Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Fundamental Concepts - Leap From the Lion's Head [Weirddave]
Last week Maetenloch wrote an extensive piece on the lions of Africa as part of his ONT. It's an excellent summation on how the only hope lions have for long term survival lies in their value to human beings, specifically hunters, and I encourage everyone to go read it now.
Without hunting lions have no economic value for the local people or ranchers. In fact they're a giant menacing pain in the ass since they tend to eat the locals' cattle as well as occasionally the locals themselves. There's really no upside at all to having an apex predator like a lion prowling around your village or ranch; only bad things can happen. Yes, there are photo-safaris but unless you're near tourist areas and are set up for it, there's not much money in this. So the reality is that without any economic incentive to keep the lions around, the locals end up driving them out or just poisoning them. And here to paraphrase Jack Dunphy the alternative to allowing hunting is not perfection - it's the alternative. With no hunting at all you won't get a Lion King-Simba happy existence on the savannah, instead you'll see a slow gradual extinction of lions as a species due to loss of habitat and eradication by humans. Lions will not die out from hunting - rather it will be because none of the locals want them around or care enough about their continued existence to protect them. Ultimately the lions will live or die by whether the local people allow lions to coexist with them. But with controlled trophy hunting, the lions suddenly do have economic value. Because the hunting is so strictly limited hunters will pay a lot to be allowed to take a trophy - $30,000 and up. And $30,000 goes a long way in Africa. This money is split between the land owner, the local villagers, and the government. For the land owner and villagers this makes up on any losses they might have suffered from the lions, and it also means that they have a strong incentive to protect and maintain the local lions e.g. maintaining water pools, not putting up fences, watching for poachers, etc. The money from hunting is a major source of revenue for some remote villages. The revenue to the government helps pay for full-time rangers, park wardens and equipment to protect the lion populations.As I said, it's an excellent piece, very much a fundamental concepts post in and of itself, do read it all. What Maetenloch is talking about is how markets create value. Things that have value are preserved, so that people can take advantage of that value. This is the way things work, it's the way everything works. I touched upon the same concept last year when I wrote about The Tragedy of the Commons. Allowing a market to form and leaving it alone to work has been proven again and again to be the best, fairest, most efficient way to allocate goods and resources. There is just one tiny problem.
This concept scares the crap out of people, because it is completely and utterly out of their control. Human beings tend to reject the idea that there are things we can't control.
Even after Maetenloch's excellent and detailed explanation, chock full of facts, figures and real life examples, it wasn't long before someone was arguing in the comments that we couldn't possible leave the survival of lions to the market, no, they were too special, too rare, too something or other, in the case of the lions we don't dare leave it up to the markets. The market may be fine for toilet paper (tell that to the Venezuelans. I'm sure they would dearly love to have a functioning TP market right now), but these, these are lions we're talking about, no, for lions the market just won't do. It's depressing how often this comes up. “We can't let the market dictate medical care, medical care is different!” “We can't leave it up top the market to supply food, it's too important! (Looking at you again Venezuela)” “Lions? Yadda, yadda, yadda”, (already did that one)”.The reason is simple. Market forces, the invisible hand, it's, well, invisible. It absolutely works, the Market, capital “M”, is the only system that constantly adjusts and compensates for everything from war in the Middle East to your decision that you're going to eat Fruity Pebbles instead of Raisin Bran in the morning, but, like gravity, we can't see it at work. Think of your brain. Think of all of the millions of things that it is doing right this very second. It's doing big, vitally important things, like making your lungs breathe and your heart beat without you even being aware of it. It's doing little things like scratching your ass and plotting how to get that cute girl you just met into bed. It's doing things you're aware of, like reading and interpreting this text, and things you're telling it to do-type a reply. It's doing all of that and a million things more, every second of every day, awake or asleep, for your entire life, and you never think twice about it. That is exactly how the capital M Market works worldwide, 24/7. Now suppose we were to shrink your down and put you in an Incredible Journey sized submarine. We'll give you a brain remote, a tablet that you can use to order the brain to do anything, and inject you into the skull of a random person, say Hillary Clinton. You're in charge, you have to make sure you tell the brain to do everything that it needs to do in 3,2,1, GO! OK, quick, heart beating, lungs breathing. Good. Make sure to blink, now drink that shot of scotch. Yell at the Secret Service. Pet Huma. Promise yourself to remember to kick Bill in the balls for that blond dynamo he's been boffing. Pander to the media. Babble at reporters. Drink more scotch. Laugh hysterically. Walk. Scratch. Blink again. Got that? Good, that's the first 5 seconds. Pick up the pace now. Beat.Breath.Blink.scowl.complain.drink.swallow.lie.previcate.plot.fart.walk... You're falling behind, step it up! Breathebeatnblinkfartlieliescreamabuseplitwinklaughdrinkstumbleintinmidatehurtscratchlielielielielielielie.... You think you could do that? Nobody could. No team of people could. It's obviously impossible. In no time at all the body you were trying to control would be flopping on the ground babbling incoherently and wetting its pants. Now granted this is Hillary so everyone would likely assume that she's just drunk again, but I think you take my point. Nobody could possible hope to proactively control all of the functions of a human brain, and nobody would even think to try. That would be monumentally stupid. The Market is no less complex than the human brain. It's comprised of unknown quadrillions of interactions between people, places and things. Attempting to control it is just as insane as assuming one could control a human brain. But see, you can't watch a brain work. You can observe the small “m” market at work, and by golly, it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to meddle in this one right here, no siree Bob. I think everybody should have access to potatoes, so I'll just pass a law that potatoes are free. There. Everyone will have all the potatoes they want. Simple. Except they won't. You rerouted a single synapse in the market's “brain”, and that will inevitable cause a cascade effect downstream. Other synapses will be affected, either firing when they wouldn't have before or not firing when they were supposed to, and those changes will cause changes, and so on until your entire economy is rolling on the ground gasping because it forgot how to breathe. And that's the problem. Since commerce occurs every day right in front of us, we look at it and assume that what we are seeing is the “Market”. It isn't. It's just one small miniscule faction of the Market. Humans can never anticipate all of the ramifications of meddling with what they can see, so they always wind up unbalancing the machine. That's why it is so hard to believe in free markets. It's an act of faith very similar to that that most religions require of their adherents. It's faith in a natural phenomenon rather than a supernatural one, but the phenomenon completely and utterly beyond the scope of human understanding. The Market demands trust in invisible, intangible mechanisms, and that's not something that human beings are prone to give, in fact we're pretty much wired to fight it tooth and nail. However much any one individual may think that he or she understands and believes in this concept, our egos are always fighting us with a “Yes, but”. Yes, but THIS is too important. Yes, but THAT won't work that way. Yes, but then I won't be in control..Yes, but. No buts. Take the leap from the lion's head.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
This thread will disappear in 3-2-1..
Posted by: some random meathead at August 08, 2015 10:46 AM (Yrjee)
2
A good start with anti-market people is to ask them where language comes from.
Posted by: filbert at August 08, 2015 10:49 AM (JvPqF)
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at August 08, 2015 10:50 AM (KzC8r)
4
Who cares about logic I got a case of the feels.
Posted by: America at August 08, 2015 10:52 AM (oZYUd)
5
Breathebeatnblinkfartlieliescreamabuseplitwink laughdrinkstumbleintinmidatehurtscratch....
You think you could do that? Nobody could. No team of people could.
****
You've obviously never met my in-laws.
You think you could do that? Nobody could. No team of people could.
****
You've obviously never met my in-laws.
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at August 08, 2015 10:53 AM (NeFrd)
6
All right. I put a space in that but Pixy ate it. Can you delete that long line WeirdDave?
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at August 08, 2015 10:54 AM (NeFrd)
7
The market (if it was really tried) would work.
But mostly what we get are rent seekers and monopolists.
Remember when deregulation was going to make air travel cheaper and easier and better? Remember that?
Now tell me what we actually have.
And no I don't have an answer, I just know that bromides of any stripe do not a policy make.
what's working now for the Lions may not work for something else. May I say because most of the time to many interests will try to control who gets what benefit and who gets the power to make the decision. Next thing you know it's all a mess and nothing works. Any time government sticks it's nose in things go to hell but how do you limit government effectively? They have all the power and have managed to always always out grow and destroy nations. since time immemorial.
Just ask Sargon II
But mostly what we get are rent seekers and monopolists.
Remember when deregulation was going to make air travel cheaper and easier and better? Remember that?
Now tell me what we actually have.
And no I don't have an answer, I just know that bromides of any stripe do not a policy make.
what's working now for the Lions may not work for something else. May I say because most of the time to many interests will try to control who gets what benefit and who gets the power to make the decision. Next thing you know it's all a mess and nothing works. Any time government sticks it's nose in things go to hell but how do you limit government effectively? They have all the power and have managed to always always out grow and destroy nations. since time immemorial.
Just ask Sargon II
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at August 08, 2015 10:55 AM (x3GpS)
8
The space is there on my screen.
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 10:56 AM (WvS3w)
9
The space is there on my screen.
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 10:56 AM (WvS3w)
****
Odd, mine went all wide with no space shown. Hmmm!?
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 10:56 AM (WvS3w)
****
Odd, mine went all wide with no space shown. Hmmm!?
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at August 08, 2015 10:58 AM (NeFrd)
10
Yay, free potatoes
Posted by: Roman Maroni at August 08, 2015 10:58 AM (3CYs7)
11
Remember when deregulation was going to make air travel cheaper and easier and better? Remember that?
Ummm......it is. By any measure. Before deregulation it would cost 2 grand to fly to Detroit, and you'd be expected to wear a suit while doing so. Now Southwest will fly me to almost anywhere in the country for $99.
Ummm......it is. By any measure. Before deregulation it would cost 2 grand to fly to Detroit, and you'd be expected to wear a suit while doing so. Now Southwest will fly me to almost anywhere in the country for $99.
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 10:59 AM (WvS3w)
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at August 08, 2015 10:59 AM (NeFrd)
13
where all the white russets at?
Posted by: Roman Maroni at August 08, 2015 10:59 AM (3CYs7)
14
a corollary nobody likes to contemplate: If lions and other species with no other means towards survival are best saved by giving them "jobs" like being hunted, the same applies to the dominant animal species on the earth, humans.
oh, not hinting anybody would be hunted, but that excess populations that are otherwise not productive are often "wasted", economically, socially, until wars and camps start up.
why I say in regards to the ruling class vs the rest of us We are being farmed.
oh, not hinting anybody would be hunted, but that excess populations that are otherwise not productive are often "wasted", economically, socially, until wars and camps start up.
why I say in regards to the ruling class vs the rest of us We are being farmed.
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at August 08, 2015 11:00 AM (nyFYZ)
15
Yeah, no. Some of you seem to genuflect in front of the God, Market.
Here in this country, we have the luxury of preserving some lands. We call them National Parks. Yellowstone and Grand Canyon, etc., these places were not preserved because they had market value (although some of them clearly do). They were preserved because we can appreciate their value in terms other than money.
If you want to argue for the survival of lions, or the right of people to hunt them, fine. Do it. But I skipped most of this piece, because Church is tomorrow, and I don't go to the market when I want to worship.
Here in this country, we have the luxury of preserving some lands. We call them National Parks. Yellowstone and Grand Canyon, etc., these places were not preserved because they had market value (although some of them clearly do). They were preserved because we can appreciate their value in terms other than money.
If you want to argue for the survival of lions, or the right of people to hunt them, fine. Do it. But I skipped most of this piece, because Church is tomorrow, and I don't go to the market when I want to worship.
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:01 AM (Dj0WE)
16
Is the Tragedy of the Commons link busted for anyone else?
I must've missed that one and I'd really like to catch it since I vacillate on it frequently.
I must've missed that one and I'd really like to catch it since I vacillate on it frequently.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at August 08, 2015 11:03 AM (nEQwk)
Posted by: Joe Biden at August 08, 2015 11:03 AM (ktNqo)
18
The argument put forward by the Left regarding health care is often that in an emergency you are not going to pick and choose a hospital based on a market assessment. Ignoring the fact that there has not been a "free market" in health care in...oh...forever let's say, the market concept still would apply in terms of all the individual decisions and allocation of that ultimately led to the available health care services.
(I'm not saying this very well I'm afraid).
(I'm not saying this very well I'm afraid).
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at August 08, 2015 11:04 AM (NeFrd)
19
There is one problem with "letting the market run itself," and it too has to do with human nature:
There is always someone who looks at any given "free" market and thinks, "I can have ALL of it!" Gaining a healthy share isn't enough for them. They have to be the Alpha Lion that gobbles up all the food and doesn't leave any for the Beta Lions.
In an Ayn Rand-ian way, I suppose some find that acceptable. Let the Big Guys put the little weaklings out of business. I don't particularly like that, though.
So the alternative is rules and control, which weirddave seems to see as the thin end of the wedge pushing in. It leads to totalitarianism. He's right.
I am conflicted here. If everyone played fair, the unfettered marketplace would be ideal. But they don't, and the only solution I see is to enact some basic rules and hope no one tries to exploit them.
It's one of those "we're boned either way" things.
There is always someone who looks at any given "free" market and thinks, "I can have ALL of it!" Gaining a healthy share isn't enough for them. They have to be the Alpha Lion that gobbles up all the food and doesn't leave any for the Beta Lions.
In an Ayn Rand-ian way, I suppose some find that acceptable. Let the Big Guys put the little weaklings out of business. I don't particularly like that, though.
So the alternative is rules and control, which weirddave seems to see as the thin end of the wedge pushing in. It leads to totalitarianism. He's right.
I am conflicted here. If everyone played fair, the unfettered marketplace would be ideal. But they don't, and the only solution I see is to enact some basic rules and hope no one tries to exploit them.
It's one of those "we're boned either way" things.
Posted by: MrScribbler at August 08, 2015 11:06 AM (0atQl)
20
Humans do what humans do. Think of the switch from Judges (belief in leaders picked by God for specific tasks) to Kings (leaders picked by political processes). Jews are still paying for it. My belief is that (you) had better do what (your) god commands you or you will be punished by God. eg we are here to justify our beliefs. My belief is that God is my friend and protects me from everything and everybody including myself. :-)
Posted by: wayItIs at August 08, 2015 11:07 AM (PGh+Q)
21
Posted by: MrScribbler at August 08, 2015 11:06 AM (0atQl)
Precisely why I find myself conflicted on the subject.
Much the same way that collectivist philosophies all work beautifully if you assume that human beings behave like ant colonies.
Precisely why I find myself conflicted on the subject.
Much the same way that collectivist philosophies all work beautifully if you assume that human beings behave like ant colonies.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at August 08, 2015 11:09 AM (nEQwk)
22
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:01 AM (Dj0WE)
There is no such natural thing called a park.
They exist within the Market, too.
There is no such natural thing called a park.
They exist within the Market, too.
Posted by: Bearded Spock at August 08, 2015 11:09 AM (MQEz6)
23
Is the Tragedy of the Commons link busted for anyone else?
It works for me. Try this:
http://minx.cc:1080/?post=352550
It works for me. Try this:
http://minx.cc:1080/?post=352550
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 11:10 AM (WvS3w)
24
What would a free market in healthcare look like Muldoon?
Only obvious thing I can think of right now is each hospital publishes a rates list for common procedures for ready comparison.
Only obvious thing I can think of right now is each hospital publishes a rates list for common procedures for ready comparison.
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at August 08, 2015 11:11 AM (sR0Zo)
25
Great post, Weirddave. Take the rest of the week off. You've earned it.
Posted by: OregonMuse at August 08, 2015 11:11 AM (/rlLE)
26
Much the same way that collectivist philosophies all work beautifully if you assume that human beings behave like ant colonies.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at August 08, 2015 11:09 AM
Sometimes I think there's more evidence (anecdotal, to be sure) of that.
Humans can be a real pain in teh butt sometimes. Maybe we'd be better off just letting the Sons of Cecil take over?
Posted by: Burn the Witch at August 08, 2015 11:09 AM
Sometimes I think there's more evidence (anecdotal, to be sure) of that.
Humans can be a real pain in teh butt sometimes. Maybe we'd be better off just letting the Sons of Cecil take over?
Posted by: MrScribbler at August 08, 2015 11:12 AM (0atQl)
27
Parks exist to boost productivity.
Humans invest in them like companies invest in free coffee at work.
Humans invest in them like companies invest in free coffee at work.
Posted by: Bearded Spock at August 08, 2015 11:13 AM (MQEz6)
28
It's one of those "we're boned either way" things.
Posted by: MrScribbler at August 08, 2015 11:06 AM (0atQl)
True. We are. The folly however, is thinking there's some perfect way we haven't yet found, and if we just tweak things this way or that, we'll get there.
No, we won't. Because we're human. We're sinners (or use whatever other term you like). No matter how good a system you design, someone is going to come along and muck it up.
The only "solution" then, is to tweak it the other way... which eventually leads to mucking it up THAT way.
It's a continuous thing.
Posted by: MrScribbler at August 08, 2015 11:06 AM (0atQl)
True. We are. The folly however, is thinking there's some perfect way we haven't yet found, and if we just tweak things this way or that, we'll get there.
No, we won't. Because we're human. We're sinners (or use whatever other term you like). No matter how good a system you design, someone is going to come along and muck it up.
The only "solution" then, is to tweak it the other way... which eventually leads to mucking it up THAT way.
It's a continuous thing.
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:13 AM (Dj0WE)
29
Excellent analogy, WeirdDave.
BurtTC, does the market preclude charity? Let's say a group of people got together to purchase the land surrounding the national parks (don't know how feasible that is and it raises a lot of other questions I won't go into now) and then got people to pay to visit the parks like they do now?
Private individuals support museums and things like that, right?
I'm not sure your example necessarily contradicts Dave's points.
And I don't see how allowing the market to work is an idol. It seems to me that it can be viewed as entrusting ourselves to God's sovereignty while we do our part to help the needy *ourselves* a he commanded.
I'm not an expert in this stuff, but this is just my 2 cents.
BurtTC, does the market preclude charity? Let's say a group of people got together to purchase the land surrounding the national parks (don't know how feasible that is and it raises a lot of other questions I won't go into now) and then got people to pay to visit the parks like they do now?
Private individuals support museums and things like that, right?
I'm not sure your example necessarily contradicts Dave's points.
And I don't see how allowing the market to work is an idol. It seems to me that it can be viewed as entrusting ourselves to God's sovereignty while we do our part to help the needy *ourselves* a he commanded.
I'm not an expert in this stuff, but this is just my 2 cents.
