost]

Mr. President, please watch this video so you can learn how a Nobel Prize winning economist shows not only how "we the people" don't need big brother regulating our lives in an economic manner, but how it is in fact a less effective and costlier method to achieve the goal of protecting the people and their interests.

[Dethreid]

This seems to give the idea to me that If i were a coastal property owner, I would have standing in court to demand that companies reduce carbon emissions because it makes the atmosphere more dense, therefore causing global temperature rises which will cause the melting of ice at the poles, increasing sea levels rendering my land less valuable, if at all valuable.

this theory works well in a small enclosed environment such as a village, in a globalized economy with such massive industry...ya..

[blogegog]

Wow. This guy sucks.

[shutuprafa]

This is probably my favorite video in the LearnLiberty series

[LuLuLeLoupGarou]

Woot, now all we southerners living in cancer alley need to do is file a class action lawsuit against all them yankee farmers along the tributaries of the Mississippi.

[roguas]

Problem is... 1 person has a nice piece of land and suddenly there is a factory next to it. It damages the land and people who were there in the first place dont want to pay to some factory that just arrived and is polluting their property, What then ?

[mangoswiss]

@roguas I think the video confuses the issue slightly as they show two scenarios.

1 - The farmer has the property rights for the lake and therefore he's paid by the fisherman to fish there but still has an incentive to reduce pollution.

2 - THe fisherman has the property rights to the lake and he is compensated by the farmer.

Your example is the second scenario. The landowner doesn't pay the factory. The factory pays the landowner a compensation at an agreed price.

[StateExempt]

@mangoswiss - I agree with your analysis, since the fishermen are the ones who are affected by the farming, the burden should be on the farmer to compensate them for the loss they suffer from his actions.

The factory should definitely be the one to pay the landowner since it is the factory that negatively affects the property of the nearby landowner.

Damaging property has the same consequential effect on the land as partially stealing it, so the farmer/factory should pay accordingly.

[jeffpaulwilson]

how do you internalize air pollution?

[darkwhitedirewolf]

sell fish as fertilizer

[Dragonsscout]

The video didn't state the costs of the 'Property Rights' solution... namely the bargaining costs and free rider problem. I know it did state that they must be small, but they do exist and it should be asserted that trying to apply the last solution in scenarios where Coase's Theorem does not hold does nothing to solve the problem.

That said, it's a great video. I wouldn't have bothered commenting otherwise.

[Champraves311]

Too bad you can't apply the Coase Theorm to the air space above a land or resource. All well, there goes that theory.

[Antepenult]

@Champraves311 So, you're rejecting Coase Theorem because it doesn't apply to cases that it has been stated it isn't meant to apply to?

[Champraves311]

@Antepenult Well I wasn't making a valiant effort to argue my case but if anyone took a basic class in hydrology or water resources management they would learn that the Coase Theorem couldn't possibly apply to the example given either. I would also think that in order in act an economic system based on that model, it would have to be consistently widespread throughout, including the earth below a surveyed property. It was really developed only to given an excuse to apply neoliberalism.

[Antepenult]

@Champraves311 Honestly, having watched more of the videos from this group, I think the thing to take from it is to not ignore the limitations of these economic theories. In this video, and others, these are downplayed so as to advocate a strictly free market ideology. To that end, I notice that there is nothing regarding public goods in their inventory.

Nevertheless, the actual application of Coase Theorem is rather interesting when it is relevant.

[Illyrien]

@Champraves311

Its fun how, every time somebody explain how the free society could solve any problem somebody cries "neoliberalism".

[Champraves311]

@Illyrien Well I'm sure its just as frustrating as someone yelling socialism when people propose government solutions. 

[Illyrien]

@Champraves311

Atleast they could scream neosocialism :) But yes, not all government solutions are socialism.

[LouieArrighi]

fertilizer going downstream?? lol the dummies that don't understand economics believe this crap. what about emissions that are creating climate change? what about the BP oil spill?? the fishermen will sue BP???? BP will have the best lawyers, while the fishermen....... the fishermen probably watch this crap, and think this is FREEDOM. LOL great propaganda

[elharbingero]

@LouieArrighi If you think corporations are invulnerable to lawsuits you're nuts. BP's oil spill is a perfect example of where property owners could sue and expect to win, which is why BP immediately ponied up billions to settle damages. One thing the gov't has done at times (and might still do) is limit the liability of drillers, meaning they faced less losses if a spill happened. In that case the gov't is infringing on our right to sue. Carbon pollution, admittedly, is vastly more complex...

[IChopBeef]

@elharbingero Except BP has statutory limited liability, and even after Obama promised to shake down BP for more money, it still isn't covering the cost. The taxpayer is. Government captured by money.

[elharbingero]

@IChopBeef The solution is to not have the gov't protect businesses from their liability, but rather to make sure that businesses pay what they owe. Even the biggest corporations regularly lose and/or settle lawsuits. The case against BP was as easy as it gets and they would have lost or had to settle in the overwhelming majority of cases. That the gov't is trying to manage the liability rather than just act as a referee does nothing to disprove the video!

[meghaljani]

@elharbingero Carbon is not pollution.

[Dethreid]

@meghaljani

Pollution = the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment.

