I was pretty sure what the tragedy of the commons was before already - but with that awesome video I cannot misunderstand it anymore. Very, very well explained! great job.. even I understand it now ;-)
The tragedy of the commons is actually a tragedy of "no man's land". The difference should be obvious: -The commons belong everyone; the "no man's land" belongs no one. -For the commons are the municipality responsible; for the "no man's land" nobody. -For the commons there are usage rules which are established and monitored by the municipality; for the "no man's land" there is nothing like that. In addition, here is an excerpt from "Theorien alternativen Wirtschaftens" by Gisela Notz (translated by me): "In economics, it is referred to as" tragedy of the commons", that their general use leads to their overuse or damage, since the people are not able to regulate social sharing, that is: What belongs to everyone, seems no one to be worth something. Single individuals use public goods unduly at the expense of all. The neoclassical economics concludes that the solution of environmental problems is impossible if the market and the state fails. By contrast, Ostrom turns. She believes that institutions can crucially contribute to disarm this "tragedy of the commons". As part of case studies, on the use of community pastures, irrigation systems and fishing grounds, that she has created for research, she found a lot more examples of successful community usage of property as the contrary. She highlighted it with works from geologists, historians and anthropologists. Their conclusion is that not privatization and market mechanisms, nor government controls and rules are useful for a sustainable, durable successful use of common goods because both threaten harmful overuse. "Institutionalized regional cooperation of stakeholders on the municipal or cooperative level", (i.e. Commons) would function better. Ostrom warns to wait for global solutions (e.g. a global climate agreement); real opportunities to act have to be tested at the local level. However, she calls for clear principles, which are determined and monitored by all participants in common, for the management of common resources. The use of mild penalties for violations is not ruled out. She refers to on self-organized local groups of the alternative economy, which have crosslinked globally - in the cities, in the regions of the USA and Europe and also in developing countries. Alternative-economic ecology-oriented projects have followed mainly the important task of collecting experimental experience of the careful use of the commons on a networked level. The increasing privatization and expropriation-processes of Commons confronts the actors also with new tasks. Finally, it is important to produce new Commons, namely in the material and immaterial area. Inspiring for this purpose is also the theoretical approaches for an economy beyond commodity production and the market (so-called peer-economy). Peer-production always takes place in communities, where people in an open, never completed process determine the rules, organization- and institutionalization form, which correspond best to the attainment of their aims. In free cooperation, these self-organized communities manufactures products that are usually commons and freely available to all (or at least for all involved in the project). Anyone who have been involved in alternative economic projects knows, that joint production can make fun and that it can be pleasant and satisfying."
Tragedy of the commons seems to actually address issues with capitalism more than any other system. Especially when you consider that millions of people around the world managed the commons for thousands of years before colonization.
Clear and to the point with examples supporting the concepts. Excellent presentation. Hmmm... I wonder if the Federal Reserve(Fed) and its monetary policy is another example of an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) at 7:22. If we consider money as the commons, like fish in the Australian example: ~ The ITQ adjusts the amount of money a bank can create (ie. catch fish) in order to limit inflation or reverse deflation in the economy. (ie. decrease or increase fishing to increase available stock or decrease the overabundance of stock). BANKS FISHING Inflation Overfishing Deflation Underfishing Cost of Credit Quotas ~ Each ITQ gives a bank a minimum interest rate for borrowing from other banks and, less frequently, from the Fed. The borrowed money is used to maintain the Bank's Reserves at the minimum level to meet regulatory and internal policies. The ITQ also determines a bank's lending rate to other banks and as a floor for private lending (e.g. mortgages). ~ The ITQ's are bought and sold when a bank borrows or lends. ITQ's have issues, as the video states, where property boundaries overlap. For money, it's how imports (money leaving) and exports (money returning) affect our economy. The parallels are worthy of more thought.
I think this comparison is completely wrong. One entity, the central bank controls the money supply. This would be as if I was the only fisherman in the world. There aren't multiple private parties who by seeking their own self interest cause inflation (through money supply expansion) like the example for overfishing.
Looking at the ITQ system, could the same thing not be imposed through command and control while not excluding anyone from the commons? Here regulating fishing days and the number of boats was discussed, but why couldn't tonnage be regulated? Surely if it's enforceable through privatisation it should also be enforceable through command and control? Idk perhaps I'm missing something
It seems that ITQ would only work on a resource that replenishes itself. How would ITQ work on something like gold or silver? If commons applies also to roads and bridges, how would you apply property rights there?