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 11:13 AM (sAXJ5)
30
meh, doesn't seem to work for me at this location. I'll have to try again when I get home.
Thanks though.
Thanks though.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at August 08, 2015 11:13 AM (nEQwk)
31
Miss me yet?
Posted by: Jon Stewart at August 08, 2015 11:14 AM (gwG9s)
32
Much the same way that collectivist philosophies all work beautifully if you assume that human beings behave like ant colonies.
*****
Rather than insect colonies I like Hayek's formulation of the individual versus the collective. I don't want to misquote but to paraphrase he talks in terms of individual spheres of influence, within your sphere you are the master of your domain with total freedom. Society occurs at the interface between spheres.
(I always pictured this as a big pile of soap foam. Hard to exist as a single bubble apart from the foam but at the same time the surface tension between bubbles helps the society hold its shape.)
*****
Rather than insect colonies I like Hayek's formulation of the individual versus the collective. I don't want to misquote but to paraphrase he talks in terms of individual spheres of influence, within your sphere you are the master of your domain with total freedom. Society occurs at the interface between spheres.
(I always pictured this as a big pile of soap foam. Hard to exist as a single bubble apart from the foam but at the same time the surface tension between bubbles helps the society hold its shape.)
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at August 08, 2015 11:15 AM (NeFrd)
33
There is always someone who looks at any given "free" market and thinks, "I can have ALL
of it!" Gaining a healthy share isn't enough for them. They have to be
the Alpha Lion that gobbles up all the food and doesn't leave any for
the Beta Lions.
There is a role for regulation in the big "M" Market: Umpire. What you're discussing is people using force to distort the Market - Alpha Man pointing a gun at you and making you buy a particular product. Government's job is to prevent that.
And yes, I do understand that we're in "how many angels can dance on the point of a pin" territory. That's a circle that can never be squared. Fundamental concepts posts are usually about theory.
of it!" Gaining a healthy share isn't enough for them. They have to be
the Alpha Lion that gobbles up all the food and doesn't leave any for
the Beta Lions.
There is a role for regulation in the big "M" Market: Umpire. What you're discussing is people using force to distort the Market - Alpha Man pointing a gun at you and making you buy a particular product. Government's job is to prevent that.
And yes, I do understand that we're in "how many angels can dance on the point of a pin" territory. That's a circle that can never be squared. Fundamental concepts posts are usually about theory.
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 11:15 AM (WvS3w)
34
Only obvious thing I can think of right now is each hospital publishes a rates list for common procedures for ready comparison.
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at August 08, 2015 11:11 AM (sR0Zo)
This.
I just hate that for all and any medical procedures I supposed to sign a paper promising to be responsible for paying BEFORE I know what the charges are. Crazy.
The only exception I can think of are orthodontic charges - they gave me a list of charges and a contract ahead of time before I signed anything.
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at August 08, 2015 11:11 AM (sR0Zo)
This.
I just hate that for all and any medical procedures I supposed to sign a paper promising to be responsible for paying BEFORE I know what the charges are. Crazy.
The only exception I can think of are orthodontic charges - they gave me a list of charges and a contract ahead of time before I signed anything.
Posted by: @votermom at August 08, 2015 11:15 AM (cbfNE)
35
Have a guy at work still bitter that Reagan cut the parks budget and he lost the great job he had with the park service. So if parks have employees they are businesses and form a (socialist) market. See China for biggest examples of Government Owned Enterprises and how much they (don't) help a country prosper.
Posted by: doesn't mean what... at August 08, 2015 11:16 AM (PGh+Q)
36
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:01 AM (Dj0WE)
There is no such natural thing called a park.
They exist within the Market, too.
Posted by: Bearded Spock at August 08, 2015 11:09 AM (MQEz6)
Right. There is no God but Market.
Or maybe somebody decided they wanted to preserve some green space? For fun?
What's "fun," you ask? I can't explain it to you. Ask Market.
There is no such natural thing called a park.
They exist within the Market, too.
Posted by: Bearded Spock at August 08, 2015 11:09 AM (MQEz6)
Right. There is no God but Market.
Or maybe somebody decided they wanted to preserve some green space? For fun?
What's "fun," you ask? I can't explain it to you. Ask Market.
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:16 AM (Dj0WE)
37
We can't let the market dictate medical care, medical care is different!
Our thoughts exactly. In that same vein, Jeb 2016, regardless of what you want!
Our thoughts exactly. In that same vein, Jeb 2016, regardless of what you want!
Posted by: GOPe at August 08, 2015 11:17 AM (FcR7P)
38
I very much appreciate this site and the posts and comments. They are playing a good part in ensuring my sanity these days. Just wanted to mention that. Thanks to all.
Posted by: rrpjr at August 08, 2015 11:17 AM (s/yC1)
39
Imagine if you lived in a neighborhood where lions and tigers prowled around freely. They attacked and killed pets and livestock and even people.
Imagine further that elephants roamed freely in your neighborhood. They crushed all the crops and vegetation they didn't eat, not to mention knocking over fences and houses.
Then imagine the government told you there was nothing you could do about it.
Would you have a romantic view of the these animals? You'd just view them as pests. How would you feel about poachers? You'd feel grateful for them.
Give people a vested economic interest in protecting something, and they will protect it.
Imagine further that elephants roamed freely in your neighborhood. They crushed all the crops and vegetation they didn't eat, not to mention knocking over fences and houses.
Then imagine the government told you there was nothing you could do about it.
Would you have a romantic view of the these animals? You'd just view them as pests. How would you feel about poachers? You'd feel grateful for them.
Give people a vested economic interest in protecting something, and they will protect it.
Posted by: I Work for Dick Jones at August 08, 2015 11:17 AM (5YOwm)
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 11:17 AM (WvS3w)
41
I had to read through a textbook by Paul Krugman (a good friend was taking a macro-economics class) where he extolled the free market, and stated that controlled economies were inefficient, that is, not operating at some mythical "best" level. He then stated that some state control was essential, in spite of the inefficiencies, in pursuit of "societal goals" that only the state could encourage.
Now, to be honest, building a bullet train from Sacramento to San Diego might be one of those goals. Making people pay for health insurance might be one of those. Making employers pay $15/hr minimum for workers to guarantee votes might be also.
He failed to explain how it would not be used to turn the economy into a corporate state where all economic decisions are influenced by regulations enforced by bureaucrats who are more interested in lining their own pockets and supporting their special friends, since that can be seen as a "societal goal" as well
Now, to be honest, building a bullet train from Sacramento to San Diego might be one of those goals. Making people pay for health insurance might be one of those. Making employers pay $15/hr minimum for workers to guarantee votes might be also.
He failed to explain how it would not be used to turn the economy into a corporate state where all economic decisions are influenced by regulations enforced by bureaucrats who are more interested in lining their own pockets and supporting their special friends, since that can be seen as a "societal goal" as well
Posted by: Kindltot at August 08, 2015 11:18 AM (3pRHP)
42
(I always pictured this as a big pile of soap
foam. Hard to exist as a single bubble apart from the foam but at the
same time the surface tension between bubbles helps the society hold its
shape.)
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at August 08, 2015 11:15 AM
I dunno. Sounds like ant colonies to me. Hayek was probably too much of a stuffed shirt to come right out and say "ant colony."
Too bad. It's quite liberating to reduce concepts from Pompous and Important to Really Dumb Basic Stuff.
foam. Hard to exist as a single bubble apart from the foam but at the
same time the surface tension between bubbles helps the society hold its
shape.)
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at August 08, 2015 11:15 AM
I dunno. Sounds like ant colonies to me. Hayek was probably too much of a stuffed shirt to come right out and say "ant colony."
Too bad. It's quite liberating to reduce concepts from Pompous and Important to Really Dumb Basic Stuff.
Posted by: MrScribbler at August 08, 2015 11:18 AM (0atQl)
43
My ex thought my stuff was her free market.
Posted by: torabora at August 08, 2015 11:19 AM (i1laM)
44
Great post!
These things happen even when there is no "market" to profit. Perfect example is the DC Slug lines that developed when they made the major roads into/out of DC HOV only during rush hour. People wanted to continue driving to work, but they couldn't as a single driver. So an informal temporary passenger pick-up points developed so that people who wanted a lift into DC (not on the Metro) could hop into a single commuter's car and get a lift to a designated drop-off point in DC. Win-win!!
A new police chief in the late 90's arrived and decided that he was not pleased w/the traffic created by these drop-off/pick-up spots downtown during rush hour and had his people start ticketing them. Think that lasted 1-2 weeks before there was a huge pushback from people. They didn't need anyone to manage this system that works just fine w/out any city/state authority's oversight
These things happen even when there is no "market" to profit. Perfect example is the DC Slug lines that developed when they made the major roads into/out of DC HOV only during rush hour. People wanted to continue driving to work, but they couldn't as a single driver. So an informal temporary passenger pick-up points developed so that people who wanted a lift into DC (not on the Metro) could hop into a single commuter's car and get a lift to a designated drop-off point in DC. Win-win!!
A new police chief in the late 90's arrived and decided that he was not pleased w/the traffic created by these drop-off/pick-up spots downtown during rush hour and had his people start ticketing them. Think that lasted 1-2 weeks before there was a huge pushback from people. They didn't need anyone to manage this system that works just fine w/out any city/state authority's oversight
Posted by: Lizzy at August 08, 2015 11:21 AM (NOIQH)
45
Finally, I'm getting some social media coverage. It's about time.
Posted by: Zombie Cecil at August 08, 2015 11:21 AM (Dwehj)
46
>>Here in this country, we have the luxury of preserving some lands. We call them National Parks. Yellowstone and Grand Canyon, etc., these places were not preserved because they had market value (although some of them clearly do). They were preserved because we can appreciate their value in terms other than money.
Well this is the problem with the Cecil argument as well. The lions do indeed of economic value to Africans other than for their hunting value, tourism.
Many African countries have set aside enormous tracts of land as parks where the animals roam freely and tourists pay a lot of money to see them in the wild. Kruger Park in South Africa is bigger than the sate of Rhode Island by a lot and just the other day a bundh of poachers were caught killing Rhinos for their tusks. But Rhinos don't stir the imagination of lefties the way lions do so nobody cares.
Cecil was one such lion and he was allegedly lured from that sanctuary and killed. I'd venture to say the $30K fee received for hunting him was a fraction of what he helped bring in in tourist dollars.
Poaching for elephants got so bad in South Africa that the game wardens were recently given the authority to shoot at poachers on site not just because bleeding hearts didn't like killing elephants for ivory but because it was recognized that they were costing the country big money in the loss of tourist dollars.
I don't have a problem with hunters killing for food, I think a lot less of big game hunters that kill for trophy's but as long as it's done in such a way that it is economically beneficial to the people and doesn't wipe out a species then so be it. Luring an animal out of a preserver where they provide economic benefit just to kill them is not just awful it's economically stupid.
Well this is the problem with the Cecil argument as well. The lions do indeed of economic value to Africans other than for their hunting value, tourism.
Many African countries have set aside enormous tracts of land as parks where the animals roam freely and tourists pay a lot of money to see them in the wild. Kruger Park in South Africa is bigger than the sate of Rhode Island by a lot and just the other day a bundh of poachers were caught killing Rhinos for their tusks. But Rhinos don't stir the imagination of lefties the way lions do so nobody cares.
Cecil was one such lion and he was allegedly lured from that sanctuary and killed. I'd venture to say the $30K fee received for hunting him was a fraction of what he helped bring in in tourist dollars.
Poaching for elephants got so bad in South Africa that the game wardens were recently given the authority to shoot at poachers on site not just because bleeding hearts didn't like killing elephants for ivory but because it was recognized that they were costing the country big money in the loss of tourist dollars.
I don't have a problem with hunters killing for food, I think a lot less of big game hunters that kill for trophy's but as long as it's done in such a way that it is economically beneficial to the people and doesn't wipe out a species then so be it. Luring an animal out of a preserver where they provide economic benefit just to kill them is not just awful it's economically stupid.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 11:21 AM (OGm46)
47
What would a free market in healthcare look like Muldoon?
****
There's more to it than just prices for services, although that is part of it. As with other examples mentioned above there should be some safeguards. But if you look at the degree of credentialism, the degree of centrally command at play in terms of physician supply (# of med school slots, # of residency slots for training, etc.) there is room for increased market responsiveness by deregulating.
The third party payer mechanism (both private and public) creates a huge degree of insulation against price sensitivity. Most providers and most patients have no idea what a given service costs, much less what a given service actually should cost (i.e. value) or would cost if given the chance to find its own level.
****
There's more to it than just prices for services, although that is part of it. As with other examples mentioned above there should be some safeguards. But if you look at the degree of credentialism, the degree of centrally command at play in terms of physician supply (# of med school slots, # of residency slots for training, etc.) there is room for increased market responsiveness by deregulating.
The third party payer mechanism (both private and public) creates a huge degree of insulation against price sensitivity. Most providers and most patients have no idea what a given service costs, much less what a given service actually should cost (i.e. value) or would cost if given the chance to find its own level.
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at August 08, 2015 11:22 AM (NeFrd)
48
Here in this country, we have the luxury of
preserving some lands. We call them National Parks. Yellowstone and
Grand Canyon, etc., these places were not preserved because they had
market value (although some of them clearly do). They were preserved
because we can appreciate their value in terms other than money.
Posted by: BurtTC
They were preserved because there was a market (not necessarily a market of money) to value them. It was a political market, which can easily be distorted through types of persuasion.
Even Church, has markets. Methodist, Baptist, Anglican, Roman Catholic. What precisely suits your spiritual need? And interestingly, there are monopolies in some countries, where there is a State Religion.
Where are the Shakers? There used to be Shakers in this country, but now they're gone. They selected obsolescence (they did not reproduce). A lot of "religions" disappear or lose popularity because they cease to fulfill the needs of their worshippers (customers).
Markets aren't God. God is the Supreme Being, Creator of the World. A market is just a mechanism for people to determine the cost and value of a particular item (good or service) and decide what it is worth to them to buy it. The market mechanism assigns value based on what a large or small population of people seem willing to pay for it.
Empirically, it works. There is no proof, QED, that it exists without people excercising choice. But it always exists. Even in Soviet Russia, the rules for markets made themselves felt. The Soviets wanted "free health care" for all, and made it cheap, and the supply disappeared because at that price, it was all used up.
preserving some lands. We call them National Parks. Yellowstone and
Grand Canyon, etc., these places were not preserved because they had
market value (although some of them clearly do). They were preserved
because we can appreciate their value in terms other than money.
Posted by: BurtTC
They were preserved because there was a market (not necessarily a market of money) to value them. It was a political market, which can easily be distorted through types of persuasion.
Even Church, has markets. Methodist, Baptist, Anglican, Roman Catholic. What precisely suits your spiritual need? And interestingly, there are monopolies in some countries, where there is a State Religion.
Where are the Shakers? There used to be Shakers in this country, but now they're gone. They selected obsolescence (they did not reproduce). A lot of "religions" disappear or lose popularity because they cease to fulfill the needs of their worshippers (customers).
Markets aren't God. God is the Supreme Being, Creator of the World. A market is just a mechanism for people to determine the cost and value of a particular item (good or service) and decide what it is worth to them to buy it. The market mechanism assigns value based on what a large or small population of people seem willing to pay for it.
Empirically, it works. There is no proof, QED, that it exists without people excercising choice. But it always exists. Even in Soviet Russia, the rules for markets made themselves felt. The Soviets wanted "free health care" for all, and made it cheap, and the supply disappeared because at that price, it was all used up.
Posted by: Bossy Conservative...a rube in America at August 08, 2015 11:22 AM (+1T7c)
49
Jon Stewart leaving tells us that like Daniel he can read the writing on the wall. He made his money. Now lets see if he can keep it. He knows what level he belongs within Dante's Inferno.
Posted by: prognosticator at August 08, 2015 11:22 AM (PGh+Q)
50
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:16 AM (Dj0WE)
There was no such thing as Yellowstone Park until we created it.
We assigned an area of land the designation Park.
We now spend resources to maintain that status and use this new thing to assist us.
There was no such thing as Yellowstone Park until we created it.
We assigned an area of land the designation Park.
We now spend resources to maintain that status and use this new thing to assist us.
Posted by: Bearded Spock at August 08, 2015 11:22 AM (MQEz6)
51
As people have stated above, any system humans run will be screwed up because: humans. I think a free market is the best we can hope for.
To go all biblical, it seems to me that an honest and just free market is what was prescribed in the OT. No cheating, no oppression of the poor by more powerful folks. Each citizen meant to help the less fortunate, not by giving them handouts but by allowing the poor to work for their food by picking the leftover grain from the harvest themselves.
God even warned them when they started agitating for a king that the king would seize their property and children for his own use, so perhaps they might want to reconsider.
Also, I don't think the free market and some sort of limited government are incompatible.
To go all biblical, it seems to me that an honest and just free market is what was prescribed in the OT. No cheating, no oppression of the poor by more powerful folks. Each citizen meant to help the less fortunate, not by giving them handouts but by allowing the poor to work for their food by picking the leftover grain from the harvest themselves.
God even warned them when they started agitating for a king that the king would seize their property and children for his own use, so perhaps they might want to reconsider.
Also, I don't think the free market and some sort of limited government are incompatible.
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 11:23 AM (sAXJ5)
52
Excellent analogy, WeirdDave.
BurtTC, does the market preclude charity? Let's say a group of people got together to purchase the land surrounding the national parks (don't know how feasible that is and it raises a lot of other questions I won't go into now) and then got people to pay to visit the parks like they do now?
Private individuals support museums and things like that, right?
I'm not sure your example necessarily contradicts Dave's points.
And I don't see how allowing the market to work is an idol. It seems to me that it can be viewed as entrusting ourselves to God's sovereignty while we do our part to help the needy *ourselves* a he commanded.
I'm not an expert in this stuff, but this is just my 2 cents.
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 11:13 AM (sAXJ5)
I'm not trying to contradict Dave's points, just saying there are limits to what The Market can do, and some people get very uncomfortable when you suggest that.
Look at it this way: we know the industrialists of the 19th century thought they had a moral obligation to philanthropy. Which was nice, and I guess it sorta worked well. We now have many parks and libraries and whatnot, because of them. Even today, a Bill Gates thinks of himself more as a philanthropist than a businessman.
Maybe it's a natural progression. But maybe it's not. Maybe greed really CAN be a bad thing, when practiced by too many people, with not enough philanthropists in their midst.
Which is another way of saying The Market is morally neutral. You can be a sinner, and win at The Market. You can be a saint, and do the same.
