Main Menu

The Political Thread

Started by The Legendary Shark, 09 April, 2010, 03:59:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jim_Campbell

No. The problem, as I very clearly explained, is that the government privatised the agency that assigns the fishing rights. The UK's small-scale, largely independent, fleet of fishermen simply weren't able to compete with multinational operations running factory fleets in the bidding process. The death of the UK fishing industry is the product of less government and more market forces, not the other way round.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

JayzusB.Christ

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 15 June, 2018, 02:48:43 PM
I remember that, JBC, did you ever get it sorted out?



Never got my cash back and never found land to put my mobile home on (the property scam being just one in a series of incidents of raised hopes giving way to crushing disappointment).

My real dream, though, had been to live on a boat, but I'd given it up as being totally impractical and beyond my means.  I live on a boat now, though, and I love it.  Weird how things work out.
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

The Legendary Shark

It's the "rights" that I see as the problem, hand in hand with subsidies. Governments cannot issue rights, only licenses.

If we look at the fundamental free market process (simplified for brevity) in connection with fishing (for example), we can see how government subsidies and licensing interferes with the natural order of things, upsetting thousands of years of balance.

Let's imagine that there are only two types of fish, Type A and Type B. Fishermen go out and catch them to sell into the market. Now imagine that the stocks of Type A begin to dwindle; the fisherman of Type A now faces a choice; he can continue his pursuit of Type A and, do to scarcity, charge a higher price for his catch or he can switch to pursuing Type B which, because of its relative abundance, has a higher volume of availability but a lower unit price. At some point, if he continues to pursue Type A, they will become so scarce as to be too expensive to sell. The market will naturally prefer the cheaper Type B and so most fishermen will concentrate on these.

As time passes, stocks of Type B will begin to decline in number and increase in price. In the interim, however, stocks of Type A will have recovered, becoming more abundant and cheaper in price and thus this particular economic cycle begins again and the natural free market forces actually protect the fish stocks.

Now let us introduce government interferences in the form of licenses and subsidies. A fisherman with a license is restricted to a specific area, and if fish there are scarce he's forced to catch whatever he can to turn a profit, which can lead to overfishing of a declining species because he's not allowed to cross into more abundant waters due to the terms of his license. Once subsidies are introduced, it does not matter if the fisherman catches more than he can sell, and even encourages him to catch more. Thus, both types of fish are over-exploited and the underlying stabilising mechanism of the free market is upset at a fundamental level.

As I said, this is a simplified example but it does indicate how government interference in the markets leads to overfishing and also creates such wasteful anomalies as wine lakes and butter mountains.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




The Legendary Shark

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 15 June, 2018, 04:49:05 PM

My real dream, though, had been to live on a boat, but I'd given it up as being totally impractical and beyond my means.  I live on a boat now, though, and I love it.  Weird how things work out.


Ah yes, of course, I remember now - sorry for being so dim! I'm really happy for you, I loved my time living on a boat as well, just as I'm currently loving living in my shed cabin.

I guess life really is what we make of it :)

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




JayzusB.Christ

Cheers, Sharky; I remember you being genuinely sympathetic at the time, and I appreciate it.
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

The Legendary Shark


What can I say? I'm just a nice guy :)

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




JayzusB.Christ

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

Funt Solo

Quotethe underlying stabilising mechanism of the free market

It seems an idealistic oversimplification to suggest that free market economics will naturally result in stable (fish) stocks.  Rapa Nui has no trees: free market economics didn't stop them from all being chopped down. 
And dodos.  Etc.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

The Legendary Shark

I did say it was a simplified model. It was presented in order to explore the harmful effects of government interference. Of course, one can find outliers such as Rapa Nui to demonstrate basic problems but these do not negate the basic principles of Austrian free market economics. Indeed, one does not have to look very far to see how government interference destroys rain forests on a much greater scale today than at any time in the past.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Funt Solo

Well, I'm not arguing that regulation is always a positive force.

But a free market has the downside that it might run out of control and entirely (or substantially enough) consume the resource that allowed it to operate.  See: great auk, buffalo et al.  In that regard, a lack of regulation does not seem like a sensible approach (either).

I've never studied economics, though.  Mine is very much opinion from the sidelines.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

The Legendary Shark

There are upsides and downsides to all economic systems but, from what I've read, the Austrian approach is fundamentally more stable than the rest - though it does require more personal understanding and responsibility, but not confusingly so. (If a dumbass like me can grasp it, just about anybody can!)

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Theblazeuk

The free market works if all parties are rational actors who act with long-term interest.


This is evidently even more ludicrous than the most passionate revolutionary communist.

The Legendary Shark

I'd hardly call governments rational actors working for long-term interests either. Solutions exist but it's too soon. First the problems, inconsistencies and downright crimes must be explored. Most people don't seem to see the problems, or expect the problems to be fixed for them by people like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May or - God help us - Donald Trump. We have to fix as much as we can ourselves first. Once politicians catch on, they'll jump in front of the parade and pretend to be leading it.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Tjm86

Personally I would question whether a free market can ever exist.  It's like assuming the markets are 'rational'.  Self interest is always going to trump any other forces.  This is naturally going to lead to a monopoly situation as we've seen so often just over the last hundred or so years.  The result is going to be a gross distortion that is going to benefit the few not the many. 

It seems that the biggest problem in this country in particular is that finance is seen as the ultimate good rather than a tool to be used by society.  Everything is driven by the imperatives of the financial sector rather than the social good.  The ultimate case of the tail wagging the dog.

The Legendary Shark


Monopolies can only exist with the backing and enforcement of government, through such mechanisms as licensing and patents.

I do, however, agree that the "financial sector" (another licensed monopoly) grossly distorts markets and concentrates wealth into the hands of a few. It's still early days yet but cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have the potential to break the current financial system wide open to the benefit of virtually everyone.

There's so much good stuff in this world waiting in the wings or on the rise. It feels like there's a race going on between freedom and tyranny and I don't know which is going to win out in the end but, as long as so many people put their faith in "the authorities" and refuse to look at the basic problems and figure out solutions for themselves, freedom will be hard to achieve. But by no means impossible.

Exciting times!

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]