Gold/Silver isn't really a common resource? It behaves like a private good. If I "overmine" for gold I'm not really destroying anything of value. Roads and bridges don't degrade/devalue as much from overuse unless they encounter heavy traffic. In those cases you can set up tolls which act very similar to tradeable allowances (like ITQs).
Cannot be overly dependent on or exploit non renewables if you dont want collapse. It's that simple... now sh** shows like riparian rights and who has rights to water, especially among other states in a single river basin and unpredictable rainfall seems Very complex. I haven't figured it out, maybe it never will and it's doomed, idk
Regulations that help to minimize environment damage, such as minimizing the amount of trees a paper industry is allowed to cut, that will help fix environmental damage.
Oregon just attempted to pass what was similar to the Finnish fish ITQ. Thankfully, it failed to pass, as it was an underhanded effort to place useless global warming legislation on good Americans.
This video is 6 years old so I don't know who'll see this, but the death and depletion of American buffalo weren't due to the tragedy of commons, but instead imperialist rule that attempted to wipe out Indigenous communities' food supply.
It’s also the fault of capitalist economic systems for never considering that certain resources are NOT infinite, but somehow infinite growth is sustainable.
It’s also the fault of capitalist economic systems for never considering that certain resources are NOT infinite, but somehow infinite growth is sustainable.
It’s also the fault of capitalist economic systems for never considering that certain resources are NOT infinite, but somehow infinite growth is sustainable.
@MetraMan09 I am not sure, but i believe you would do it by having your own dishes that you have to take care of. In the end, if you never wash your limited amount of dishes, you won't have any left. You will thus have an incentive to wash your own dishes in order to have clean ones when you eat! However, this is not totally applicable as you could just buy new plates and such in the supermarket.
@MetraMan09 That is exactly why I said it wasn't fully applicable. The video just used this to make us understand the concept on something we can all relate to. Read the comment fully next time. Also, the point of the video is to stay sustainable. Buying new dishes is possible, however, it goes against the whole point of solving the tragedy of the commons in a sustainable way... Relating this back to the video, this is why the fishermen have a FIXED quota of fish they can catch per year. Your comment clearly shows that you didn't understand the actual "Tragedy" of the commons when thinking that buying new plates would solve the problem.
@MetraMan09 Yeah I think that's the only way. Say every dirty dish you leave costs you $2. Every dish you clean you get $2. But idk how you can keep a ledger of whose dirty dishes have been left and who cleaned them. Its a really easy system to cheat. Maybe set up a video recorder lol? So if there's a dispute you can figure out who's telling the truth.
It sounded quite inconsistent when you said that the New Zealand fisher now has an incentive to not over-fish. The ITQs are a restriction on the quantity. HE CANNOT OVERFISH because the quantity being fished is fixed. That may bring about an increase in the population, but no individual incentive to conserve was at work here. I may be wrong, but that's how it sounded to me....
How ITQ works is that each fisher's quota is a percentage of the Total allowable catch. So the higher the total allowable catch the more quota you got. Perhaps if fishermen preserves the fish. They get higher total allowable catch next year and thus higher quota next year.
Yeah I think he could have worded that better. I think he is just saying there is no incentive to overfish anymore. Because to do so requires purchasing these permits. And these permits have a limited supply, so if too many people buy up these permits, it will only raise the price making it again unprofitable again.
Wrong to suggest Ostrom's work just said "cultural norms" like favour or disfavour could preserve the commons. She showed a number of complex ways in which this could be done without privatization or state regulation. It was also not necessarily "difficult" because it has been such a common form of ownership for centuries. Interesting you don't look at any of her actual empirical examples.