So that "sinners and saints" part of this has nothing, really, to do with The Market. It's something else.
What else? Well, now we're talking about something of value that has nothing to do with The Market. Are we open to having that discussion?
BurtTC, does the market preclude charity? Let's say a group of people got together to purchase the land surrounding the national parks (don't know how feasible that is and it raises a lot of other questions I won't go into now) and then got people to pay to visit the parks like they do now?
Private individuals support museums and things like that, right?
I'm not sure your example necessarily contradicts Dave's points.
And I don't see how allowing the market to work is an idol. It seems to me that it can be viewed as entrusting ourselves to God's sovereignty while we do our part to help the needy *ourselves* a he commanded.
I'm not an expert in this stuff, but this is just my 2 cents.
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 11:13 AM (sAXJ5)
I'm not trying to contradict Dave's points, just saying there are limits to what The Market can do, and some people get very uncomfortable when you suggest that.
Look at it this way: we know the industrialists of the 19th century thought they had a moral obligation to philanthropy. Which was nice, and I guess it sorta worked well. We now have many parks and libraries and whatnot, because of them. Even today, a Bill Gates thinks of himself more as a philanthropist than a businessman.
Maybe it's a natural progression. But maybe it's not. Maybe greed really CAN be a bad thing, when practiced by too many people, with not enough philanthropists in their midst.
Which is another way of saying The Market is morally neutral. You can be a sinner, and win at The Market. You can be a saint, and do the same.
So that "sinners and saints" part of this has nothing, really, to do with The Market. It's something else.
What else? Well, now we're talking about something of value that has nothing to do with The Market. Are we open to having that discussion?
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:24 AM (Dj0WE)
53
11 Remember when deregulation was going to make air travel cheaper and easier and better? Remember that?
Ummm......it is. By any measure. Before deregulation it would cost 2 grand to fly to Detroit, and you'd be expected to wear a suit while doing so. Now Southwest will fly me to almost anywhere in the country for $99.
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 10:59 AM (WvS3w)
----------------------
Yes. I remember too. A ticket from the east coast to Love Field in Dallas cost over $400 round-trip back in the late 60's and early 70's, which is around $1500 to $2000 in today's money.
But the seats in coach were much roomier, with a meal and three free drinks. So the free market traded all of that for cheaper air fares and the market has flourished. All I want to do is get from A to B as quickly as possible. Overseas flights, I'll pay extra for the added comfort.
Ummm......it is. By any measure. Before deregulation it would cost 2 grand to fly to Detroit, and you'd be expected to wear a suit while doing so. Now Southwest will fly me to almost anywhere in the country for $99.
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 10:59 AM (WvS3w)
----------------------
Yes. I remember too. A ticket from the east coast to Love Field in Dallas cost over $400 round-trip back in the late 60's and early 70's, which is around $1500 to $2000 in today's money.
But the seats in coach were much roomier, with a meal and three free drinks. So the free market traded all of that for cheaper air fares and the market has flourished. All I want to do is get from A to B as quickly as possible. Overseas flights, I'll pay extra for the added comfort.
Posted by: Soona at August 08, 2015 11:24 AM (P25Hh)
54
we have a park locally called Corbetts Glen which is/was just the private land of the Corbett family, who still live there in a surprisingly modest house.
http://rocwiki.org/Corbett%27s_Glen_Nature_Park
They opened the land up to public use. You'd expect the Tragedy of the Commons would have trashed the place in short order. Never happened.
Special case? Dunno. It seems to speak towards a lot of the issues we're batting around though.
http://rocwiki.org/Corbett%27s_Glen_Nature_Park
They opened the land up to public use. You'd expect the Tragedy of the Commons would have trashed the place in short order. Never happened.
Special case? Dunno. It seems to speak towards a lot of the issues we're batting around though.
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at August 08, 2015 11:24 AM (ArXmK)
55
I now reside in Jellystone Park, along with Zombie Yogi and Zombie Boo Boo.
Posted by: Zombie Cecil at August 08, 2015 11:24 AM (Dwehj)
56
related, sorta...
WASHINGTON, Aug. 7 (UPI) -- President Barack Obama
on Friday signed legislation designating three new wilderness areas in
Idaho, providing federal protection to more that 275,000 acres of land,
the White House said.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 7 (UPI) -- President Barack Obama
on Friday signed legislation designating three new wilderness areas in
Idaho, providing federal protection to more that 275,000 acres of land,
the White House said.
Posted by: some random meathead at August 08, 2015 11:25 AM (Yrjee)
57
Great post, WeirdDave - Glad to have you back :-)
Posted by: speedster1 on the iPad at August 08, 2015 11:25 AM (1brdf)
58
OK related very much to your Tragedy of the Commons let me see if I can do this right:
Yellen and Bernanke are walking down the road when they see two big steaming piles of crap.
Yellen tells Bernanke that she'll give him $10,000 to eat one of the piles of crap. So he does.
Bernanke thumbs his winnings and tells Yellen that he'll give her the $10,000 back if she eats the other pile of crap. So she does.
Now they're both sitting around not feeing very good when Yellen remarks that maybe this whole thing was a bad idea.
Bernanke replies "You're just thinking of it the wrong way. This was abrilliant move! We increased GDP by $20,000 and added two jobs!!!"
Something like that
OK related very much to your Tragedy of the Commons let me see if I can do this right:
Yellen and Bernanke are walking down the road when they see two big steaming piles of crap.
Yellen tells Bernanke that she'll give him $10,000 to eat one of the piles of crap. So he does.
Bernanke thumbs his winnings and tells Yellen that he'll give her the $10,000 back if she eats the other pile of crap. So she does.
Now they're both sitting around not feeing very good when Yellen remarks that maybe this whole thing was a bad idea.
Bernanke replies "You're just thinking of it the wrong way. This was abrilliant move! We increased GDP by $20,000 and added two jobs!!!"
Something like that
Posted by: MAx at August 08, 2015 11:25 AM (LAliD)
59
Markets are part of God's law. When someone disobeys God's laws they punish themselves. The Ten Commandments are rules to create a functioning Socialist Society. A Socialist Paradise will be possible when people quit committing adultery. Till then count on markets in everything. :-)
Posted by: philosopher at August 08, 2015 11:27 AM (PGh+Q)
60
Although I regret to report that Zombie Boo Boo is no longer with us. I ate him. Mmm, delicious.
Posted by: Zombie Cecil at August 08, 2015 11:28 AM (Dwehj)
61
Wow, is the great GOP purge starting today? If so, mark this morning as the start.
Last night, Erik Erikson, owner of RedState.com and the person in charge of the big RedState conference going on right now (where all the candidates are speaking) dis-invited Trump from the conference after his sexist comments about Megyn Kelley.
In turn, Breitbart.com, the former conservative news website founded by famed and deceased conservative Andrew Breitbart, declared that it will no longer post any news from the Red State conference, due to Trump being banned from the conference. Breitbart.com has gone from a conservative news site to an angry, anti-establishment site, hell-bent on supporting Trump.
Last night, Erik Erikson, owner of RedState.com and the person in charge of the big RedState conference going on right now (where all the candidates are speaking) dis-invited Trump from the conference after his sexist comments about Megyn Kelley.
In turn, Breitbart.com, the former conservative news website founded by famed and deceased conservative Andrew Breitbart, declared that it will no longer post any news from the Red State conference, due to Trump being banned from the conference. Breitbart.com has gone from a conservative news site to an angry, anti-establishment site, hell-bent on supporting Trump.
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:28 AM (cojlL)
62
"The lions do indeed of economic value to Africans other than for their hunting value, tourism.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 11:21 AM"
Under a system of legalized hunting, you would get more lions, not fewer, because someone will have a vested economic interest in increasing the number of lions.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 11:21 AM"
Under a system of legalized hunting, you would get more lions, not fewer, because someone will have a vested economic interest in increasing the number of lions.
Posted by: I Work for Dick Jones at August 08, 2015 11:29 AM (5YOwm)
Posted by: MAx at August 08, 2015 11:29 AM (LAliD)
64
It feels like a purge is starting. Feels like the true conservatives and establishment conservatives are moving to get the wackos like Trump and his followers, out of the party.
The GOP needs a purge. Trump and his followers are not conservatives. They are not even republicans. They are angry, less-educated, mostly unemployed white men bent on burning the whole system to the ground, which would destroy everyone, including themselves. After all, if your life is already a wreck, as is the case with most Trump followers, why not bring everyone down with you?
The GOP needs a purge. Trump and his followers are not conservatives. They are not even republicans. They are angry, less-educated, mostly unemployed white men bent on burning the whole system to the ground, which would destroy everyone, including themselves. After all, if your life is already a wreck, as is the case with most Trump followers, why not bring everyone down with you?
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:29 AM (cojlL)
65
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 11:23 AM
I have to say a lot of modern-day politicians and "entrepreneurs" missed those parts of the Bible, chique.
A shame, really. The injunctions therein were not meant to make anyone suffer back then, and wouldn't today.
But of course they didn't offer any scope for advancement to modern go-getting Big Business types, either.
I have to say a lot of modern-day politicians and "entrepreneurs" missed those parts of the Bible, chique.
A shame, really. The injunctions therein were not meant to make anyone suffer back then, and wouldn't today.
But of course they didn't offer any scope for advancement to modern go-getting Big Business types, either.
Posted by: MrScribbler at August 08, 2015 11:29 AM (0atQl)
66
"It's obviously impossible. In no time at all the body you were trying to control would be flopping on the ground babbling incoherently and wetting its pants."
Wait, so you're telling me that there's a shrunken pilot operating Joe Biden?
Wait, so you're telling me that there's a shrunken pilot operating Joe Biden?
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 08, 2015 11:30 AM (1CroS)
67
African Lions are their version of the timber wolves here. They have no monetary value and are a pain in the ass. But the federal government at the beheast of the watermellons made them "protected" and released them on the ranching land to prey on cattle and sheep. So what have the ranchers done? Shoot shovel and shut up. In act, that is where that phrase came from.
Posted by: Vic at August 08, 2015 11:30 AM (GpgJl)
68
>>Under a system of legalized hunting, you would get more lions, not fewer, because someone will have a vested economic interest in increasing the number of lions.
It is legal to hunt them, just not in parks or by luring them out of parks to kill them.
It is legal to hunt them, just not in parks or by luring them out of parks to kill them.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 11:30 AM (OGm46)
69
Luring an animal out of a preserver where they provide economic benefit just to kill them is not just awful it's economically stupid.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 11:21 AM (OGm46)
You're right, but not just economically stupid, but possibly morally so. Which is generally why people are so upset about this. I don't think I have given the whole "Cecil" thing more than 30 seconds of serious thought since it happened, but I happen to believe if there are Americans who are outraged about it, and even without thinking through the moral relativity of whether they care more about lions than humans, this is something we CAN discuss, in terms completely outside of The Market.
Can't we?
Does it always have to be about that? If it does, then... as I said upthread, this starts to look more like worship, rather than The Market as a useful tool.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 11:21 AM (OGm46)
You're right, but not just economically stupid, but possibly morally so. Which is generally why people are so upset about this. I don't think I have given the whole "Cecil" thing more than 30 seconds of serious thought since it happened, but I happen to believe if there are Americans who are outraged about it, and even without thinking through the moral relativity of whether they care more about lions than humans, this is something we CAN discuss, in terms completely outside of The Market.
Can't we?
Does it always have to be about that? If it does, then... as I said upthread, this starts to look more like worship, rather than The Market as a useful tool.
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:30 AM (Dj0WE)
70
Of course, the obvious outcome of a purge if it happens, is that Trump runs as a third-party candidate. Fine by me. I would rather Trump run as a third-party, and hurt the GOP chances in 16, than Trump remain in the GOP, and utterly destroy the party from within, thus guaranteeing the democrats dominate the government for the next several election cycles.
The party needs a purge. Time to get rid of the irrational, non-conservative, non-republican, haters
The party needs a purge. Time to get rid of the irrational, non-conservative, non-republican, haters
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:31 AM (cojlL)
71
The Lefties don't want you to think about healthcare markets.
Random high-cost medical needs can be met by catostrophic insurance. So for the individual the market is in the cost of the insurance, not the procedures.
Other things can be insured too, but the Mariet will show you that many things should be out-of-pocket.
The other side of the Market, the providers, will respond in the direction that gets them the most business.
McDonald's could make way more money by charging you $20 for a burger, but only on paper.
The Market will not provide a perfect system, but it will provide the knowledge you need to see where and how humans should intervene to get a good and acceptable system.
Random high-cost medical needs can be met by catostrophic insurance. So for the individual the market is in the cost of the insurance, not the procedures.
Other things can be insured too, but the Mariet will show you that many things should be out-of-pocket.
The other side of the Market, the providers, will respond in the direction that gets them the most business.
McDonald's could make way more money by charging you $20 for a burger, but only on paper.
The Market will not provide a perfect system, but it will provide the knowledge you need to see where and how humans should intervene to get a good and acceptable system.
Posted by: Bearded Spock at August 08, 2015 11:31 AM (MQEz6)
72
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:28 AM
And Tepid Air, vassal of Salem Communications (co-sponsor of the CNN "debate"), has gone all "yay Erick! Booo Donald!"
You pays your money and takes your choice. Personally, I'm down with the Trump side in this pissing contest.
And Tepid Air, vassal of Salem Communications (co-sponsor of the CNN "debate"), has gone all "yay Erick! Booo Donald!"
You pays your money and takes your choice. Personally, I'm down with the Trump side in this pissing contest.
Posted by: MrScribbler at August 08, 2015 11:32 AM (0atQl)
73
Market just...are. A market can exist for any commodity, service, property.
Why don't we turn the whole country into a national park? Politically, that would be suicide. And the "capital" exchanged for parks, and similar entities, is more political than monetary.
Assigning value to a level of clean air and water, made the various governments create regulation to clean and create clean air and water standards. If the regulation becomes economically overbearing, then the price becomes too high and there is a political pushback (triggered by real or perceived economic hardship).
Why don't we turn the whole country into a national park? Politically, that would be suicide. And the "capital" exchanged for parks, and similar entities, is more political than monetary.
Assigning value to a level of clean air and water, made the various governments create regulation to clean and create clean air and water standards. If the regulation becomes economically overbearing, then the price becomes too high and there is a political pushback (triggered by real or perceived economic hardship).
Posted by: Bossy Conservative...a rube in America at August 08, 2015 11:33 AM (+1T7c)
74
Like Soylent Green, the Market is people. When people are virtuous, society prospers. (Sure, there will be income inequality, but that's life.) When people abandon virtue, a whole bunch of people will get hurt.
People suck, which is why utopia on this earth is impossible and we have to settle for what works best
People suck, which is why utopia on this earth is impossible and we have to settle for what works best
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 11:33 AM (sAXJ5)
75
58 Goddamit Yellen was Krugman in the original but I couldn't remember his name.
Do with it as you wish
58 Goddamit Yellen was Krugman in the original but I couldn't remember his name.
Do with it as you wish
Posted by: MAx at August 08, 2015 11:34 AM (LAliD)
76
Also, I don't think the free market and some sort of limited government are incompatible.
======
Absent enforcement of control and laws, I think a free market inexorably leads to selling of human flesh. Whether slavery or organs whatever.
======
Absent enforcement of control and laws, I think a free market inexorably leads to selling of human flesh. Whether slavery or organs whatever.
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at August 08, 2015 11:34 AM (VvBHL)
77
They were preserved because there was a market (not necessarily a market of money) to value them. It was a political market, which can easily be distorted through types of persuasion.
Posted by: Bossy Conservative...a rube in America at August 08, 2015 11:22 AM (+1T7c)
Serious question: do we really NEED the word "market" to describe things of value that are not monetary?
Posted by: Bossy Conservative...a rube in America at August 08, 2015 11:22 AM (+1T7c)
Serious question: do we really NEED the word "market" to describe things of value that are not monetary?
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:35 AM (Dj0WE)
78
Thanks for pinching that loaf off in a perfectly nice thread Greymarch.
Kindly wipe up now and take your leavings with you.
Kindly wipe up now and take your leavings with you.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at August 08, 2015 11:35 AM (nEQwk)
79
A lot of conflicts in logic in this thread have to do with most words not having a precise definition. I a family still lives on park land then they have a lot to do with it not being trashed. A lot of the park public policy is an attempt to heard people back into big cities. Big cities work just fine until the (good) people leave. New Jersey is called the Garden State and played an important role in the founding of this country. All the people I have had contact with from New Jersey need retraining in public manners. I'm guessing it is because they never knew who their father was.
Posted by: dictionary at August 08, 2015 11:35 AM (PGh+Q)
Posted by: OregonMuse at August 08, 2015 11:37 AM (/rlLE)
81
Poaching for elephants got so bad in South Africa that the game wardens
were recently given the authority to shoot at poachers on site not just
because bleeding hearts didn't like killing elephants for ivory but
because it was recognized that they were costing the country big money
in the loss of tourist dollars.
I don't have a problem with hunters killing for food, I think a lot
less of big game hunters that kill for trophy's but as long as it's done
in such a way that it is economically beneficial to the people and
doesn't wipe out a species then so be it. Luring an animal out of a
preserver where they provide economic benefit just to kill them is not
just awful it's economically stupid.
Jack, you should read Maetenloch's piece linked in the OP. He gave facts and figures, an elephant population in Kenya declining drastically when it was only "protected" verses other populations thriving and increasing in number when they were managed for profit, including hunting.
were recently given the authority to shoot at poachers on site not just
because bleeding hearts didn't like killing elephants for ivory but
because it was recognized that they were costing the country big money
in the loss of tourist dollars.
I don't have a problem with hunters killing for food, I think a lot
less of big game hunters that kill for trophy's but as long as it's done
in such a way that it is economically beneficial to the people and
doesn't wipe out a species then so be it. Luring an animal out of a
preserver where they provide economic benefit just to kill them is not
just awful it's economically stupid.
Jack, you should read Maetenloch's piece linked in the OP. He gave facts and figures, an elephant population in Kenya declining drastically when it was only "protected" verses other populations thriving and increasing in number when they were managed for profit, including hunting.
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 11:38 AM (WvS3w)
82
Can't we?
Does it always have to be about that? If it does, then... as I said upthread, this starts to look more like worship, rather than The Market as a useful tool.
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:30 AM (Dj0WE)
You are insane.
The lion thing has been discussed a million ways since Sunday.
The argument put forth by Maet about trophy hunting is a response to the emotional condemnation against trophy hunting. And yet, you take that and make it out to be Market-worship. What a load of tripe.
