Taking environmental and resource economics in college, these videos are awesome! Thank you guys for making economics entertaining. I really appreciate the quizzes, lol!
Increíble, muchas páginas incomprensibles resumidas en algo tan simple. Muchas gracias, ciertamente las personas que aman lo que hacen realmente pueden transmitir con facilidad sus ideas.
The Pollution vs Flu shot argument is flawed. In the first case, you are actively taking an action that will cause others harm (polluting) in the second case, it is the lack of action that causes others harm (not getting a flu shot). If I want to start doing something I must first consider who it will affect and compensate any people who will be harmed. You don't choose to get the flu, the choice is to prevent yourself from getting the flu, so the harmful action is not your own.
But in his example, he meant that as people we are aware that not getting a flu shot will probably result in causing harm to our surroundings, which makes this non-action "punishable". As you said, it is true that you don't choose to get the flu, but you are very aware that there is a probability of infecting people if you don't take the shot (which leads to a ripple effect of disease spread). Although this probability is not very quantifiable, as well as the factory's unclear externalities, such opaque properties make the example worthwhile. If public policy made it mandatory for everyone to get a shot, opting out of that standard would imply taxes or fines for those not taking the shot. Hence, drawing this parallel helps him define property rights as a right to clean air and population health, and the opacity extent to which it is hard and time-consuming to find an agreement in either case.
@Robert I think what he meant is in a world of transaction costs and externalities, welfare is maximized if the property right is assigned to the party with a higher cost of reducing the externality.
Unless you're locked in doors, you do "choose" to go outside and put yourself in a position where you are at higher risk of getting the flu. Further, once you have the flu, you do choose to still be around others and consequently create the circumstances that allow you to sneeze on someone (as opposed to sneezing at home). Either way, he wasn't saying that the cases entirely mirror each other. The purpose of that illustration was to point out that property rights and liabilities are sometimes not clearly defined by the law, and this leads to higher transaction costs and market failures.
Do Coase Theorem have some implicit and unrealistic assumptions, like: 1) Parties are fully informed about the future consequences of their actions and externalities 2) You can buy, repair or substitute everything (including the consequences of externalities) with money 3) Historical evolution of events that made some externalities look inevitable today; maybe there are some long-term social & ecological solutions that can make negative externalities completely unnecessary in future
There is a mistake with Coase Theorem. If the affected party does not have the property rights, and does not have the wealth to bargain and reach a mutual beneficial solution, then it is basically screwed.
oh boy, I'm watching this to prepare for my exam tomorrow and I can't stop thinking about the anti-vax movement and how they will be so mad if they see it
The factory shouldn't pollute and it shouldn't expect to be rewarded for not polluting ... I would have imagined common decency would have settled that!
Well there are some categorical and other differences between the two examples. 1. If you catch the flu and contaminate the space shared with others, it is because you have NOT taken a specific action to prevent that. If the factory pollutes, it is because it is actually carrying out an action that with certainty leads to that. It is therefore actively contributing to produce an externality. It might be worth adding that most people think (common sense) that other people should avoid public spaces when they have the flu. 2. The person catching the flu does so involuntarily and without self-gain. The polluting factory (and the consumers consuming the produce) benefits directly from taking the action which lead to externalities. If someone would profit financially from just having the flu, I think most people (common sense) would think that that person has a responsibility to make sure that others weren't affected (this is the proper analogy). Of course, one can claim that the individual avoids the cost that the vaccination would incur and by doing so would benefit indirectly. However, then you will end up in discussions that goes back to the above.
@@TravisTerrell No, unfortunately. It is a lot of stress for the bees to be transportet like that and a lot of them die during the transport. Also the way in which they are transportet (several crowded hives in one transporter) fosters diseases and pests to spread, so... Cheung is making me cringe, too. This is basic ecological knowledge.
one thing I would change is that your examples are so unrealistic and difficult to follow, id appreciate more real life examples unlike the flu shot I want something more relatable terrible video btw
Huh... maybe it's so obvious to me that destroying Herd Immunity is a Negative Externality ought to be Fined, because I'm not american... ¿How about being loud in the middle of the night? A lack of sleep could reduce productivity. The CEO next door arrives an hour late, loosing a million dollar deal. Should the money lost be payed back by the loud person? Even if this person was having a schizophrenic meltdown?
Taking environmental and resource economics in college, these videos are awesome! Thank you guys for making economics entertaining. I really appreciate the quizzes, lol!
Greets from Germany, you guys are helping me loads (Y)
Glad to hear it, Joseph! :) - Meg
you guys are life savers
Thanks for confirming I was pronouncing it correctly!
Increíble, muchas páginas incomprensibles resumidas en algo tan simple. Muchas gracias, ciertamente las personas que aman lo que hacen realmente pueden transmitir con facilidad sus ideas.
Instablaster.
thank you for the video. it helped me quite a lot!
Greets from India! Thanks a lot for the video
The Pollution vs Flu shot argument is flawed. In the first case, you are actively taking an action that will cause others harm (polluting) in the second case, it is the lack of action that causes others harm (not getting a flu shot).
If I want to start doing something I must first consider who it will affect and compensate any people who will be harmed. You don't choose to get the flu, the choice is to prevent yourself from getting the flu, so the harmful action is not your own.