Easy solution. Just create fishing limits in those common areas so people or companies are limited in their catches. Tuna then become extremely expensive and opens up opportunity for creating tuna farms on privately held land. Creating artificial environments in giant aquariums to make tuna. Of course, this would require a worldwide government regulation because those people who are not regulated with catching limits on public waters can monopolize on that liberty which defeats the purpose of anyone regulating it. Something more effective also would be to end the struggle for basic necessities in humans by letting people hold cards with unlimited funds from the world bank in order to buy healthy food, clothing, rent, healthcare, and education and then controlling inflation on a global basis either as a US entity because of the high consumption rate, a chinese entity in the future when china consumes more than the US, or as a global entity through a world government (which is preferred). Getting rid of the fear of survival and the need to accumulate money today in order to survive tomorrow would greatly add to the ability of humans to reason and use common sense when it comes to preserving their environment rather than focusing on the much more dire situation of preserving themselves... so that they don't die. =)
the second one is the most successful and its not only in so called "stable" environment the noble prize winner was studying the areas in Africa because that is "stable" and its not cultural norms but the owners of so called common resource was a community it self so it was in the best intrest to take care of such resource. that this approach has been in place for ages and its still going on today. as soon as you create a owner the people left out will try to get around the system that are living in the community. there are countless examples like that in burma there was a forest that was managed by the community for centuries. but one in a day government step in and nationalize it. that community that was living off of that forest was left out. and that started abuse people were over foresting and now pretty much there is no forest anymore...
3:34 silly theres always suishi its just in a different market like chemical byproducts, energy, waste, because of the systems used for human consumption which is a market bty, when u say there's no sushi you need to explain that the context your operating under is different than how its presented, this problem is basic
Some fish are not capable of producing in fish farms. Even if there are some, the high concentration will increase the chances of problem. just look at the salmon farmed fish off of British Columbia.
The roommates/common kitchen is a bad example. Just because you're bad at communicating doesn't make it a forgone conclusion that common spaces are doomed.
Of course one could point out that the force for overusing common property is property rights themselves - the right to all the cash you can make by overusing the common resource. Perhaps it is the greed at the root of this that is the problem. How did native americans avoid hunting buffalo to near extinction? They took only what they needed and used every part of the buffalo rather than selling the most profitable bits of it for a higher price to whoever would buy it. Just pointing that side of the issue out.........
You don't need ownership to avoid this, and even with ownership there is still unsustainable exploitation of resources. You need management. The Division of Wildlife does a fucking AMAZING job at regulating wildlife populations. If there was a regulating entity, unpolluted by commercial interests, it would work for tuna in the ocean or any common resource. See: Resource Based Economics
Farming tuna is incredibly challenging compared to some fresh water or anadromous fish like salmon or sturgeon. They're apex predators that can weigh over 2000lbs and feed on all sorts of other sea animals and they're also extremely sensitive to environmental conditions. There are some breakthroughs being made though recently with tuna hatcheries.
This happens way more in communism. Think about it. If everyone is on a collective farm, no one has the incentive to try hard and work, it's just like the dirty dishes example. The only way to encourage people to produce is through force, that's why most communist regimes end up super authoritarian.
So private property rights is the answer to our declining environmental condition, but free enterprise had nothing to do with it happening in the first place? My God, this guy is full of @$it!!!
Trying to describe regulations as properly rights. smh this car salesman is peddling economic voodoo. Real properly rights would be allowing farmed fish a bigger share of the market, but the environmental lobby keeps that from happening.
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/af0phKxitX8/mqdefault.jpg)
I was pretty sure what the tragedy of the commons was before already - but with that awesome video I cannot misunderstand it anymore. Very, very well explained! great job.. even I understand it now ;-)
The tragedy of the commons is actually a tragedy of "no man's land". The difference should be obvious:
-The commons belong everyone; the "no man's land" belongs no one.
-For the commons are the municipality responsible; for the "no man's land" nobody.
-For the commons there are usage rules which are established and monitored by the municipality; for the "no man's land" there is nothing like that.
In addition, here is an excerpt from "Theorien alternativen Wirtschaftens" by Gisela Notz (translated by me):
"In economics, it is referred to as" tragedy of the commons", that their general use leads to their overuse or damage, since the people are not able to regulate social sharing, that is: What belongs to everyone, seems no one to be worth something. Single individuals use public goods unduly at the expense of all. The neoclassical economics concludes that the solution of environmental problems is impossible if the market and the state fails. By contrast, Ostrom turns. She believes that institutions can crucially contribute to disarm this "tragedy of the commons". As part of case studies, on the use of community pastures, irrigation systems and fishing grounds, that she has created for research, she found a lot more examples of successful community usage of property as the contrary. She highlighted it with works from geologists, historians and anthropologists. Their conclusion is that not privatization and market mechanisms, nor government controls and rules are useful for a sustainable, durable successful use of common goods because both threaten harmful overuse. "Institutionalized regional cooperation of stakeholders on the municipal or cooperative level", (i.e. Commons) would function better. Ostrom warns to wait for global solutions (e.g. a global climate agreement); real opportunities to act have to be tested at the local level. However, she calls for clear principles, which are determined and monitored by all participants in common, for the management of common resources. The use of mild penalties for violations is not ruled out. She refers to on self-organized local groups of the alternative economy, which have crosslinked globally - in the cities, in the regions of the USA and Europe and also in developing countries. Alternative-economic ecology-oriented projects have followed mainly the important task of collecting experimental experience of the careful use of the commons on a networked level. The increasing privatization and expropriation-processes of Commons confronts the actors also with new tasks. Finally, it is important to produce new Commons, namely in the material and immaterial area.