Can't we?
Does it always have to be about that? If it does, then... as I said upthread, this starts to look more like worship, rather than The Market as a useful tool.
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:30 AM (Dj0WE)
You are insane.
The lion thing has been discussed a million ways since Sunday.
The argument put forth by Maet about trophy hunting is a response to the emotional condemnation against trophy hunting. And yet, you take that and make it out to be Market-worship. What a load of tripe.
Posted by: East Bay KG at August 08, 2015 11:38 AM (YUrE9)
83
Breitbart.com has gone from a conservative news site to an angry, anti-establishment site, hell-bent on supporting Trump.
Andrew is smiling down.
Andrew is smiling down.
Posted by: some random meathead at August 08, 2015 11:39 AM (Yrjee)
84
Yes we do need to use the word market to describe things that nominally don't have monetary value. There has been at least one (tribe, nation) that didn't use money as we know it. The term (Indian giver) denotes a system where everyone keeps their won scorecard instead of using cash balances. :-)
Posted by: dictionary at August 08, 2015 11:39 AM (PGh+Q)
85
People suck, which is why utopia on this earth is impossible and we have to settle for what works best
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 11:33 AM
At least in the Old (Testament) Days, God was what we now might call "interactive." When someone was a Good Boy or Girl, He made nice to them. Break the rules, and there was a lightning bolt or plague with your name on it.
Wouldn't mind giving that a try. I'm not terribly religious, but I'd rather put my trust in God than Government.
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 11:33 AM
At least in the Old (Testament) Days, God was what we now might call "interactive." When someone was a Good Boy or Girl, He made nice to them. Break the rules, and there was a lightning bolt or plague with your name on it.
Wouldn't mind giving that a try. I'm not terribly religious, but I'd rather put my trust in God than Government.
Posted by: MrScribbler at August 08, 2015 11:39 AM (0atQl)
86
Someone once asked Krugman about Ben Bernanke. Krugman told this story:
I saw Ben Bernanke just yesterday. There was a pile of crap on the ground. Ben pulled out his two big six guns and ordered me to eat the pile of crap. This I could not do. So I jumped him and we fought and we fought and we fought.
When the dust settled I had the two big six guns and I ordered Bernanke to eat the pile of crap. This he could not do. So he jumped me and we fought and we fought and we fought.
When the dust had settled I had one of the big six guns and he had the other big six gun.
You ask me about Ben Bernanke? I tell you that yesterday I had lunch with him.
I saw Ben Bernanke just yesterday. There was a pile of crap on the ground. Ben pulled out his two big six guns and ordered me to eat the pile of crap. This I could not do. So I jumped him and we fought and we fought and we fought.
When the dust settled I had the two big six guns and I ordered Bernanke to eat the pile of crap. This he could not do. So he jumped me and we fought and we fought and we fought.
When the dust had settled I had one of the big six guns and he had the other big six gun.
You ask me about Ben Bernanke? I tell you that yesterday I had lunch with him.
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at August 08, 2015 11:39 AM (NeFrd)
87
In turn, Breitbart.com, the former conservative news website founded by famed and deceased conservative Andrew Breitbart, declared that it will no longer post any news from the Red State conference, due to Trump being banned from the conference. Breitbart.com has gone from a conservative news site to an angry, anti-establishment site, hell-bent on supporting Trump.
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:28 AM (cojlL)
So it's perfectly fine for Red State to attack Trump, but not OK for Breitbart to defend him. Got it.
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:28 AM (cojlL)
So it's perfectly fine for Red State to attack Trump, but not OK for Breitbart to defend him. Got it.
Posted by: OregonMuse at August 08, 2015 11:40 AM (/rlLE)
88
Which is another way of saying The Market is morally neutral. You can be a sinner, and win at The Market. You can be a saint, and do the same.
Actually, no.
The market is just a name for the collective action of a large number of people.
Those people make choices.
Those choices aggregate and (and this part is critical) through the pricing mechanism, communicate the collective value judgment (of that group of people) towards whatever item, good, or service is under discussion.
If you disrupt the pricing mechanism, you cause some level of "market failure."
Now, does the market perfectly transmit the value judgments of the group of people participating in the market? No. Nothing that humans participate in operates perfectly.
If people make "flawed" value judgments, then you will also cause some level of "market failure."
The instances of national parks, or national defense, or highways, or other items at the boundary of what markets do in fact do well is rooted in the nature of the value that people place on these items. Individually, nobody puts very much value on these relative to everything else that's in their life. But collectively, there is a realization that these "market failures" are of net benefit to society, even if people, voting with their dollars and not their ballots, don't actually signal that value judgment to the market.
So is that really a market failure?
The thing about markets is that they, objectively, work better than any other system of ordering the value placed on goods, services, and items.
But working better is not working perfectly.
Market zealots often sound like markets will solve all of humanity's ills. Solving all of humanity's ills is not possible.
Actually, no.
The market is just a name for the collective action of a large number of people.
Those people make choices.
Those choices aggregate and (and this part is critical) through the pricing mechanism, communicate the collective value judgment (of that group of people) towards whatever item, good, or service is under discussion.
If you disrupt the pricing mechanism, you cause some level of "market failure."
Now, does the market perfectly transmit the value judgments of the group of people participating in the market? No. Nothing that humans participate in operates perfectly.
If people make "flawed" value judgments, then you will also cause some level of "market failure."
The instances of national parks, or national defense, or highways, or other items at the boundary of what markets do in fact do well is rooted in the nature of the value that people place on these items. Individually, nobody puts very much value on these relative to everything else that's in their life. But collectively, there is a realization that these "market failures" are of net benefit to society, even if people, voting with their dollars and not their ballots, don't actually signal that value judgment to the market.
So is that really a market failure?
The thing about markets is that they, objectively, work better than any other system of ordering the value placed on goods, services, and items.
But working better is not working perfectly.
Market zealots often sound like markets will solve all of humanity's ills. Solving all of humanity's ills is not possible.
Posted by: filbert at August 08, 2015 11:41 AM (JvPqF)
89
Or It may have already been said but many people who hate free market don't want to take responsibility for their own actions. The make a investment that doesn't work out and they can't suck it up and say I fucked up...next. They want a sure thing or its someone else s fault.True free market comes with risk. I have sat at too many tables with lib relatives who are angry and blame the markets (or their broker, or anyone else) for their own investment decisions. They want the risk taken away by the government. Losing money is not fun but the free market has give everyone an even playing field for success. Or at least the most even, as opposed to the alternative.
Posted by: Badda Bing at August 08, 2015 11:41 AM (/Vs1e)
90
Yes. I remember too. A ticket from the east coast to Love Field in
Dallas cost over $400 round-trip back in the late 60's and early 70's,
which is around $1500 to $2000 in today's money.
But the seats in coach were much roomier, with a meal and three free
drinks. So the free market traded all of that for cheaper air fares
and the market has flourished. All I want to do is get from A to B as
quickly as possible.
That's what people valued, so that's what the market provides. But if you want bigger seats and free drinks, you can get them by paying for them by buying First Class tickets. That's the market at work too.
. Overseas flights, I'll pay extra for the added
comfort.
Q.E.D.
Dallas cost over $400 round-trip back in the late 60's and early 70's,
which is around $1500 to $2000 in today's money.
But the seats in coach were much roomier, with a meal and three free
drinks. So the free market traded all of that for cheaper air fares
and the market has flourished. All I want to do is get from A to B as
quickly as possible.
That's what people valued, so that's what the market provides. But if you want bigger seats and free drinks, you can get them by paying for them by buying First Class tickets. That's the market at work too.
. Overseas flights, I'll pay extra for the added
comfort.
Q.E.D.
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 11:42 AM (WvS3w)
91
Greymarch is a hybrid troll.
A sort of angry concern troll.
Perhaps they are reprogrammng Jeb-bots and this is test version.
A sort of angry concern troll.
Perhaps they are reprogrammng Jeb-bots and this is test version.
Posted by: Bearded Spock at August 08, 2015 11:42 AM (MQEz6)
92
Seems like some people *really* need to read Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics.
Posted by: East Bay KG at August 08, 2015 11:43 AM (YUrE9)
93
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:30 AM (Dj0WE)
You are insane.
The lion thing has been discussed a million ways since Sunday.
The argument put forth by Maet about trophy hunting is a response to the emotional condemnation against trophy hunting. And yet, you take that and make it out to be Market-worship. What a load of tripe.
Posted by: East Bay KG at August 08, 2015 11:38 AM (YUrE9)
I don't know who you are, but I can tell you something. You have no value. To me, at least.
Bye.
You are insane.
The lion thing has been discussed a million ways since Sunday.
The argument put forth by Maet about trophy hunting is a response to the emotional condemnation against trophy hunting. And yet, you take that and make it out to be Market-worship. What a load of tripe.
Posted by: East Bay KG at August 08, 2015 11:38 AM (YUrE9)
I don't know who you are, but I can tell you something. You have no value. To me, at least.
Bye.
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:43 AM (Dj0WE)
94
Y'know I'm starting to get the impression that Krugman and this Bernanke fellow would be better off if they didn't hang out so much.
Posted by: MAx at August 08, 2015 11:43 AM (LAliD)
95
Every country in Africa fucked itself going after that dentist the way they did. I'm sure the entire hunting tourist industry over there died.
We all know the hunter and the people had his "papers" in order, it's just that the corrupt local government changed their mind and had a mess to clean up.
People are so hypocritical when it comes to animal rights. Somehow a guy hunting with a bow and arrow should be hanged but someone with a leather Louis Vuitton purse that also resulted in the "death" of an innocent animal for the owners' pleasure should be given a pass.
We all know the hunter and the people had his "papers" in order, it's just that the corrupt local government changed their mind and had a mess to clean up.
People are so hypocritical when it comes to animal rights. Somehow a guy hunting with a bow and arrow should be hanged but someone with a leather Louis Vuitton purse that also resulted in the "death" of an innocent animal for the owners' pleasure should be given a pass.
Posted by: Kal at August 08, 2015 11:44 AM (A3kYV)
96
Maet's post was on of the best I'd seen on the lion hunting issue.
Dave's posts are always thought provoking.
In order for Southwest Airlines to get off the ground, they had to take Braniff and Texas International all the way to Supreme Court on anti-trust violation, so that the market could function. Southwest is still here and is the only airline that makes profits and doesn't layoff people. Braniff and TI are long gone. But SWA wouldn't be here if not for the anti-trust law.
Dave's posts are always thought provoking.
In order for Southwest Airlines to get off the ground, they had to take Braniff and Texas International all the way to Supreme Court on anti-trust violation, so that the market could function. Southwest is still here and is the only airline that makes profits and doesn't layoff people. Braniff and TI are long gone. But SWA wouldn't be here if not for the anti-trust law.
Posted by: stace at August 08, 2015 11:44 AM (CoX6k)
Posted by: East Bay KG at August 08, 2015 11:44 AM (YUrE9)
98
Healthcare has not been a free market since the pure food and drug act act of 1903. It has become a regulated monopoly now of "big pharma" and "big doctor".
Posted by: Vic at August 08, 2015 11:45 AM (GpgJl)
99
Trump is anti-establishment? In what way? Maybe wanting secure boarders? Maybe being for Planned Parenthood? Changing public statements based on the latest public opinion? I think the complaint is that he doesn't fit the current conventional wisdom and is making the future seem uncertain. Hint. It was always uncertain no matter what anyone says.
Posted by: surprised at August 08, 2015 11:46 AM (PGh+Q)
100
Changing from Big Doctor to Big Medical Insurance.
Posted by: fify at August 08, 2015 11:47 AM (PGh+Q)
101
Lots of unfamiliar nicks today.
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at August 08, 2015 11:47 AM (NeFrd)
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at August 08, 2015 11:48 AM (YX/be)
103
The thing about markets is that they, objectively, work better than any other system of ordering the value placed on goods, services, and items.
But working better is not working perfectly.
Market zealots often sound like markets will solve all of humanity's ills. Solving all of humanity's ills is not possible.
Posted by: filbert at August 08, 2015 11:41 AM (JvPqF)
I think that's a pretty good summation of my point of view.
When it comes to working on trying to solve those other human problems, let's not self-limit ourselves by trying to frame the discussion ALWAYS in terms of The Market.
But working better is not working perfectly.
Market zealots often sound like markets will solve all of humanity's ills. Solving all of humanity's ills is not possible.
Posted by: filbert at August 08, 2015 11:41 AM (JvPqF)
I think that's a pretty good summation of my point of view.
When it comes to working on trying to solve those other human problems, let's not self-limit ourselves by trying to frame the discussion ALWAYS in terms of The Market.
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:48 AM (Dj0WE)
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at August 08, 2015 11:49 AM (YX/be)
105
At least in the Old (Testament) Days, God was what we now call "interactive." When someone was a Good Boy or Girl, He made nice to them. Break the rules, and there was a lightning bolt or plague with your name on it.
Wouldn't mind giving that a try. I'm not terribly religious, but I'd rather put my trust in God than Government.
Posted by: MrScribbler at August 08, 2015 11:39 AM (0atQl)
Actually, throughout the vast majority of the OT *times* God was not so, as you put it, interactive when it came to punishment.
Outside of the times He established various covenants, there were not that many punitive miracles. The Israelites and people of Judah messed up for centuries before He whacked them with the hammer of exile, and even those punishments (and others) could be viewed as just things taking a natural course if not for the prophets warning that they would happen.
I do believe that God speaks today through His Holy Spirit in accordance with His Word but not only directly through His Word, but that's a topic for another day.
Ok, back to the topic
Wouldn't mind giving that a try. I'm not terribly religious, but I'd rather put my trust in God than Government.
Posted by: MrScribbler at August 08, 2015 11:39 AM (0atQl)
Actually, throughout the vast majority of the OT *times* God was not so, as you put it, interactive when it came to punishment.
Outside of the times He established various covenants, there were not that many punitive miracles. The Israelites and people of Judah messed up for centuries before He whacked them with the hammer of exile, and even those punishments (and others) could be viewed as just things taking a natural course if not for the prophets warning that they would happen.
I do believe that God speaks today through His Holy Spirit in accordance with His Word but not only directly through His Word, but that's a topic for another day.
Ok, back to the topic
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 11:50 AM (sAXJ5)
106
Well, at least this one hasn't been deleted yet.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 08, 2015 11:51 AM (39g3+)
107
the pure food and drug act act of 1903
======
still a lot of snake oil out there
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at August 08, 2015 11:48 AM (YX/be)
Yeah, most of healthcare delivery is no different than the street drug trade. Less pure market-wise, perhaps, but otherwise not so different at all.
======
still a lot of snake oil out there
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at August 08, 2015 11:48 AM (YX/be)
Yeah, most of healthcare delivery is no different than the street drug trade. Less pure market-wise, perhaps, but otherwise not so different at all.
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:51 AM (Dj0WE)
Posted by: The Great White Snark at August 08, 2015 11:52 AM (9X5v1)
109
Funny, the most emailed story about Cecil in the NY Slime does not show up in it search engine.
Does NOT show up on Google til the second page.
No bias here, none.
http://tinyurl.com/qjocppu
Does NOT show up on Google til the second page.
No bias here, none.
http://tinyurl.com/qjocppu
Posted by: Nip Sip at August 08, 2015 11:53 AM (0FSuD)
110
I have a right to free toilet paper and free liquor.
Posted by: Baltimore Looter at August 08, 2015 11:53 AM (cWed3)
111
>>Jack, you should read Maetenloch's piece linked in the OP. He gave facts and figures, an elephant population in Kenya declining drastically when it was only "protected" verses other populations thriving and increasing in number when they were managed for profit, including hunting.
I did. And I don't disagree with what he said but I think there was an over focus on hunting and not nearly enough on the conservation and anti-poaching laws that have sprung up in the last few years in Africa.
As I said, I don't have a problem with controlled hunting and in fact agree that it is necessary for all species as long as we are going to remain together on this planet. I live on an island where deer were introduced as an ornament and their numbers are now totally out of control. In fact, I was just looking at one standing on the border of the conservation land that abuts my yard as I was typing this. And no hunting is allowed so I get to look at the destruction they do to the plants in my yard daily.
But having spent a bunch of time in South Africa and visited game parks I can tell you that the government of South Africa and neighboring ones long ago realized that the animals were one of their most precious resources in terms of tourist dollars both for looking at and hunting. This was the basis for parks like Kruger which has been around for over a century.
And in recent years in particular poaching has gotten completely out of control, not just in the wild but in the protected parks as well. Slaughtering elephants for their tusks or rhinos, which kill far more humans every year than any other animal including lions, is repugnant and again, economically stupid.
Controlled hunting is definitely a necessary thing to prevent not just over population but starvation for a lot of animals. But don't discount the massive movement to stamp out poaching inside and outside the parks and game preserves as a big reason a lot animal species are increasing in numbers.
Like everything else in life save beer, balance is important.
I did. And I don't disagree with what he said but I think there was an over focus on hunting and not nearly enough on the conservation and anti-poaching laws that have sprung up in the last few years in Africa.
As I said, I don't have a problem with controlled hunting and in fact agree that it is necessary for all species as long as we are going to remain together on this planet. I live on an island where deer were introduced as an ornament and their numbers are now totally out of control. In fact, I was just looking at one standing on the border of the conservation land that abuts my yard as I was typing this. And no hunting is allowed so I get to look at the destruction they do to the plants in my yard daily.
But having spent a bunch of time in South Africa and visited game parks I can tell you that the government of South Africa and neighboring ones long ago realized that the animals were one of their most precious resources in terms of tourist dollars both for looking at and hunting. This was the basis for parks like Kruger which has been around for over a century.
And in recent years in particular poaching has gotten completely out of control, not just in the wild but in the protected parks as well. Slaughtering elephants for their tusks or rhinos, which kill far more humans every year than any other animal including lions, is repugnant and again, economically stupid.
Controlled hunting is definitely a necessary thing to prevent not just over population but starvation for a lot of animals. But don't discount the massive movement to stamp out poaching inside and outside the parks and game preserves as a big reason a lot animal species are increasing in numbers.
Like everything else in life save beer, balance is important.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 11:53 AM (OGm46)
112
Market zealots often sound like markets will solve all of humanity's ills. Solving all of humanity's ills is not possible.
Posted by: filbert at August 08, 2015 11:41 AM (JvPqF)
That sounds like a giant strawman in the context of this discussion, where there is *actual* data on how a market for hunting brought about good results.
Where was the claim you impute here? That "markets" will solve all humanity's ills?