The general consensus, and according to common sense, is that carbon released into the atmosphere by the burning of fuels creates a green house effect on the earth causing more temperature extremes but generally pushing towards heightened temperatures, I'd say that is pretty negative effect on humans in the form of sea level increases. So an argument can and has been made that it is "pollution"

[meghaljani]

@Dethreid CO2 levels have risen 4% since 1998 and there is no corresponding temperature rise. In ice core data, CO2 lags behind temperature by 800 years. There is no precedent in the history of earth for CO2 causing temperature rise. Therefore, both "common sense" and "general consensus" are wrong.

[chronDiggity]

@meghaljani

Past climate change events have almost always been caused by changes in Earth's orbit.

The reason why CO2 appears "lad behind" the temperature rise is because as Earth's orbit changes, and the planet gets warmer, more CO2 is naturally released. As the orbital change levels off, temperatures continue to rise. Why? Because the extra CO2 the Earth released ads it's own warming to the planet. Eventually nature finds and equilibrium, and absorbs as much CO2 as it puts out.

[chronDiggity]

@chronDiggity

wow lots of spelling errors. That's what I get for trying to eat and type haha

[meghaljani]

@chronDiggity If this is true, CO2 and temperature should align and overlap on the chart sometime. It never occurs.

[chronDiggity]

@meghaljani

Wrong! What logic is that? Something takes over as a driving force for temperature and it should catch up to it?

Earth changes an orbital pattern, and plant life dies off. CO2 is absorbed my plant life, so it would continue to rise, but since factors that give off CO2 are also eventually limited, the CO2 level drops, and this occurs AFTER temperature drop. CO2 as a greenhouse gas is no match for an entire change in Earth's orbital pattern.

You've thought this through wrong.

[meghaljani]

@chronDiggity There is nothing wrong with my thinking. If A causes B, A should occur with B or before B. This is a basic logic principle, I will not give it up because 98% of scientists do not agree with it. You mentioned that earth's orbit is primary cause of climate change. If I take your assumption for granted, CO2 will be a negligible contributor. No wonder, CO2 lags behing temperature, and does not cause temperature change.

[chronDiggity]

@meghaljani

You're thinking of it completely wrong though. You're just looking at a chart and not seeing when orbital factors stop playing a role in temperature rise, and when CO2 has taken over as the driving mechanism. Orbital factors are what change the climate again, causing it to get colder. CO2 is no match for orbital changes.

CO2 does raise temperatures, and if it raises them enough, it triggers other mechanisms that raise them even more, like the release of frozen methane!

[chronDiggity]

@meghaljani

Watch this: watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24

If you're serious about learning the truth, you will watch it. If you're stubborn, and want to argue for the sake of arguing because you know in your heart you'll never admit you're wrong no matter what, then please let's stop this now.

I LONG for new evidence from deniers that prove it's not happening. I WANT it to be a hoax.  I came to my conclusion however after reviewing the facts, and you'll do the same if honest with yourself.

[meghaljani]

@chronDiggity I actually watched the video, which declared that the deniers are the pawns and uninformed, and CO2 is causing the temperature change and "explains" the warming. This is nonsense. There is nothing to explain. In last 50 years, most temperature stations in cold weather are shut down. Therefore, the average will be automatically higher. The frequency of category 3 hurricanes is going down.

[chronDiggity]

@meghaljani

So you're now denying the warming is even taking place?

Oh how I love it when you dumb assholes do that. Because I can point out the fact that Richard Muller, someone who was a VERY outspoken denier, got the KOCH BROTHERS (please tell me you know who they are) to fund research in a quest to prove the climate isn't warming. Well, they found it IS warming.

Do you know what that means? It means you're not even up to date on information your own denier ilk can no longer deny!

[meghaljani]

@chronDiggity In 1960, human CO2 emissions were 1 gigatons/year, now it is 9 gigitons/year. In both cases, the CO2 rise is 1.5 ppm year annually. Why CO2 rise is not 9 times higher than it was in 1960, and temperature rise consequently? sea levels have been stabilizing for last 3 years. Since the end of little ice age, the temperature rise was rapid. What caused that rapid rise? Similarly, after medial warm period, temperature decline was rapid. What caused those rapid temperature changes?

[chronDiggity]

@meghaljani

"Why CO2 rise is not 9 times higher than it was in 1960, and temperature rise consequently"

Nothing else you've set better reveals your ignorance.

The EARTH has about 720 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere. So you're asking why 9 gigatons extra didn't increase climate temperature to about 700 degrees???

Do I SERIOUSLY need to continue??

The little ice age and rapid rises you speak of WERE NOT ON A GLOBAL SCALE. WERE NOT ON A GLOBAL SCALE. WERE NOT ON A GLOBAL SCALE.

fool!

[mrtvi46]

@elharbingero Good thing for all of us there's no such thing as "carbon pollution"... Just like there is no such thing as "oxygen pollution"...

[mooseclamps]

@mrtvi46 Oxygen isn't a green house gas, and if you don't understand the difference, do one of two things: Take a science class or shut your stupid ape mouth

[jalriteythen]

@elharbingero the only reason they didn't fight it is because they knew enough to not do more damage to their image and try to be sneaky. the exxon valdez spill is STILL going over lawsuits and things to damages that are still occuring. by paying it all out upfront and running their "we care" campaigns, they are essentially tricking but winning back their public image and not worrying about future lawsuits. most corporations will always winout lawsuits because of powerful lawyers and lobbyists

[xXMetalMeltdownXx]

@LouieArrighi - /watch?v=OYtfzJ1frAM

[LouieArrighi]

fertilizer going downstream?? lol the dummies that don't understand economics believe this crap. what about emissions that are creating climate change? what about the BP oil spill??