Inspiring for this purpose is also the theoretical approaches for an economy beyond commodity production and the market (so-called peer-economy). Peer-production always takes place in communities, where people in an open, never completed process determine the rules, organization- and institutionalization form, which correspond best to the attainment of their aims. In free cooperation, these self-organized communities manufactures products that are usually commons and freely available to all (or at least for all involved in the project). Anyone who have been involved in alternative economic projects knows, that joint production can make fun and that it can be pleasant and satisfying."
.
Tragedy of the commons seems to actually address issues with capitalism more than any other system. Especially when you consider that millions of people around the world managed the commons for thousands of years before colonization.
@@Reignforest87 exactly
omg my english was so terrible back then lmao
thank you very much for the explanation
Best econ video I've seen! so helpful and interesting.
Nice clear logical examples. Thank you.
Clear and to the point with examples supporting the concepts. Excellent presentation.
Hmmm... I wonder if the Federal Reserve(Fed) and its monetary policy is another example of an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) at 7:22. If we consider money as the commons, like fish in the Australian example:
~ The ITQ adjusts the amount of money a bank can create (ie. catch fish) in order to limit inflation or reverse deflation in the economy. (ie. decrease or increase fishing to increase available stock or decrease the overabundance of stock).
BANKS FISHING
Inflation Overfishing
Deflation Underfishing
Cost of Credit Quotas
~ Each ITQ gives a bank a minimum interest rate for borrowing from other banks and, less frequently, from the Fed. The borrowed money is used to maintain the Bank's Reserves at the minimum level to meet regulatory and internal policies.
The ITQ also determines a bank's lending rate to other banks and as a floor for private lending (e.g. mortgages).
~ The ITQ's are bought and sold when a bank borrows or lends.
ITQ's have issues, as the video states, where property boundaries overlap. For money, it's how imports (money leaving) and exports (money returning) affect our economy.
The parallels are worthy of more thought.
I think this comparison is completely wrong. One entity, the central bank controls the money supply. This would be as if I was the only fisherman in the world. There aren't multiple private parties who by seeking their own self interest cause inflation (through money supply expansion) like the example for overfishing.
Looking at the ITQ system, could the same thing not be imposed through command and control while not excluding anyone from the commons? Here regulating fishing days and the number of boats was discussed, but why couldn't tonnage be regulated? Surely if it's enforceable through privatisation it should also be enforceable through command and control? Idk perhaps I'm missing something
Great explanation, as usual
It seems that ITQ would only work on a resource that replenishes itself. How would ITQ work on something like gold or silver? If commons applies also to roads and bridges, how would you apply property rights there?
Gold/Silver isn't really a common resource? It behaves like a private good. If I "overmine" for gold I'm not really destroying anything of value. Roads and bridges don't degrade/devalue as much from overuse unless they encounter heavy traffic. In those cases you can set up tolls which act very similar to tradeable allowances (like ITQs).
Cannot be overly dependent on or exploit non renewables if you dont want collapse. It's that simple... now sh** shows like riparian rights and who has rights to water, especially among other states in a single river basin and unpredictable rainfall seems Very complex. I haven't figured it out, maybe it never will and it's doomed, idk
very dope explanation
this is amazing, thank you.
could you add references or extra reading?
If you haven't already, read David Harden - Living on a Lifeboat
You might try "The Environmental Optimism of Elinor Ostrom." Its Chapter 4 discusses her response to Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons."
Great video. Best econ videos on the internet by far.
+Timothy McCollough ''hidden secrets of money'' ''mises boot camp'' ''positive money''
Very empirical. Many thanks.
Regulations that help to minimize environment damage, such as minimizing the amount of trees a paper industry is allowed to cut, that will help fix environmental damage.
if trees are in private lands then no regulation can protect them.
Could you do a video on carbon trading in relation to the tragedy of the commons?