Posted by: filbert at August 08, 2015 11:41 AM (JvPqF)
That sounds like a giant strawman in the context of this discussion, where there is *actual* data on how a market for hunting brought about good results.
Where was the claim you impute here? That "markets" will solve all humanity's ills?
Posted by: East Bay KG at August 08, 2015 11:53 AM (YUrE9)
113
Trump Theory is a rapidly growing field these days.
The framework is fairly well-established, but there are camps.
The Trump is a Democrat Plant camp, the Hillary camp modification, the Trump is a gope plant camp, Trump is a Buffoon, Trump is Savior, Trump is Trump, etc.
The Trump Super Collider should add clarity sometime in the next few months.
The framework is fairly well-established, but there are camps.
The Trump is a Democrat Plant camp, the Hillary camp modification, the Trump is a gope plant camp, Trump is a Buffoon, Trump is Savior, Trump is Trump, etc.
The Trump Super Collider should add clarity sometime in the next few months.
Posted by: Bearded Spock at August 08, 2015 11:54 AM (MQEz6)
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at August 08, 2015 11:54 AM (r+lhE)
115
This African doesn't care about any lion, truth be told, and I am still mystified by the intense emotion elicited by Cecil, who no one new anything about until he was killed.
We are not enamored of animals as westerners and generally couldn't care less if it doesn't affect us.
Hence the lack of outragey outrage in Zimbabwe.
Not that I think the discussion isn't useful, but honestly, I personally don't care.
We are not enamored of animals as westerners and generally couldn't care less if it doesn't affect us.
Hence the lack of outragey outrage in Zimbabwe.
Not that I think the discussion isn't useful, but honestly, I personally don't care.
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 11:54 AM (sAXJ5)
116
31
Miss me yet?
Posted by: Jon Stewart at August 08, 2015 11:14 AM (gwG9s)
Well, yes, who's going to give me your famous ball rub and reach around?
Miss me yet?
Posted by: Jon Stewart at August 08, 2015 11:14 AM (gwG9s)
Well, yes, who's going to give me your famous ball rub and reach around?
Posted by: Reggie, the butt fucker at August 08, 2015 11:54 AM (0FSuD)
117
Weirddave, another good post - on a vital topic - and in one sense I "fundamentally" disagree, sort of.
I don't think "faith" is required for markets to be understood and accepted. I think that people have to think - logically, rationally, to some level of sophistication (well within reach of almost everyone, just not childishly).
Various market analyses of various goods and services have been offered as examples by commenters here. They are good, they are not like starting to understand quantum physics, yet observe that even in these cases there is more clear thinking going on than one encounters from most people, most of the time.
And also observe the sad comedy that people who obviously, in some respects, understand market principles in their own business fail utterly to (apparently) understand them in other areas, and substitute instead the usual crap: economically illiterate, emotionally based, goal-driven nonsense.
Irwin Jacobs, founder of Qualcomm, zillionaire, cut a radio ad for a failed local minimum wage initiative. He talked about how he'd worked in his parents' restaurant as a teenager. Uh ..... so? Your point? In fact, he was making precisely the *opposite* point intended, he was offering an example of how a high min. wage could be ruinous to low-margin small businesses that traditionally have relied on "informal" factors like family labor. For anyone with the knowledge or common sense who thought about it, he was arguing *against* the initiative he thought he was arguing for.
THAT is how much lack of critical thinking, and emotional substitutes, dominates this topic.
filbert above touches on a related key concept, in this era of mass destruction of markets, mass rent-seeking distortion via govt. power, and economic illiteracy: public vs. private goods. This is a fundamental concept that even half the Horde could benefit from having hammered into their skulls.
Weirddave, another good post - on a vital topic - and in one sense I "fundamentally" disagree, sort of.
I don't think "faith" is required for markets to be understood and accepted. I think that people have to think - logically, rationally, to some level of sophistication (well within reach of almost everyone, just not childishly).
Various market analyses of various goods and services have been offered as examples by commenters here. They are good, they are not like starting to understand quantum physics, yet observe that even in these cases there is more clear thinking going on than one encounters from most people, most of the time.
And also observe the sad comedy that people who obviously, in some respects, understand market principles in their own business fail utterly to (apparently) understand them in other areas, and substitute instead the usual crap: economically illiterate, emotionally based, goal-driven nonsense.
Irwin Jacobs, founder of Qualcomm, zillionaire, cut a radio ad for a failed local minimum wage initiative. He talked about how he'd worked in his parents' restaurant as a teenager. Uh ..... so? Your point? In fact, he was making precisely the *opposite* point intended, he was offering an example of how a high min. wage could be ruinous to low-margin small businesses that traditionally have relied on "informal" factors like family labor. For anyone with the knowledge or common sense who thought about it, he was arguing *against* the initiative he thought he was arguing for.
THAT is how much lack of critical thinking, and emotional substitutes, dominates this topic.
filbert above touches on a related key concept, in this era of mass destruction of markets, mass rent-seeking distortion via govt. power, and economic illiteracy: public vs. private goods. This is a fundamental concept that even half the Horde could benefit from having hammered into their skulls.
Posted by: rhomboid at August 08, 2015 11:54 AM (QDnY+)
118
don't tread on me.....it's a very simple concept....
Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at August 08, 2015 11:54 AM (0O7c5)
119
95 Every country in Africa fucked itself going after that dentist the way they did. I'm sure the entire hunting tourist industry over there died.
Didn't a bunch of them put a suspension on hunting for the time being? So yeah that would temporarily kill the industry. And longterm it might as well because if this hunter did nothing wrong based on the laws and they retroactively change the laws just so they can throw a book at him why would anyone want to risk it.
I still don't know if any laws were actually broken. Is it illegal to bait a lion? Is it illegal to draw one off of a preserve to a place you can legally kill it? I've never heard any real evidence of either of those. So the only thing I know that he is guilty of is killing a famous lion.
Didn't a bunch of them put a suspension on hunting for the time being? So yeah that would temporarily kill the industry. And longterm it might as well because if this hunter did nothing wrong based on the laws and they retroactively change the laws just so they can throw a book at him why would anyone want to risk it.
I still don't know if any laws were actually broken. Is it illegal to bait a lion? Is it illegal to draw one off of a preserve to a place you can legally kill it? I've never heard any real evidence of either of those. So the only thing I know that he is guilty of is killing a famous lion.
Posted by: buzzion at August 08, 2015 11:54 AM (zt+N6)
120
)))Posted by: MrScribbler at August 08, 2015 11:06 AM (0atQl) (((
you're worried about a monopoly it sounds like. but in a true market system a monopoly never really exists UNLESS the monopoly is the most efficient use of the resources. as long as there are no artificial barriers to entry a monopoly that isn't the most efficient use of resources will face competition.
you're worried about a monopoly it sounds like. but in a true market system a monopoly never really exists UNLESS the monopoly is the most efficient use of the resources. as long as there are no artificial barriers to entry a monopoly that isn't the most efficient use of resources will face competition.
Posted by: chas at August 08, 2015 11:55 AM (Q8uu7)
121
BurtTC: "Here in this country, we have the luxury of preserving some lands. We
call them National Parks. Yellowstone and Grand Canyon, etc.,"
You have committed a category error roughly like comparing a .22 pistol to a nuke.
See, there's a fundamental difference between pieces of dirt called National Parks, and even those magnificent things called Plants, and apex predators like Lions and Leopards in Zimbabwe, or Wolves, Grizzly Bears, and Mountain Lions here, is that predators move. They don't stay conveniently far away and wait for you to visit.
Instead, they drop in for dinner. Usually it's your livestock. You know, part of what feeds your family and gives you something to sell for other necessities of life. It's hard times when a lion kills your milk cow. Here in the Dallas Metroplex, the recent rains flushed out a mated pair
of bobcats, and they turned up at my neighbor's house for her dog. Fortunately, this
is Texas and she was armed; killed one and the other ran. In a densely
populated suburb.
Occasionally, they decide they're tired of beef or goat or chicken, and they'd like a little Long Pig tonight. That means you, or your wife, or your kids, or the only mechanic or nurse in the village ain't there no more, you First World latte sipping imbecile.
So that's the downside, and it's a pretty big one. It costs money and lives to keep them there so you can fly in from the city to snap pictures, and the fees they can charge for that privilege just ain't enough to compensate.
So the locals say "f*ckit", and don't bother to report poachers, or turn poacher, because hey, it's a living, or just put out poisoned meat in out of the way places until there are no more lions or leopards. It happens here, too; don't think it doesn't.
But! there's people that like to go out and hunt lion for whatever reason, doesn't matter why to the people who actually live there, the point is they will pay all the money that photo-shooters will pay, plus a lot more, not to mention all the camp staff wages because at the end of the day most hunters don't head back to the hotel.
Now there's a reason to keep those animals around, because thee people living there can get paid for doing it. Again, happens here the same way: there's a fund to compensate ranchers for livestock killed by wolves, and when it doesn't pay enough, wolves turn up dead.
BTW, this isn't anecdotal; Kenya tried outlawing hunting 20 years ago, and the game populations, all categories, dropped like the rocks in your head.
Just as big a fallacy as AGW, and just as stupid.
call them National Parks. Yellowstone and Grand Canyon, etc.,"
You have committed a category error roughly like comparing a .22 pistol to a nuke.
See, there's a fundamental difference between pieces of dirt called National Parks, and even those magnificent things called Plants, and apex predators like Lions and Leopards in Zimbabwe, or Wolves, Grizzly Bears, and Mountain Lions here, is that predators move. They don't stay conveniently far away and wait for you to visit.
Instead, they drop in for dinner. Usually it's your livestock. You know, part of what feeds your family and gives you something to sell for other necessities of life. It's hard times when a lion kills your milk cow. Here in the Dallas Metroplex, the recent rains flushed out a mated pair
of bobcats, and they turned up at my neighbor's house for her dog. Fortunately, this
is Texas and she was armed; killed one and the other ran. In a densely
populated suburb.
Occasionally, they decide they're tired of beef or goat or chicken, and they'd like a little Long Pig tonight. That means you, or your wife, or your kids, or the only mechanic or nurse in the village ain't there no more, you First World latte sipping imbecile.
So that's the downside, and it's a pretty big one. It costs money and lives to keep them there so you can fly in from the city to snap pictures, and the fees they can charge for that privilege just ain't enough to compensate.
So the locals say "f*ckit", and don't bother to report poachers, or turn poacher, because hey, it's a living, or just put out poisoned meat in out of the way places until there are no more lions or leopards. It happens here, too; don't think it doesn't.
But! there's people that like to go out and hunt lion for whatever reason, doesn't matter why to the people who actually live there, the point is they will pay all the money that photo-shooters will pay, plus a lot more, not to mention all the camp staff wages because at the end of the day most hunters don't head back to the hotel.
Now there's a reason to keep those animals around, because thee people living there can get paid for doing it. Again, happens here the same way: there's a fund to compensate ranchers for livestock killed by wolves, and when it doesn't pay enough, wolves turn up dead.
BTW, this isn't anecdotal; Kenya tried outlawing hunting 20 years ago, and the game populations, all categories, dropped like the rocks in your head.
Just as big a fallacy as AGW, and just as stupid.
Posted by: SDN at August 08, 2015 11:55 AM (p/ktF)
122
OT: A juror said a single hold out prevented James Holmes from meeting his maker.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at August 08, 2015 11:57 AM (IfHgw)
123
Controlled hunting is definitely a necessary thing to prevent not just over population but starvation for a lot of animals. But don't discount the massive movement to stamp out poaching inside and outside the parks and game preserves as a big reason a lot animal species are increasing in numbers.
Like everything else in life save beer, balance is important.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 11:53 AM (OGm46)
JackStraw, I'm afraid I don't see the connection between controlled hunting and poaching in your comment and how they relate to what Maet said?
Maet and WeirdDave weren't arguing for poaching...
Like everything else in life save beer, balance is important.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 11:53 AM (OGm46)
JackStraw, I'm afraid I don't see the connection between controlled hunting and poaching in your comment and how they relate to what Maet said?
Maet and WeirdDave weren't arguing for poaching...
Posted by: East Bay KG at August 08, 2015 11:57 AM (YUrE9)
124
People suck, which is why utopia on this earth is impossible and we have to settle for what works best
This is the fundamental difference between the two basic worldviews on earth. Its not necessarily a right/left thing, although it often is. They are these:
1) Mankind is inherently flawed and tends toward bad and at best can have their bad shaped and restrained.
2) Mankind is inherently decent, but misled by bad exterior forces and can be perfected by proper technique and effort.
That's the bottom line. People pick one and build their entire understanding of reality, solutions, and worldview from that.
Its why some people lean toward capitalism and free markets (shaping greed into something that benefits the most people in the greatest way) or socialism (if we just gave government enough power everyone would be wonderful).
This is the fundamental difference between the two basic worldviews on earth. Its not necessarily a right/left thing, although it often is. They are these:
1) Mankind is inherently flawed and tends toward bad and at best can have their bad shaped and restrained.
2) Mankind is inherently decent, but misled by bad exterior forces and can be perfected by proper technique and effort.
That's the bottom line. People pick one and build their entire understanding of reality, solutions, and worldview from that.
Its why some people lean toward capitalism and free markets (shaping greed into something that benefits the most people in the greatest way) or socialism (if we just gave government enough power everyone would be wonderful).
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 08, 2015 11:57 AM (39g3+)
125
Breitbart.com has gone from a conservative news site to an angry, anti-establishment site, hell-bent on supporting Trump.
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:28 AM (cojlL)
Question: what should an organization fully devoted to defending free speech and freedom of conscience do when it perceives a strain of politically based censorship?
Tweet a hash-tag? Lay back and think of England?
I won't suggest your destination, I suspect you know it already.
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:28 AM (cojlL)
Question: what should an organization fully devoted to defending free speech and freedom of conscience do when it perceives a strain of politically based censorship?
Tweet a hash-tag? Lay back and think of England?
I won't suggest your destination, I suspect you know it already.
Posted by: Kindltot at August 08, 2015 11:58 AM (3pRHP)
126
"Breitbart.com has gone from a conservative news site to an angry, anti-establishment site, hell-bent on supporting Trump."
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:28 AM (cojlL)
Simply not true. John Nolte, a lead editor, has been clear that he does not support Trump. Their position on the debates were that Fox did a good, hard-hitting job. They are a heterodox, free-thinking site -- like Andrew was a heterodox free thinker, and oppose the monolithic, corporatist GOPe.
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:28 AM (cojlL)
Simply not true. John Nolte, a lead editor, has been clear that he does not support Trump. Their position on the debates were that Fox did a good, hard-hitting job. They are a heterodox, free-thinking site -- like Andrew was a heterodox free thinker, and oppose the monolithic, corporatist GOPe.
Posted by: rrpjr at August 08, 2015 11:58 AM (s/yC1)
127
"Absent enforcement of control and laws, I think a free market inexorably leads to selling of human flesh. Whether slavery or organs whatever. "
We would have Gladiators and blood sports if it wasn't for women voting. To balance that out, we wouldn't have (Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham) and the resultant bad-public-policy if women didn't vote.
We would have Gladiators and blood sports if it wasn't for women voting. To balance that out, we wouldn't have (Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham) and the resultant bad-public-policy if women didn't vote.
Posted by: too true at August 08, 2015 12:01 PM (PGh+Q)
128
I agree that Breitbart isn't what it used to be when he was alive, particularly the "big" sites.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 08, 2015 12:01 PM (39g3+)
129
Jack, I don't think we necessarily disagree, the optimal solution is going to be a balance between hunting and preservation.
I wonder if there is a mechanism that would help us determine what that optimal balance would be?
I wonder if there is a mechanism that would help us determine what that optimal balance would be?
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 12:02 PM (WvS3w)
130
There is no God but Market.
-
I've been reading Hard Luck Hank: Prince of Suck this week. Hank, never the sharpest butter knife in the drawer, has to run an election and solve some economic problems. He talks to the race who run the market and can't understand a word they say. Pretty funny stuff.
-
I've been reading Hard Luck Hank: Prince of Suck this week. Hank, never the sharpest butter knife in the drawer, has to run an election and solve some economic problems. He talks to the race who run the market and can't understand a word they say. Pretty funny stuff.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at August 08, 2015 12:03 PM (xVG7Y)
131
I've been slapped in the face by an invisible hand.
Posted by: Nicolas Maduro at August 08, 2015 12:03 PM (W5DcG)
132
) Mankind is inherently flawed and tends toward bad and at best can have their bad shaped and restrained.
2) Mankind is inherently decent, but misled by bad exterior forces and can be perfected by proper technique and effort.
How about busy-bodies leave other people alonge and mind their own business?
2) Mankind is inherently decent, but misled by bad exterior forces and can be perfected by proper technique and effort.
How about busy-bodies leave other people alonge and mind their own business?
Posted by: 3rd way at August 08, 2015 12:03 PM (PGh+Q)
133
Very seldom if ever, even when hunters "trophy hunt" is the animal harvested, just left on the ground to go to waste. More often than not trophy hunters do not fill their tag because they are looking for a specific size of animal. Depending on the country, here and in some African countries, you are required by law to turn in the carcass or skull to local game management for study. Glad to see some on here showing some measure of intelligence and understanding even if they themselves are not comfortable with "hunting just for a trophy".
Posted by: JROD Trophy Hunter at August 08, 2015 12:04 PM (wnwJC)
134
This is the fundamental difference between the two basic worldviews on earth. Its not necessarily a right/left thing, although it often is. They are these:
1) Mankind is inherently flawed and tends toward bad and at best can have their bad shaped and restrained.
2) Mankind is inherently decent, but misled by bad exterior forces and can be perfected by proper technique and effort.
-
I see a lot of evidence for proposition one. Two? Not so much.
1) Mankind is inherently flawed and tends toward bad and at best can have their bad shaped and restrained.
2) Mankind is inherently decent, but misled by bad exterior forces and can be perfected by proper technique and effort.
-
I see a lot of evidence for proposition one. Two? Not so much.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at August 08, 2015 12:05 PM (I6qUP)
135
Like all things, the markets cannot be trusted to a people who are not virtuous. Lacking virtue in a culture, nothing works.
The big difference is that while communism requires a perfect people to work, capitalism only requires a basically virtuous public. Not perfect, but at least on the surface gives the appearance of decency.
Socialism just requires a powerful state and a slavish people. That's why its the default economic system, because its so easy to fall into.
The big difference is that while communism requires a perfect people to work, capitalism only requires a basically virtuous public. Not perfect, but at least on the surface gives the appearance of decency.