But in his example, he meant that as people we are aware that not getting a flu shot will probably result in causing harm to our surroundings, which makes this non-action "punishable". As you said, it is true that you don't choose to get the flu, but you are very aware that there is a probability of infecting people if you don't take the shot (which leads to a ripple effect of disease spread). Although this probability is not very quantifiable, as well as the factory's unclear externalities, such opaque properties make the example worthwhile. If public policy made it mandatory for everyone to get a shot, opting out of that standard would imply taxes or fines for those not taking the shot. Hence, drawing this parallel helps him define property rights as a right to clean air and population health, and the opacity extent to which it is hard and time-consuming to find an agreement in either case.
@Robert I think what he meant is in a world of transaction costs and
externalities, welfare is maximized if the property right is assigned to the party with
a higher cost of reducing the externality.
Unless you're locked in doors, you do "choose" to go outside and put yourself in a position where you are at higher risk of getting the flu. Further, once you have the flu, you do choose to still be around others and consequently create the circumstances that allow you to sneeze on someone (as opposed to sneezing at home).
Either way, he wasn't saying that the cases entirely mirror each other. The purpose of that illustration was to point out that property rights and liabilities are sometimes not clearly defined by the law, and this leads to higher transaction costs and market failures.
The image from 0:39 to 2:17 isn't a bee. It's a fly.
This is such a beautiful concept
This really helped ,y understanding of the topic!
Watched 11/2/22 - Austin Carrara
Do Coase Theorem have some implicit and unrealistic assumptions, like:
1) Parties are fully informed about the future consequences of their actions and externalities
2) You can buy, repair or substitute everything (including the consequences of externalities) with money
3) Historical evolution of events that made some externalities look inevitable today; maybe there are some long-term social & ecological solutions that can make negative externalities completely unnecessary in future
Great point of view !
Thanks for your content really helpful and time saving. 👍🏻
Semi-related: My insurance company pays me $25 to get the flu shot each year.
What an interesting explanation and analogy
how this theorem is related to the Kyoto protocol?
Thanks for the explanation.
Thanks so much, very helpful
Excellent, many thanks.
There is a mistake with Coase Theorem. If the affected party does not have the property rights, and does not have the wealth to bargain and reach a mutual beneficial solution, then it is basically screwed.
well they could sue for damage cause by the pollution
A great video :) Thank you!
Amazing video
I love you guys! lol
we need diagrams ..
any ideas? then suggest! :)
oh boy, I'm watching this to prepare for my exam tomorrow and I can't stop thinking about the anti-vax movement and how they will be so mad if they see it
Especially with COVID right now
I also have an exam about this tomorrow XD
How did you do on the exam? Perhaps you have a PhD in economics already :D
6:20 / 8:15
Thank you :)
The factory shouldn't pollute and it shouldn't expect to be rewarded for not polluting ... I would have imagined common decency would have settled that!
Can you tell the person with the flu the same thing - that it's common sense not to pollute others with their coughing?
Well there are some categorical and other differences between the two examples.
1. If you catch the flu and contaminate the space shared with others, it is because you have NOT taken a specific action to prevent that. If the factory pollutes, it is because it is actually carrying out an action that with certainty leads to that. It is therefore actively contributing to produce an externality. It might be worth adding that most people think (common sense) that other people should avoid public spaces when they have the flu.
2. The person catching the flu does so involuntarily and without self-gain. The polluting factory (and the consumers consuming the produce) benefits directly from taking the action which lead to externalities. If someone would profit financially from just having the flu, I think most people (common sense) would think that that person has a responsibility to make sure that others weren't affected (this is the proper analogy).
Of course, one can claim that the individual avoids the cost that the vaccination would incur and by doing so would benefit indirectly. However, then you will end up in discussions that goes back to the above.
On what were you typing that comment : ) You are a direct beneficiary of pollution if you own a phone/computer. Less Pollution=more expensive stuff.
jesus what a brainlet can you keep up?
"moreover"
Any of my aca deca peeps here?
Sorry Cheung isn't right, you cannot drive with bees from garden to garden. They die, excuse me on the long term.
nonsense
Don't know much about beekeeping or farming do you.
Yves Helsen This is trolling, right?
@@TravisTerrell No, unfortunately. It is a lot of stress for the bees to be transportet like that and a lot of them die during the transport. Also the way in which they are transportet (several crowded hives in one transporter) fosters diseases and pests to spread, so... Cheung is making me cringe, too. This is basic ecological knowledge.
i like this guy but he says "moreover" may too much
He forgot to mention that autism is an external cost to getting a flu shot (lolol)
:)
Acid Rain...? Increasing global sea levels...? What decade is this? Watch out for Y2K ;)
one thing I would change is that your examples are so unrealistic and difficult to follow, id appreciate more real life examples unlike the flu shot I want something more relatable
terrible video btw
Huh... maybe it's so obvious to me that destroying Herd Immunity is a Negative Externality ought to be Fined, because I'm not american...
¿How about being loud in the middle of the night?
A lack of sleep could reduce productivity. The CEO next door arrives an hour late, loosing a million dollar deal.
Should the money lost be payed back by the loud person?
Even if this person was having a schizophrenic meltdown?
6:48 / 8:15