Oregon just attempted to pass what was similar to the Finnish fish ITQ. Thankfully, it failed to pass, as it was an underhanded effort to place useless global warming legislation on good Americans.
This video is 6 years old so I don't know who'll see this, but the death and depletion of American buffalo weren't due to the tragedy of commons, but instead imperialist rule that attempted to wipe out Indigenous communities' food supply.
It’s also the fault of capitalist economic systems for never considering that certain resources are NOT infinite, but somehow infinite growth is sustainable.
It’s also the fault of capitalist economic systems for never considering that certain resources are NOT infinite, but somehow infinite growth is sustainable.
It’s also the fault of capitalist economic systems for never considering that certain resources are NOT infinite, but somehow infinite growth is sustainable.
great explanation
Great video! Thanks for sharing!
Great video!
Haha we actually eventually created property rights to solve the roommate problem when I was in college.
@MetraMan09 I am not sure, but i believe you would do it by having your own dishes that you have to take care of. In the end, if you never wash your limited amount of dishes, you won't have any left. You will thus have an incentive to wash your own dishes in order to have clean ones when you eat! However, this is not totally applicable as you could just buy new plates and such in the supermarket.
@MetraMan09 That is exactly why I said it wasn't fully applicable. The video just used this to make us understand the concept on something we can all relate to. Read the comment fully next time. Also, the point of the video is to stay sustainable. Buying new dishes is possible, however, it goes against the whole point of solving the tragedy of the commons in a sustainable way... Relating this back to the video, this is why the fishermen have a FIXED quota of fish they can catch per year. Your comment clearly shows that you didn't understand the actual "Tragedy" of the commons when thinking that buying new plates would solve the problem.
@MetraMan09 ??? Bro ur high af
@MetraMan09 Yeah I think that's the only way. Say every dirty dish you leave costs you $2. Every dish you clean you get $2. But idk how you can keep a ledger of whose dirty dishes have been left and who cleaned them. Its a really easy system to cheat. Maybe set up a video recorder lol? So if there's a dispute you can figure out who's telling the truth.
Funny how you talk about the findings of a Nobel laureate as 'try agreeing with your housemates. See how that goes'.
Me: I should got to sleep.
RUclips: why the chickens never go into extinction but tuna can?
Me: Well well well let's find out
Thanks it's very helpful for my tomorrow's exam
It sounded quite inconsistent when you said that the New Zealand fisher now has an incentive to not over-fish. The ITQs are a restriction on the quantity. HE CANNOT OVERFISH because the quantity being fished is fixed. That may bring about an increase in the population, but no individual incentive to conserve was at work here. I may be wrong, but that's how it sounded to me....
How ITQ works is that each fisher's quota is a percentage of the Total allowable catch. So the higher the total allowable catch the more quota you got. Perhaps if fishermen preserves the fish. They get higher total allowable catch next year and thus higher quota next year.
Yeah I think he could have worded that better. I think he is just saying there is no incentive to overfish anymore. Because to do so requires purchasing these permits. And these permits have a limited supply, so if too many people buy up these permits, it will only raise the price making it again unprofitable again.
0:33 1:15 1:30 4:20 9:30
that ITQ system is brilliant
Wrong to suggest Ostrom's work just said "cultural norms" like favour or disfavour could preserve the commons. She showed a number of complex ways in which this could be done without privatization or state regulation. It was also not necessarily "difficult" because it has been such a common form of ownership for centuries. Interesting you don't look at any of her actual empirical examples.
3:13 is important
Easy solution. Just create fishing limits in those common areas so people or companies are limited in their catches. Tuna then become extremely expensive and opens up opportunity for creating tuna farms on privately held land. Creating artificial environments in giant aquariums to make tuna. Of course, this would require a worldwide government regulation because those people who are not regulated with catching limits on public waters can monopolize on that liberty which defeats the purpose of anyone regulating it. Something more effective also would be to end the struggle for basic necessities in humans by letting people hold cards with unlimited funds from the world bank in order to buy healthy food, clothing, rent, healthcare, and education and then controlling inflation on a global basis either as a US entity because of the high consumption rate, a chinese entity in the future when china consumes more than the US, or as a global entity through a world government (which is preferred). Getting rid of the fear of survival and the need to accumulate money today in order to survive tomorrow would greatly add to the ability of humans to reason and use common sense when it comes to preserving their environment rather than focusing on the much more dire situation of preserving themselves... so that they don't die. =)
why does he say resource like that
the second one is the most successful and its not only in so called "stable" environment the noble prize winner was studying the areas in Africa because that is "stable" and its not cultural norms but the owners of so called common resource was a community it self so it was in the best intrest to take care of such resource. that this approach has been in place for ages and its still going on today. as soon as you create a owner the people left out will try to get around the system that are living in the community. there are countless examples like that in burma there was a forest that was managed by the community for centuries. but one in a day government step in and nationalize it. that community that was living off of that forest was left out. and that started abuse people were over foresting and now pretty much there is no forest anymore...