Socialism just requires a powerful state and a slavish people. That's why its the default economic system, because its so easy to fall into.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 08, 2015 12:05 PM (39g3+)
136
How about busy-bodies leave other people alonge and mind their own business?
Posted by: 3rd way at August 08, 2015 12:03 PM (PGh+Q)
Don't shoot me, but I think pure libertarianism is another form of utopianism that doesn't take human nature into account.
Posted by: 3rd way at August 08, 2015 12:03 PM (PGh+Q)
Don't shoot me, but I think pure libertarianism is another form of utopianism that doesn't take human nature into account.
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 12:06 PM (sAXJ5)
137
127 "Absent enforcement of control and laws, I think a free market inexorably leads to selling of human flesh. Whether slavery or organs whatever. "
We would have Gladiators and blood sports if it wasn't for women voting. To balance that out, we wouldn't have (Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham) and the resultant bad-public-policy if women didn't vote.
Posted by: too true at August 08, 2015 12:01 PM (PGh+Q)
There is a market for societies, too.
The no slavery, no cannibalism society is a market winner because humans would be the slaves and the snacks.
Soon we will see robots enter society in new ways and we have to deal with new thoughts about slavery.
Also, soon we will be able to artificially grow yummy animal flesh; will that version of human flesh be okay to eat?
We would have Gladiators and blood sports if it wasn't for women voting. To balance that out, we wouldn't have (Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham) and the resultant bad-public-policy if women didn't vote.
Posted by: too true at August 08, 2015 12:01 PM (PGh+Q)
There is a market for societies, too.
The no slavery, no cannibalism society is a market winner because humans would be the slaves and the snacks.
Soon we will see robots enter society in new ways and we have to deal with new thoughts about slavery.
Also, soon we will be able to artificially grow yummy animal flesh; will that version of human flesh be okay to eat?
Posted by: Bearded Spock at August 08, 2015 12:06 PM (MQEz6)
138
The market is a wonderful thing. The magic that makes the US work is the confluence of three things, and a free market is one of them.
A free market, without restraint, can be a cruel system of exploitation. However, if the free market is restrained by old fashioned Christian Values, specifically compassion, love for your fellow man, empathy, and a strong sense of 'right and wrong', the two forces combine to provide goods and services in a free market at 'fair' prices.
and that is when the war starts.
Look at the Christian Bible or the Tanakh and I am sure you will find admonitions to the rich to 'share' their wealth with the poor. Greed is a mortal sin, as is the lust for power.
So, free markets work if you can keep human vice out of it, which takes a third thing; government.
Meanwhile, government is as susceptible to human vice as the free market. And here we are.
Destroy Christianity, Subvert Government, and you get an underground economy dealing in contraband.
A free market, without restraint, can be a cruel system of exploitation. However, if the free market is restrained by old fashioned Christian Values, specifically compassion, love for your fellow man, empathy, and a strong sense of 'right and wrong', the two forces combine to provide goods and services in a free market at 'fair' prices.
and that is when the war starts.
Look at the Christian Bible or the Tanakh and I am sure you will find admonitions to the rich to 'share' their wealth with the poor. Greed is a mortal sin, as is the lust for power.
So, free markets work if you can keep human vice out of it, which takes a third thing; government.
Meanwhile, government is as susceptible to human vice as the free market. And here we are.
Destroy Christianity, Subvert Government, and you get an underground economy dealing in contraband.
Posted by: Ned Corheight at August 08, 2015 12:06 PM (gcuTy)
139
You've heard of man-eating lions? I'm a man-hating lion.
Posted by: Cecile Sulkowicz at August 08, 2015 12:06 PM (ktNqo)
140
dropped like the rocks in your head.
Posted by: SDN at August 08, 2015 11:55 AM (p/ktF)
You didn't have to vomit all the rest of your comment. You could have just placed the insult at the top, and left the rest.
Seems a rather inefficient use of your resources there, chum.
Posted by: SDN at August 08, 2015 11:55 AM (p/ktF)
You didn't have to vomit all the rest of your comment. You could have just placed the insult at the top, and left the rest.
Seems a rather inefficient use of your resources there, chum.
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 12:07 PM (Dj0WE)
141
How about busy-bodies leave other people alonge and mind their own business?
I guess a third option is total anarchy where you don't even care about anyone but yourself, reject all laws, government, social structures, or even formal economics. Mad Max style. I don't know anyone other than the fundamentally insane who hold to that position, though.
I guess a third option is total anarchy where you don't even care about anyone but yourself, reject all laws, government, social structures, or even formal economics. Mad Max style. I don't know anyone other than the fundamentally insane who hold to that position, though.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 08, 2015 12:08 PM (39g3+)
142
Greetings:
Off course, California being Californicated, it has put a bit of its own spin on its "lion" (thankfully mountain lions who seemed to be much less aggressive in the "I'm eating you and your baby, too." sense). Cali has been "protecting" its mountain lions for the last generation or so with, to my mind, relatively few attacks even of the fatal kind.
I supposed the value to the state's serfs is the warm and tender feelings engendered in their rulers and moral superiors because no one seems much interested in the amount of economic and human resources committed to this 20th Century venture.
I live on the Cali coast, several soviets south of San Francisco and the mountain lions have established their presence on what is referred to as the Peninsula with media wonderment and social reinforcement reports every month or two. Again, no bi-peds have been taken but one marveling report showed sightings, possibly of the same-same animal in three or four different spots in Frisco itself.
Living due south of Frisco, and guessing that the lion(s) didn't have FasTrak passes to to come over the northern or eastern bridges, I figure that those cats (some of whom have got it, I'll bet) passed through some of the "Green Belt" that the local (meaning too many) enviro agitators have been determined to liberate for the last generation or so.
On the positive side, the mountain lion(s) seem to support the Federal marine mammal laws as it/they have left the three carcasses that have so far washed up this year alone in the culinary sense.
Off course, California being Californicated, it has put a bit of its own spin on its "lion" (thankfully mountain lions who seemed to be much less aggressive in the "I'm eating you and your baby, too." sense). Cali has been "protecting" its mountain lions for the last generation or so with, to my mind, relatively few attacks even of the fatal kind.
I supposed the value to the state's serfs is the warm and tender feelings engendered in their rulers and moral superiors because no one seems much interested in the amount of economic and human resources committed to this 20th Century venture.
I live on the Cali coast, several soviets south of San Francisco and the mountain lions have established their presence on what is referred to as the Peninsula with media wonderment and social reinforcement reports every month or two. Again, no bi-peds have been taken but one marveling report showed sightings, possibly of the same-same animal in three or four different spots in Frisco itself.
Living due south of Frisco, and guessing that the lion(s) didn't have FasTrak passes to to come over the northern or eastern bridges, I figure that those cats (some of whom have got it, I'll bet) passed through some of the "Green Belt" that the local (meaning too many) enviro agitators have been determined to liberate for the last generation or so.
On the positive side, the mountain lion(s) seem to support the Federal marine mammal laws as it/they have left the three carcasses that have so far washed up this year alone in the culinary sense.
Posted by: 11B40 at August 08, 2015 12:08 PM (abx5/)
143
Don't shoot me, but I think pure libertarianism is another form of utopianism that doesn't take human nature into account.
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 12:06 PM (sAXJ5)
BURN THE HERETIC!
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 12:06 PM (sAXJ5)
BURN THE HERETIC!
Posted by: LiBurtTarians-R-Us at August 08, 2015 12:09 PM (Dj0WE)
144
122 OT: A juror said a single hold out prevented James Holmes from meeting his maker.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at August 08, 2015 11:57 AM (IfHgw)
They announced that on the radio a few minutes ago. The first thing I thought of was "yeah, an anti-death penalty asshole lied during jury voir dire.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at August 08, 2015 11:57 AM (IfHgw)
They announced that on the radio a few minutes ago. The first thing I thought of was "yeah, an anti-death penalty asshole lied during jury voir dire.
Posted by: Vic at August 08, 2015 12:10 PM (GpgJl)
145
The Republican field is full of excitement
Er
Eh
That would be excrement...
Dear Trumpet Man
Break it off in the Lance Co show.
Er
Eh
That would be excrement...
Dear Trumpet Man
Break it off in the Lance Co show.
Posted by: Old Lucky at August 08, 2015 12:10 PM (/WmRg)
146
...or the only mechanic or nurse in the village ain't there no more...
*****
I don't know about that, but a moose bit my sister once.
*****
I don't know about that, but a moose bit my sister once.
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at August 08, 2015 12:11 PM (NeFrd)
147
I've been slapped in the face by an invisible hand.
*****
I don't know about that, but a moose bit my sister once.
I've been slapped in the face by an invisible hand.
*****
I don't know about that, but a moose bit my sister once.
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at August 08, 2015 12:11 PM (NeFrd)
148
There's been a few mountain lion attacks this year in Cali, such as a 6 year old boy.
http://tinyurl.com/nsd4643
Mountain lions are pretty shy but the laws against hunting them have caused some real problems here in the northwest.
http://tinyurl.com/nsd4643
Mountain lions are pretty shy but the laws against hunting them have caused some real problems here in the northwest.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 08, 2015 12:11 PM (39g3+)
149
>>JackStraw, I'm afraid I don't see the connection between controlled hunting and poaching in your comment and how they relate to what Maet said?
No, and I didn't mean to imply that they did. Just saying that many animals in South Africa have value that goes beyond hunting and they are indeed viewed by most as a huge national resource that needs to be managed. Tourist dollars to view these animals goes way beyond money taken in for hunting.
Hunting is important. But luring a protected animal from a game preserve to kill it is not hunting, it's poaching.
No, and I didn't mean to imply that they did. Just saying that many animals in South Africa have value that goes beyond hunting and they are indeed viewed by most as a huge national resource that needs to be managed. Tourist dollars to view these animals goes way beyond money taken in for hunting.
Hunting is important. But luring a protected animal from a game preserve to kill it is not hunting, it's poaching.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 12:11 PM (OGm46)
150
Posted by: philosopher at August 08, 2015 11:27 AM (PGh+Q)
That's how I view it. Not God, made by God as part of Natural Law.
Just like gravity, there are severe consequences (or it requires enormous amounts of energy) to circumvent. Unlike falling off a cliff though, the consequences are often come much later in time and so are not correctly correlated to their cause (even not unfrequently being thought of *as* the cause).
That's how I view it. Not God, made by God as part of Natural Law.
Just like gravity, there are severe consequences (or it requires enormous amounts of energy) to circumvent. Unlike falling off a cliff though, the consequences are often come much later in time and so are not correctly correlated to their cause (even not unfrequently being thought of *as* the cause).
Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at August 08, 2015 12:11 PM (GDulk)
151
113 Trump Theory is a rapidly growing field these days.
I don't know why we as conservatives can't be adults about it and say "I liked that Trump was fearless on the issue of illegal immigration, but at best he's a ridiculous attention whore"
It reminds me of the black community, anytime there is some police incident they will exalt the person in question as a pillar of the community even though everyone knows they are a thug
I don't know why we as conservatives can't be adults about it and say "I liked that Trump was fearless on the issue of illegal immigration, but at best he's a ridiculous attention whore"
It reminds me of the black community, anytime there is some police incident they will exalt the person in question as a pillar of the community even though everyone knows they are a thug
Posted by: Kal at August 08, 2015 12:11 PM (A3kYV)
152
I guess a third option is total anarchy where you don't even care about anyone but yourself, reject all laws, government, social structures, or even formal economics. Mad Max style.
-
Ah. The Hillary! model.
-
Ah. The Hillary! model.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at August 08, 2015 12:12 PM (LImiJ)
153
"I wonder if there is a mechanism that would help us determine what that optimal balance would be?"
Surveys. Be they aerial or otherwise. You determine the number of animal X vs. animal Y on any given piece of property. Also, water and vegetation. This is how states and properties determine their hunting limits each year. There are people in Africa doing the same thing.
Surveys. Be they aerial or otherwise. You determine the number of animal X vs. animal Y on any given piece of property. Also, water and vegetation. This is how states and properties determine their hunting limits each year. There are people in Africa doing the same thing.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at August 08, 2015 12:15 PM (dxw2/)
154
Donald was an aspiring rapper who was turning his life around.
Posted by: TrumpMama at August 08, 2015 12:15 PM (W5DcG)
155
133 Very seldom if ever, even when hunters "trophy hunt" is the animal harvested, just left on the ground to go to waste. More often than not trophy hunters do not fill their tag because they are looking for a specific size of animal. Depending on the country, here and in some African countries, you are required by law to turn in the carcass or skull to local game management for study. Glad to see some on here showing some measure of intelligence and understanding even if they themselves are not comfortable with "hunting just for a trophy".
Posted by: JROD Trophy Hunter at August 08, 2015 12:04 PM (wnwJC)
You might want to consider rereading your first sentence and rephrasing it. I had to reread it a couple times because it sound like you're saying the trophy hunters kill the animal and just let it rot.
What you're trying to say is that a lot of trophy hunters don't even wind up killing an animal because they are looking for a specific size/type and if they don't see it they aren't even going to shoot.
Posted by: JROD Trophy Hunter at August 08, 2015 12:04 PM (wnwJC)
You might want to consider rereading your first sentence and rephrasing it. I had to reread it a couple times because it sound like you're saying the trophy hunters kill the animal and just let it rot.
What you're trying to say is that a lot of trophy hunters don't even wind up killing an animal because they are looking for a specific size/type and if they don't see it they aren't even going to shoot.
Posted by: buzzion at August 08, 2015 12:16 PM (zt+N6)
156
That's the bottom line. People pick one and build their entire understanding of reality, solutions, and worldview from that.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 08, 2015 11:57 AM (39g3+)
I am increasingly unsure of this dichotomy or of the Utopianist premise; I find it too limiting in view of my upbringing on the Left. The bedrock assumption has always been that the Left is driven by a deep (delusional) belief in the perfectibility of society, and that much of the damage produced by their schemes arises from this intention and delusion. I believe many on the Left do not believe in Utopia at all or hold it as a goal. It is far more about control and power, a psycho-pathological need to impose their will and punish and subjugate those who don't conform to this will.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 08, 2015 11:57 AM (39g3+)
I am increasingly unsure of this dichotomy or of the Utopianist premise; I find it too limiting in view of my upbringing on the Left. The bedrock assumption has always been that the Left is driven by a deep (delusional) belief in the perfectibility of society, and that much of the damage produced by their schemes arises from this intention and delusion. I believe many on the Left do not believe in Utopia at all or hold it as a goal. It is far more about control and power, a psycho-pathological need to impose their will and punish and subjugate those who don't conform to this will.
Posted by: rrpjr at August 08, 2015 12:17 PM (s/yC1)
157
nood
Posted by: Vic at August 08, 2015 12:18 PM (GpgJl)
158
I believe many on the Left do not believe in Utopia at all or hold it as
a goal. It is far more about control and power, a psycho-pathological
need to impose their will and punish and subjugate those who don't
conform to this will.
A lot of them also see it as a revenue stream.
a goal. It is far more about control and power, a psycho-pathological
need to impose their will and punish and subjugate those who don't
conform to this will.
A lot of them also see it as a revenue stream.
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at August 08, 2015 12:18 PM (oVJmc)
159
The market is not a god.
It is not a demon invented by the running dogs of capitalism. Neither is it a holy spirit to be worshiped.
It just IS.
Now, I concede that economics is not a hard science like physics, but I still think there are basic laws of economics that are as well proven as the law of gravity. They just ARE. They describe objective reality and denying them will lead to catastrophe --- like jumping off a roof.
But men have always been tempted by the desire to be gods themselves, to believe that, by force of sheer will, they can negate Reality or redo the work of the Creator. This does not end well for anyone but the Serpent.
It is not a demon invented by the running dogs of capitalism. Neither is it a holy spirit to be worshiped.
It just IS.
Now, I concede that economics is not a hard science like physics, but I still think there are basic laws of economics that are as well proven as the law of gravity. They just ARE. They describe objective reality and denying them will lead to catastrophe --- like jumping off a roof.
But men have always been tempted by the desire to be gods themselves, to believe that, by force of sheer will, they can negate Reality or redo the work of the Creator. This does not end well for anyone but the Serpent.
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at August 08, 2015 12:19 PM (cN9Sk)
160
It was on the news last night that there was only one holdout on the death penalty. Man your guys' telegraphs must suck that you're just hearing this today.
Posted by: buzzion at August 08, 2015 12:19 PM (zt+N6)
161
No, Maetenloch's idea was dumb and it's still dumb.
The animals have far greater value as tourist attractions than they do in trophy hunts. Safari tourism is a major source of hard currency in Zimbabwe's devastated economy, contributing 15% of GDP, or about 1.9 billion dollars. To equal that, they'd have to sell about 38,000 lion hunts per year at about 50,000 per lion. This is why they take their national parks very seriously. These are very profitable money-making institutions.
This is also why hunting lions is not a sport. Living in open-air zoos for the past half-century, lions have become attenuated to the presence of humans. "Hunting" them is like shooting fish in a barrel or plugging your neighbor's sleepy Persian. It's only a pursuit for cowards and poachers. Come to Texas and hunt wild boar. That's a sport.
And, in addition, trophy-hunting lions exacerbates existing problems of poaching and exotic animal trafficking. Our Minnesota dentists, let's remember, is an actual poacher. The same corrupt officials and local guides who steer trophy-hunters to their target are also steering the elephant and rhino-poachers onto theirs. There is, quite simply, no way to practically practice trophy-hunting in Africa.
Now, look. What I'm seeing here is that everyone sees the angry granola-crunchers forming an internet mob against trophy hunting and the knee-jerk reaction is to recoil and oppose them. But that doesn't mean they're wrong on this. Broken clocks and all that.
The economic reality is that trophy-hunting of lions makes zero economic sense. Such "hunting" is precisely allowing the sheep to overgraze the commons. Maetenloch is arguing IN FAVOR of the tragedy of the commons.
And that's just stupid.
The animals have far greater value as tourist attractions than they do in trophy hunts. Safari tourism is a major source of hard currency in Zimbabwe's devastated economy, contributing 15% of GDP, or about 1.9 billion dollars. To equal that, they'd have to sell about 38,000 lion hunts per year at about 50,000 per lion. This is why they take their national parks very seriously. These are very profitable money-making institutions.
This is also why hunting lions is not a sport. Living in open-air zoos for the past half-century, lions have become attenuated to the presence of humans. "Hunting" them is like shooting fish in a barrel or plugging your neighbor's sleepy Persian. It's only a pursuit for cowards and poachers. Come to Texas and hunt wild boar. That's a sport.
And, in addition, trophy-hunting lions exacerbates existing problems of poaching and exotic animal trafficking. Our Minnesota dentists, let's remember, is an actual poacher. The same corrupt officials and local guides who steer trophy-hunters to their target are also steering the elephant and rhino-poachers onto theirs. There is, quite simply, no way to practically practice trophy-hunting in Africa.
Now, look. What I'm seeing here is that everyone sees the angry granola-crunchers forming an internet mob against trophy hunting and the knee-jerk reaction is to recoil and oppose them. But that doesn't mean they're wrong on this. Broken clocks and all that.
The economic reality is that trophy-hunting of lions makes zero economic sense. Such "hunting" is precisely allowing the sheep to overgraze the commons. Maetenloch is arguing IN FAVOR of the tragedy of the commons.
And that's just stupid.
Posted by: Keith Eppich at August 08, 2015 12:19 PM (do7+Y)
162
Great post, WD.
There's an analogy in physics/chemistry: the behavior of molecules in a gas. Can we calculate the position and velocity of a single gas molecule? Sure. (Neglecting uncertainty principle considerations.) Easy.
How about two gas molecules? OK. More involved, but doable. (Let's assume the molecules are spherical, e.g., He atoms.)
Now how about a mole of gas molecules? All we have to do is extend the principle to 6.023 X 10^23 gas molecules, all zipping around and bouncing off of each other. In principle, doable, but in practice, impossible.
So instead we resort to a statistical measure, the average velocity of the gas molecules, and call that "temperature," which here plays much the same role as "price."
There's an analogy in physics/chemistry: the behavior of molecules in a gas. Can we calculate the position and velocity of a single gas molecule? Sure. (Neglecting uncertainty principle considerations.) Easy.
How about two gas molecules? OK. More involved, but doable. (Let's assume the molecules are spherical, e.g., He atoms.)
Now how about a mole of gas molecules? All we have to do is extend the principle to 6.023 X 10^23 gas molecules, all zipping around and bouncing off of each other. In principle, doable, but in practice, impossible.
So instead we resort to a statistical measure, the average velocity of the gas molecules, and call that "temperature," which here plays much the same role as "price."
Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 08, 2015 12:19 PM (oKE6c)
163
56 related, sorta...
WASHINGTON, Aug. 7 President Barack Obama
on Friday signed legislation designating three new wilderness areas in Idaho, providing federal protection to more that 275,000 acres of land, the White House said.
Posted by: some random meathead at August 08, 2015 11:25 AM
related to that: Washington Times Obamas designation of monuments just another land grab, Republicans say
Tiny Url- http://tinyurl.com/q2ukmo5
quote With the move, Mr. Obama has established or expanded 19 national monuments, taking 260 million acres of land and placing it under control of the federal government. Critics say the administration simply wants to expand government control across the country. unquote
If that article is right, during his rule Obama has seized 260 million acres, that would come out to 406,250 square miles. That would make a square 637 miles per side. That is about the Texas and California combined,
That is a lot of resources denied the market and area denied contra-revolutionaries to hide. But if The Won succeeds in breaking the US economy and pushed it into bankruptcy, he will have a lot of assets to disburse to the creditors. China would probably like some US land to become sovereign Chinese territory. Tin foil hat off.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 7 President Barack Obama
on Friday signed legislation designating three new wilderness areas in Idaho, providing federal protection to more that 275,000 acres of land, the White House said.
Posted by: some random meathead at August 08, 2015 11:25 AM
related to that: Washington Times Obamas designation of monuments just another land grab, Republicans say
Tiny Url- http://tinyurl.com/q2ukmo5
quote With the move, Mr. Obama has established or expanded 19 national monuments, taking 260 million acres of land and placing it under control of the federal government. Critics say the administration simply wants to expand government control across the country. unquote
If that article is right, during his rule Obama has seized 260 million acres, that would come out to 406,250 square miles. That would make a square 637 miles per side. That is about the Texas and California combined,
That is a lot of resources denied the market and area denied contra-revolutionaries to hide. But if The Won succeeds in breaking the US economy and pushed it into bankruptcy, he will have a lot of assets to disburse to the creditors. China would probably like some US land to become sovereign Chinese territory. Tin foil hat off.
Posted by: Drive-by Delurking at August 08, 2015 12:19 PM (Uu9UT)
164
No, and I didn't mean to imply that they did. Just saying that many animals in South Africa have value that goes beyond hunting and they are indeed viewed by most as a huge national resource that needs to be managed.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 12:11 PM (OGm46)
Ah, ok. Well, that is a more general discussion. Hunting is, of course, one part of the conservation jigsaw puzzle.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 12:11 PM (OGm46)
Ah, ok. Well, that is a more general discussion. Hunting is, of course, one part of the conservation jigsaw puzzle.
Posted by: East Bay KG at August 08, 2015 12:21 PM (YUrE9)
165
Zimbabwe's devastated economy
Rhodesia, under Ian Smith: "the jewel of Africa"
Zimbabwe, under Robert Mugabe: "devastated economy"
Hmmm.
Rhodesia, under Ian Smith: "the jewel of Africa"
Zimbabwe, under Robert Mugabe: "devastated economy"
Hmmm.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 08, 2015 12:21 PM (oKE6c)
166
The reality is that "market failure" is treated like table salt, when in reality it's more like a blue diamond. Not that common, even if it does occur.
"Market failure" and its cousin "externalities", in practice, are usually just intellectually bankrupt rationales for intervening, rent-seeking, social engineering, and otherwise running other people's lives as opposed to earning your results.
Health care is of course the gigantic, screaming, blazing example in everyone's faces. But behold how few people can even, literally, think rationally about any of it. People who work in open-outcry commodity markets, the purest most transparent embodiment ofthe market concept,would probably still mostly not think beyond "gee, medical care is expensive ..... uh, nobody should be allowed to die without help .... derp derp".
There ARE public goods (nuclear submarines, public health activities/infrastructure). There are areas (relatively small) for regulation to improve outcomes (mostly just rule of law and enforceable contracts).
But they are relatively limited, and most of them were "discovered" and maximized generations ago (or in the case of public goods, well understood). But we are living in a society hugely impoverished (opportunity cost sense) and rendered far less free by the hijacking and distortion of the public goods concept and rampant corrupt incompetent ideological misregulation.
The reality is that "market failure" is treated like table salt, when in reality it's more like a blue diamond. Not that common, even if it does occur.
"Market failure" and its cousin "externalities", in practice, are usually just intellectually bankrupt rationales for intervening, rent-seeking, social engineering, and otherwise running other people's lives as opposed to earning your results.
Health care is of course the gigantic, screaming, blazing example in everyone's faces. But behold how few people can even, literally, think rationally about any of it. People who work in open-outcry commodity markets, the purest most transparent embodiment ofthe market concept,would probably still mostly not think beyond "gee, medical care is expensive ..... uh, nobody should be allowed to die without help .... derp derp".
There ARE public goods (nuclear submarines, public health activities/infrastructure). There are areas (relatively small) for regulation to improve outcomes (mostly just rule of law and enforceable contracts).
But they are relatively limited, and most of them were "discovered" and maximized generations ago (or in the case of public goods, well understood). But we are living in a society hugely impoverished (opportunity cost sense) and rendered far less free by the hijacking and distortion of the public goods concept and rampant corrupt incompetent ideological misregulation.
Posted by: rhomboid at August 08, 2015 12:22 PM (QDnY+)
167
@buzzion-I phrased it that way because it is what many against "trophy hunting" seem to imply. My aim is the,"If you're not hunting for food, you're a piece of shit", crowd.
Posted by: JROD Trophy Hunter at August 08, 2015 12:22 PM (wnwJC)
168
>>I wonder if there is a mechanism that would help us determine what that optimal balance would be?
No, we don't disagree for the most part. And I know it won't be popular to say but it isn't the free market that is protecting those animals for the most part, it's the government. If left to itself, the market would dictate that there would be very little if any of the Big 5 as they are known in Africa left. Many were well on their way to extinction before poaching was made illegal and enforced by government.
An example that is closer to home for me is fishing. It annoys the crap out of me when gov't imposes a bunch of fishing limits but without them we would have wiped out a bunch of species around here by now. The proof, the return in big numbers of seals which have come back because fish stocks have grown and they eat the fish which in turn brings back a lot of sharks. Ask anyone who lives around the Cape or in RI if the seal and shark population has grown and you will get a giant Boy howdy!
I'm a big fan of free market capitalism since I've made my living being in it and profiting from it and I do think gov't goes to far in many instances. But free markets alone do not alway guarantee optimal outcomes. Never have, never will.
No, we don't disagree for the most part. And I know it won't be popular to say but it isn't the free market that is protecting those animals for the most part, it's the government. If left to itself, the market would dictate that there would be very little if any of the Big 5 as they are known in Africa left. Many were well on their way to extinction before poaching was made illegal and enforced by government.
An example that is closer to home for me is fishing. It annoys the crap out of me when gov't imposes a bunch of fishing limits but without them we would have wiped out a bunch of species around here by now. The proof, the return in big numbers of seals which have come back because fish stocks have grown and they eat the fish which in turn brings back a lot of sharks. Ask anyone who lives around the Cape or in RI if the seal and shark population has grown and you will get a giant Boy howdy!
I'm a big fan of free market capitalism since I've made my living being in it and profiting from it and I do think gov't goes to far in many instances. But free markets alone do not alway guarantee optimal outcomes. Never have, never will.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 12:23 PM (OGm46)
169
I guess a third option is total anarchy where you
don't even care about anyone but yourself, reject all laws, government,
social structures, or even formal economics. Mad Max style. I don't
know anyone other than the fundamentally insane who hold to that
position, though.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 08, 2015 12:08 PM (39g3+)
Such a society is not workable. It either develops and enforces its own rules and standards, or the society devolves into small kinship groups and cannot combine to accomplish anything. There are some societies that live this way in the deepest of the Amazon and New Guinea, and the kinship groups tend to be very violent towards each other, since that is the only basis of "rule of law" available to them.
I would point out that if these societies did not live in a swamp, they would have been rolled over by more organized societies long ago since even though they are violent, they are not organized to resist. And developing the organization to resist would change their society out of this anarchist-kinship model.
don't even care about anyone but yourself, reject all laws, government,
social structures, or even formal economics. Mad Max style. I don't
know anyone other than the fundamentally insane who hold to that
position, though.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 08, 2015 12:08 PM (39g3+)
Such a society is not workable. It either develops and enforces its own rules and standards, or the society devolves into small kinship groups and cannot combine to accomplish anything. There are some societies that live this way in the deepest of the Amazon and New Guinea, and the kinship groups tend to be very violent towards each other, since that is the only basis of "rule of law" available to them.
I would point out that if these societies did not live in a swamp, they would have been rolled over by more organized societies long ago since even though they are violent, they are not organized to resist. And developing the organization to resist would change their society out of this anarchist-kinship model.
Posted by: Kindltot at August 08, 2015 12:28 PM (3pRHP)
170
No, Maetenloch's idea was dumb and it's still dumb.
Except its been proven throughout human history to be 100% absolutely true. Other than that, maybe you'd have a point.
Except its been proven throughout human history to be 100% absolutely true. Other than that, maybe you'd have a point.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 08, 2015 12:28 PM (39g3+)
171
JackStraw, one point you indirectly make in your comment is about differences in value systems. Tell people in struggling societies like the vast majority of Africa (and indeed, I wager, the West when extreme poverty was the lot of most) that some animal, which can be very dangerous to them is going to go extinct very soon, and at best you'll get a shrug.
Worrying about animal extinction is a privilege of prosperous societies.
Worrying about animal extinction is a privilege of prosperous societies.
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at August 08, 2015 12:32 PM (sAXJ5)
172
An example that is closer to home for me is fishing. It annoys the crap
out of me when gov't imposes a bunch of fishing limits but without them
we would have wiped out a bunch of species around here by now.
But Jack, by far the most efficient strategy of fish management has been for the government to transfer ownership of the fish stocks to the fishermen themselves - Who then have a market incentive to preserve them as well as harvest them. It's areas where fisherman have no ownership stake that get fished out, and why not? That was what my tragedy of the commons post was all about.
And here we have Keith Eppich with the exact argument that I talked about in the OP. Of course we can't do that for lions, they are endangered for God's sake! WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!!!
out of me when gov't imposes a bunch of fishing limits but without them
we would have wiped out a bunch of species around here by now.
But Jack, by far the most efficient strategy of fish management has been for the government to transfer ownership of the fish stocks to the fishermen themselves - Who then have a market incentive to preserve them as well as harvest them. It's areas where fisherman have no ownership stake that get fished out, and why not? That was what my tragedy of the commons post was all about.
And here we have Keith Eppich with the exact argument that I talked about in the OP. Of course we can't do that for lions, they are endangered for God's sake! WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!!!
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 12:33 PM (WvS3w)
173
Posted by: Keith Eppich at August 08, 2015 12:19 PM (do7+Y)
The lions do make good tourist attractions. Under present conditions you can't have naturally controlled lion populations and lion tourist attractions. So the local government has to do it. That costs money.
Hunters will pay to do it. Africans are not stupid. Lion hunting and lion tourism work hand-in-hand.
Posted by: Keith Eppich at August 08, 2015 12:19 PM (do7+Y)
The lions do make good tourist attractions. Under present conditions you can't have naturally controlled lion populations and lion tourist attractions. So the local government has to do it. That costs money.
Hunters will pay to do it. Africans are not stupid. Lion hunting and lion tourism work hand-in-hand.
Posted by: Bearded Spock at August 08, 2015 12:38 PM (MQEz6)
174
I am increasingly unsure of this dichotomy or of the
Utopianist premise; I find it too limiting in view of my upbringing on
the Left. The bedrock assumption has always been that the Left is driven
by a deep (delusional) belief in the perfectibility of society, and
that much of the damage produced by their schemes arises from this
intention and delusion. I believe many on the Left do not believe in
Utopia at all or hold it as a goal. It is far more about control and
power, a psycho-pathological need to impose their will and punish and
subjugate those who don't conform to this will.
Posted by: rrpjr at August 08, 2015 12:17 PM (s/yC1)
I was talking about control with someone in Al-Anon. I understand that control is a huge issue there (I could be wrong, so you can correct me if I am), and there is a lot of emphasis on not trying to control the world around you, that whole, "...accept the things I cannot change.."
I was talking about the futility of getting the entire population of the world to pronounce my name right, and my friend (I love some of my friends) said that was a lot of control I was trying to force.
My response was that we are talking about me dictating the actions of 6.5 Billion people, and imagine the sort of power that implies.
I was joking of course, but I wonder if that isn't the reason so many are hung up on controlling the world, it means they are powerful, and if that is not the root source of the need to destroy, subjugate and impose their will.
I can't tease out how much of it is status signalling, how much is power-grabs, and how much is just rent-seeking.
Utopianist premise; I find it too limiting in view of my upbringing on
the Left. The bedrock assumption has always been that the Left is driven
by a deep (delusional) belief in the perfectibility of society, and
that much of the damage produced by their schemes arises from this
intention and delusion. I believe many on the Left do not believe in
Utopia at all or hold it as a goal. It is far more about control and
power, a psycho-pathological need to impose their will and punish and
subjugate those who don't conform to this will.
Posted by: rrpjr at August 08, 2015 12:17 PM (s/yC1)
I was talking about control with someone in Al-Anon. I understand that control is a huge issue there (I could be wrong, so you can correct me if I am), and there is a lot of emphasis on not trying to control the world around you, that whole, "...accept the things I cannot change.."
I was talking about the futility of getting the entire population of the world to pronounce my name right, and my friend (I love some of my friends) said that was a lot of control I was trying to force.
My response was that we are talking about me dictating the actions of 6.5 Billion people, and imagine the sort of power that implies.
I was joking of course, but I wonder if that isn't the reason so many are hung up on controlling the world, it means they are powerful, and if that is not the root source of the need to destroy, subjugate and impose their will.
I can't tease out how much of it is status signalling, how much is power-grabs, and how much is just rent-seeking.
Posted by: Kindltot at August 08, 2015 12:38 PM (3pRHP)
175
>>Worrying about animal extinction is a privilege of prosperous societies.
To a point. Take the animals in South Africa. To many they were as you dangerous on an immediate and individual basis. But through proper management they are now thriving and the overall standard of living for all is, or at least would be if the government was so completely corrupt, has risen dramatically.
Cities have sprung up around many of the parks and they employee tons of locals not to mention the numerous people who work in the parks themselves. Their lives are immensely better than had a complete free market, hunting the animals to extinction, been allowed and the affects ripple throughout the economy.
Again, balance is everything if we are talking about benefit to society at large. And with that, time to go balance my day by sitting on the boat and drinking beer. Have a good day all.
To a point. Take the animals in South Africa. To many they were as you dangerous on an immediate and individual basis. But through proper management they are now thriving and the overall standard of living for all is, or at least would be if the government was so completely corrupt, has risen dramatically.
Cities have sprung up around many of the parks and they employee tons of locals not to mention the numerous people who work in the parks themselves. Their lives are immensely better than had a complete free market, hunting the animals to extinction, been allowed and the affects ripple throughout the economy.
Again, balance is everything if we are talking about benefit to society at large. And with that, time to go balance my day by sitting on the boat and drinking beer. Have a good day all.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 12:40 PM (OGm46)
176
Well, Weirddave, it shows that you don't understand much about economics. And you're trying to make an economic argument, hence the source of your confusion.
The economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or special status.
It's that simple.
The economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or special status.
It's that simple.
Posted by: Keith Eppich at August 08, 2015 12:40 PM (do7+Y)
177
@Keith Eppich-You're conveniently omitting some facts on dangerous big game hunting in Africa and fees. Where African countries really make their money, aside from dangerous game, is plains game hunting. Plains game hunting dwarfs dangerous game hunting. Canned hunts in here in the US for dangerous game in fenced off areas is frowned upon. Being a member of Safari Club International that I am is very informative. "Trophy hunting Lions exacerbates existing problems of poaching and exotic animal trafficking", I don't even know where to begin with that nonsensical statement.
Posted by: JROD Trophy Hunter at August 08, 2015 12:40 PM (wnwJC)
178
Pull my finger.
Posted by: the invisible hand at August 08, 2015 12:40 PM (rwI+c)
179
"Lion hunting and lion tourism work hand-in-hand."
Bingo. Both need healthy lion pops to exist. The lion hunter pays for one Hell of a lot of conservation efforts. More than the tourist. Landowner manages the property to have healthy lion pops. That's how he makes hit nut.