Thank you
4:19
This sounds like a situation where a Pigouvian tax, or something like it, would make sense.
Mr Tweardy sent me here
This is why we need laws.
Hello to the people who were here 1+ years ago, and hello to those to come
isn't #3 just a form of #1?
Exactly.
Thank-you!
3:34 silly theres always suishi its just in a different market like chemical byproducts, energy, waste, because of the systems used for human consumption which is a market bty, when u say there's no sushi you need to explain that the context your operating under is different than how its presented, this problem is basic
can't u raise and farm fish?
Some fish are not capable of producing in fish farms. Even if there are some, the high concentration will increase the chances of problem. just look at the salmon farmed fish off of British Columbia.
The roommates/common kitchen is a bad example. Just because you're bad at communicating doesn't make it a forgone conclusion that common spaces are doomed.
S/o Mr.Nagaishi :)
Makes me think about the climate
And ter was a problem wif this systom
neat!
wow so maybe I will use ITQ with my room mates.
I live in demark
soo what?
i live in rOMANIA
I SHOULD HAVE WATCHED THE WHOLE VID B4 DOING THE UVA MATCHING
p/s: i still get an enough mark to get into the university though
Mr. Bryson sent me here :(
same girl :'(
@@edenisabella2003 he has assigned more work than what actually did at school
2021 ; Tragedy of the RTX 3080
Of course one could point out that the force for overusing common property is property rights themselves - the right to all the cash you can make by overusing the common resource. Perhaps it is the greed at the root of this that is the problem. How did native americans avoid hunting buffalo to near extinction? They took only what they needed and used every part of the buffalo rather than selling the most profitable bits of it for a higher price to whoever would buy it. Just pointing that side of the issue out.........
You don't need ownership to avoid this, and even with ownership there is still unsustainable exploitation of resources. You need management. The Division of Wildlife does a fucking AMAZING job at regulating wildlife populations. If there was a regulating entity, unpolluted by commercial interests, it would work for tuna in the ocean or any common resource. See: Resource Based Economics
You know that you dont know what prozaic meant
1 question.
Can Tuna be not kept in big tanks within our community? And can't they reproduced like that?
2 questions*
Farming tuna is incredibly challenging compared to some fresh water or anadromous fish like salmon or sturgeon. They're apex predators that can weigh over 2000lbs and feed on all sorts of other sea animals and they're also extremely sensitive to environmental conditions. There are some breakthroughs being made though recently with tuna hatcheries.
You cant compare chicken and tuna chickens have super fast reproductive cycle
Ther wer socald ITQ ,,Kings,, WHO ownd all the ITQs
Watching this in biology for some reason
Fra ultra nyt i gamle dage
In my dormitory kitchen was common for 12 people and it was almost always clean as we communally agreed on keeping them clean. So yeah, bad example.
Rezorzez🤣🤣🤣
Oh man, this bothered me every time he said it!
This happens in capitalism.
This happens way more in communism. Think about it. If everyone is on a collective farm, no one has the incentive to try hard and work, it's just like the dirty dishes example. The only way to encourage people to produce is through force, that's why most communist regimes end up super authoritarian.
@@Andy-em8xt that's the most stupid thing i've ever heard
Do you ever read hardin I don't think so.
Why not just have a massive building where you grow fish? Hummm???
We do. It's called "the ocean".
So private property rights is the answer to our declining environmental condition, but free enterprise had nothing to do with it happening in the first place? My God, this guy is full of @$it!!!
Trying to describe regulations as properly rights. smh this car salesman is peddling economic voodoo. Real properly rights would be allowing farmed fish a bigger share of the market, but the environmental lobby keeps that from happening.
learn how to say resource !!! you're driving me crazy!
Jacki Morgan that's the first thing i noticed, weird isn't it? Good presentation otherwize ;-)