Bingo. Both need healthy lion pops to exist. The lion hunter pays for one Hell of a lot of conservation efforts. More than the tourist. Landowner manages the property to have healthy lion pops. That's how he makes hit nut.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at August 08, 2015 12:43 PM (dxw2/)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at August 08, 2015 12:44 PM (dxw2/)
181
Bearded Spock:
The lion population doesn't need controlling. They're not white-tailed deer in Georgia or wild boars in Texas.
The decline of their prey-species already limits lion populations. Population control doesn't require human intervention. Besides, trophy-hunting is at such a small scale, it would not impact their population at all.
On the other hand, it does exacerbate existing problems with poaching. Again, the same local guides and corrupt officials (this IS Africa) who help lion-hunters also help elephant-hunters. So, allowing "hunting" of lions also carries an additional cost in terms of the decline of species already on the verge of extinction, elephants, rhinos, etc.
There is no way to practically allow for the trophy-hunting of lions in Africa. (I'm choosing my words very carefully, because I've been told hunting kudu is both challenging and fun and rewarding. Like elk.)
The lion population doesn't need controlling. They're not white-tailed deer in Georgia or wild boars in Texas.
The decline of their prey-species already limits lion populations. Population control doesn't require human intervention. Besides, trophy-hunting is at such a small scale, it would not impact their population at all.
On the other hand, it does exacerbate existing problems with poaching. Again, the same local guides and corrupt officials (this IS Africa) who help lion-hunters also help elephant-hunters. So, allowing "hunting" of lions also carries an additional cost in terms of the decline of species already on the verge of extinction, elephants, rhinos, etc.
There is no way to practically allow for the trophy-hunting of lions in Africa. (I'm choosing my words very carefully, because I've been told hunting kudu is both challenging and fun and rewarding. Like elk.)
Posted by: Keith Eppich at August 08, 2015 12:47 PM (do7+Y)
182
148 There's been a few mountain lion attacks this year in Cali, such as a 6 year old boy.
http://tinyurl.com/nsd4643
Mountain lions are pretty shy but the laws against hunting them have caused some real problems here in the northwest.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 08, 2015 12:11 PM (39g3+)
In TX we can hunt them all we want. They don't eat people here, and there are still plenty of them around. They've started showing up inside the San Antonio city limits now. IMHO they don't eat people here for two reasons: they have a fear of people, due to being hunted an trapped, and there is an excess of other food here in the form of WT deer and feral hogs.
http://tinyurl.com/nsd4643
Mountain lions are pretty shy but the laws against hunting them have caused some real problems here in the northwest.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 08, 2015 12:11 PM (39g3+)
In TX we can hunt them all we want. They don't eat people here, and there are still plenty of them around. They've started showing up inside the San Antonio city limits now. IMHO they don't eat people here for two reasons: they have a fear of people, due to being hunted an trapped, and there is an excess of other food here in the form of WT deer and feral hogs.
Posted by: stace at August 08, 2015 12:52 PM (CoX6k)
183
61 Wow, is the great GOP purge starting today? If so, mark this morning as the start.
Last night, Erik Erikson, owner of RedState.com and the person in charge of the big RedState conference going on right now (where all the candidates are speaking) dis-invited Trump from the conference after his sexist comments about Megyn Kelley.
In turn, Breitbart.com, the former conservative news website founded by famed and deceased conservative Andrew Breitbart, declared that it will no longer post any news from the Red State conference, due to Trump being banned from the conference. Breitbart.com has gone from a conservative news site to an angry, anti-establishment site, hell-bent on supporting Trump.
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:28 AM (cojlL)
Erik Erikson can eat a bag of dicks.
I'm not a big fan of Breitbart's commenters, either.
Last night, Erik Erikson, owner of RedState.com and the person in charge of the big RedState conference going on right now (where all the candidates are speaking) dis-invited Trump from the conference after his sexist comments about Megyn Kelley.
In turn, Breitbart.com, the former conservative news website founded by famed and deceased conservative Andrew Breitbart, declared that it will no longer post any news from the Red State conference, due to Trump being banned from the conference. Breitbart.com has gone from a conservative news site to an angry, anti-establishment site, hell-bent on supporting Trump.
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:28 AM (cojlL)
Erik Erikson can eat a bag of dicks.
I'm not a big fan of Breitbart's commenters, either.
Posted by: rickl at August 08, 2015 12:53 PM (sdi6R)
184
Here in this country, we have the luxury of preserving some lands. We call them National Parks. Yellowstone and Grand Canyon, etc., these places were not preserved because they had market value (although some of them clearly do). They were preserved because we can appreciate their value in terms other than money.
If you want to argue for the survival of lions, or the right of people to hunt them, fine. Do it. But I skipped most of this piece, because Church is tomorrow, and I don't go to the market when I want to worship.
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:01 AM (Dj0WE)
It may have escaped your notice, but the National parks are marketed. I see ads for them on TV all the time.
If you want to argue for the survival of lions, or the right of people to hunt them, fine. Do it. But I skipped most of this piece, because Church is tomorrow, and I don't go to the market when I want to worship.
Posted by: BurtTC at August 08, 2015 11:01 AM (Dj0WE)
It may have escaped your notice, but the National parks are marketed. I see ads for them on TV all the time.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at August 08, 2015 12:55 PM (y9onC)
Posted by: MAx at August 08, 2015 12:58 PM (LAliD)
186
Erik Erickson is definitely a douchebag, but not on Trump.
He is far more of an Establishmentarian than he lets on, he was a Jeb Superfan and a HUGE Romney fan in 2008, yet he then pretends he never supported them.
He is far more of an Establishmentarian than he lets on, he was a Jeb Superfan and a HUGE Romney fan in 2008, yet he then pretends he never supported them.
Posted by: Kal at August 08, 2015 12:59 PM (A3kYV)
187
163
related to that: Washington Times Obamas designation of monuments just another land grab, Republicans say
Tiny Url- http://tinyurl.com/q2ukmo5
quote With the move, Mr. Obama has established or expanded 19 national monuments, taking 260 million acres of land and placing it under control of the federal government. Critics say the administration simply wants to expand government control across the country. unquote
If that article is right, during his rule Obama has seized 260 million acres, that would come out to 406,250 square miles. That would make a square 637 miles per side. That is about the Texas and California combined,
That is a lot of resources denied the market and area denied contra-revolutionaries to hide.
But if The Won succeeds in breaking the US economy and pushed it into bankruptcy, he will have a lot of assets to disburse to the creditors. China would probably like some US land to become sovereign Chinese territory. Tin foil hat off.
Posted by: Drive-by Delurking at August 08, 2015 12:19 PM (Uu9UT)
That's an interesting comment. We touched on it in the ONT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_Forest
Posted by: The Forrested Hat at August 08, 2015 03:26 AM (7YlUk)
"It also rolled back the area encompassed by the designation 'forest' to that of Henry II's time, essentially freeing up lands that had become more and more restricted as King Richard and King John designated greater and greater areas of land to become royal forest."
***
Nope, I don't see any parallel between that and the activities of the modern-day Federal government. None at all.
I think your last paragraph is spot on, tin foil hat and all.
related to that: Washington Times Obamas designation of monuments just another land grab, Republicans say
Tiny Url- http://tinyurl.com/q2ukmo5
quote With the move, Mr. Obama has established or expanded 19 national monuments, taking 260 million acres of land and placing it under control of the federal government. Critics say the administration simply wants to expand government control across the country. unquote
If that article is right, during his rule Obama has seized 260 million acres, that would come out to 406,250 square miles. That would make a square 637 miles per side. That is about the Texas and California combined,
That is a lot of resources denied the market and area denied contra-revolutionaries to hide.
But if The Won succeeds in breaking the US economy and pushed it into bankruptcy, he will have a lot of assets to disburse to the creditors. China would probably like some US land to become sovereign Chinese territory. Tin foil hat off.
Posted by: Drive-by Delurking at August 08, 2015 12:19 PM (Uu9UT)
That's an interesting comment. We touched on it in the ONT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_Forest
Posted by: The Forrested Hat at August 08, 2015 03:26 AM (7YlUk)
"It also rolled back the area encompassed by the designation 'forest' to that of Henry II's time, essentially freeing up lands that had become more and more restricted as King Richard and King John designated greater and greater areas of land to become royal forest."
***
Nope, I don't see any parallel between that and the activities of the modern-day Federal government. None at all.
I think your last paragraph is spot on, tin foil hat and all.
Posted by: rickl at August 08, 2015 01:01 PM (sdi6R)
188
Combine this
http://tinyurl.com/qgw7phm
and this
http://tinyurl.com/qcb8vbe
and you'll have the most awesomest Halloween costume of the season.
Combine this
http://tinyurl.com/qgw7phm
and this
http://tinyurl.com/qcb8vbe
and you'll have the most awesomest Halloween costume of the season.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at August 08, 2015 01:09 PM (egLDQ)
189
@Keith Eppich-You do realize that Africa is a really big place? It covers a lot of territory/territories. The population of prey species and lion populations vary from designated hunting area to designated hunting area, country to country. You sure do paint with a broad brush labeling African hunting guides.
Posted by: JROD Trophy Hunter at August 08, 2015 01:10 PM (wnwJC)
190
Keith Eppich, I was going to respond, but figured why bother, you've demonstrated that you are simply an anti-hunting zealot. Others have pointed out the flaws in your argument, but you continue to ignore them because of your own prejudice. Begone.
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 01:14 PM (WvS3w)
191
Erik Erikson can eat a bag of dicks.
Posted by: rickl at August 08, 2015 12:53 PM (sdi6R)
And he clearly HAS.
They just don't understand what his popularity numbers signify.
It has little to nothing to do with his viability as a candidate or a President. (yet)
And until or if they do, they won't be able to touch him.
Posted by: rickl at August 08, 2015 12:53 PM (sdi6R)
And he clearly HAS.
They just don't understand what his popularity numbers signify.
It has little to nothing to do with his viability as a candidate or a President. (yet)
And until or if they do, they won't be able to touch him.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at August 08, 2015 01:15 PM (x3GpS)
192
Wow, is the great GOP purge starting today? If so, mark this morning as the start.
Last night, faux conservative Erik Erikson, owner of RedState.com and the person in charge of the big RedState conference going on right now (where all the candidates are speaking) dis-invited Donald Trump from the conference after his allegedly sexist comments about Megyn Kelley.
In turn, Breitbart.com, theformer principled conservative news website founded by famed and deceased conservative Andrew Breitbart, declared that it will no longer post any news from the Red State conference, due to Trump being banned from the conference. Breitbart.com has gone from a conservative news site to an angry, anti-establishment site, hell-bent on supporting Trump. continued to uphold the principle that all candidates need to get a fair hearing, even if some people don't like them.
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:28 AM (cojlL)
Fixed it for you, Mr. Agenda.
Last night, faux conservative Erik Erikson, owner of RedState.com and the person in charge of the big RedState conference going on right now (where all the candidates are speaking) dis-invited Donald Trump from the conference after his allegedly sexist comments about Megyn Kelley.
In turn, Breitbart.com, the
Posted by: Greymarch at August 08, 2015 11:28 AM (cojlL)
Fixed it for you, Mr. Agenda.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at August 08, 2015 01:16 PM (y9onC)
193
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 10:59 AM (WvS3w)
but where did the easier and better go?
And no it's not cheaper because a lot of the costs that were paid by a ticket in the past are now hidden in fees that aren't included as part of the flight cost.
but where did the easier and better go?
And no it's not cheaper because a lot of the costs that were paid by a ticket in the past are now hidden in fees that aren't included as part of the flight cost.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at August 08, 2015 01:18 PM (x3GpS)
194
The value of non lethal safaris and tourism far exceeds that of a one time kill hunt
Posted by: Righter at August 08, 2015 01:35 PM (clV7O)
195
Hunting is important. But luring a protected animal from a game preserve to kill it is not hunting, it's poaching.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 12:11 PM (OGm46)
We all know[/] that, Jack. And mostly agree with it in principle, even if the actual circumstances of the Cecil incident are still cloudy. You don't have to keep repeating it 'leventy-'leven times.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 12:11 PM (OGm46)
We all know[/] that, Jack. And mostly agree with it in principle, even if the actual circumstances of the Cecil incident are still cloudy. You don't have to keep repeating it 'leventy-'leven times.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at August 08, 2015 01:38 PM (y9onC)
196
191 Erik Erikson can eat a bag of dicks.
Posted by: rickl at August 08, 2015 12:53 PM (sdi6R)
His personal jihad of sarcasm against Palin was disgusting and relentless.
Posted by: rickl at August 08, 2015 12:53 PM (sdi6R)
His personal jihad of sarcasm against Palin was disgusting and relentless.
Posted by: rrpjr at August 08, 2015 01:39 PM (s/yC1)
197
Weirdave:
I discussed hunting deer and boar and kudu. How is this "anti-hunting zealotry?" Your argument simply makes no sense. You ascribe me fictional positions and then employ ad hominem. Are you sure you won't be more comfortable over at Dailykos?
I will restate my position, a position that has yet to be refuted at all, "The economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or special status."
JROD Trophy Hunter :
I have specially attempted to limit myself to Zimbabwe and to lions in particular. Yeah, maybe I've been a bit too free with my nouns. I mentioned hunting kudu and, while I've never done it myself, my South African friends tell me it's great fun. My own hunting has been a little deer and squirrel and the occasional paper target. Mostly I shoot watermelons with my bow. Those fierce-some watermelons!
I do want to point out that poaching and trophy-hunting, at least in Zimbabwe, go hand-in-hand. Our Minnesota dentist was, in fact, a poacher PRIOR to this lion thing. In addition to the lion, he asked for an elephant. The guide refused, not because it was illegal or that they're endangered, but because the guide couldn't find an elephant during the weekend the dentist was there. Because the same people supply the legal, quasi-legal, and illegal hunts, to legalize some aspect of lion trophy-hunting will necessarily assist illegal poaching of elephants and rhinos.
But, yeah, you're right, my brush was probably a bit broad.
I discussed hunting deer and boar and kudu. How is this "anti-hunting zealotry?" Your argument simply makes no sense. You ascribe me fictional positions and then employ ad hominem. Are you sure you won't be more comfortable over at Dailykos?
I will restate my position, a position that has yet to be refuted at all, "The economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or special status."
JROD Trophy Hunter :
I have specially attempted to limit myself to Zimbabwe and to lions in particular. Yeah, maybe I've been a bit too free with my nouns. I mentioned hunting kudu and, while I've never done it myself, my South African friends tell me it's great fun. My own hunting has been a little deer and squirrel and the occasional paper target. Mostly I shoot watermelons with my bow. Those fierce-some watermelons!
I do want to point out that poaching and trophy-hunting, at least in Zimbabwe, go hand-in-hand. Our Minnesota dentist was, in fact, a poacher PRIOR to this lion thing. In addition to the lion, he asked for an elephant. The guide refused, not because it was illegal or that they're endangered, but because the guide couldn't find an elephant during the weekend the dentist was there. Because the same people supply the legal, quasi-legal, and illegal hunts, to legalize some aspect of lion trophy-hunting will necessarily assist illegal poaching of elephants and rhinos.
But, yeah, you're right, my brush was probably a bit broad.
Posted by: Keith Eppich at August 08, 2015 01:45 PM (do7+Y)
198
Egg shell ants
Posted by: bour3 at August 08, 2015 02:00 PM (5x3+2)
199
Oh so guilty once, then guilty again automatically! No trial. No real evidence he was aware his guides were violating the law. Just he was penalized in the US once before so he definitely broke the law in Zimbabwe. Of course it all makes sense now. Who needs a trial or investigation.
Posted by: buzzion at August 08, 2015 02:02 PM (zt+N6)
200
I will restate my position, a position that has yet to be refuted at
all, "The economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value
as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or special
status."
Yes. And this statement is apparently true because you have made it. If you take half a second to thinks about it, it's absurd.
The last lion on Earth? Yea, I'll go with that. But lions aren't even endangered. How many lions? In what geographical area? For how long? All of these are variable that you refuse to consider in your blanket statement about lions. In your world, the value of a lion is "priceless" and everything else is subordinate to that. We have no way of knowing if what you say is true or not, and you're basing your entire argument on this one unsubstantiated statement.
Here's your theory again:
"The economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value
as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or special
status."
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to determine if this is true or not. It may be true in Kenya and false in South Africa. It might be false this year but true next year. It might be true in the rainy season and false during dry months. Conditions change, the value of a lion changes with them. In a country with 100 lions they are probably more valuable for photo tourism. In a country with 100,000 where they are eating the livestock (and the children), they're probably more valuable as targets. The market will determine this relative value if you let it. You refuse to.
Also, you seem to be taking an awful lot of statements that we don't know to be true at face value, and in every single instance, your interpretation of events is anti-hunter. That indicates bias at the very least, but based upon all of your posts here it seems to indicate a closed mind. That is far more in line with the Dailykos mindset than anything I've said
all, "The economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value
as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or special
status."
Yes. And this statement is apparently true because you have made it. If you take half a second to thinks about it, it's absurd.
The last lion on Earth? Yea, I'll go with that. But lions aren't even endangered. How many lions? In what geographical area? For how long? All of these are variable that you refuse to consider in your blanket statement about lions. In your world, the value of a lion is "priceless" and everything else is subordinate to that. We have no way of knowing if what you say is true or not, and you're basing your entire argument on this one unsubstantiated statement.
Here's your theory again:
"The economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value
as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or special
status."
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to determine if this is true or not. It may be true in Kenya and false in South Africa. It might be false this year but true next year. It might be true in the rainy season and false during dry months. Conditions change, the value of a lion changes with them. In a country with 100 lions they are probably more valuable for photo tourism. In a country with 100,000 where they are eating the livestock (and the children), they're probably more valuable as targets. The market will determine this relative value if you let it. You refuse to.
Also, you seem to be taking an awful lot of statements that we don't know to be true at face value, and in every single instance, your interpretation of events is anti-hunter. That indicates bias at the very least, but based upon all of your posts here it seems to indicate a closed mind. That is far more in line with the Dailykos mindset than anything I've said
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 02:08 PM (WvS3w)
201
Thanks to hunters, lions are capital assets that create wealth for Africans.
Without hunters, lions would just be meat animals. Meat animals that have already killed millions of Africans.
I stand with the capital assets.
Without hunters, lions would just be meat animals. Meat animals that have already killed millions of Africans.
I stand with the capital assets.
Posted by: J Moses Browning at August 08, 2015 02:13 PM (ZAF75)
202
That sounds like a giant strawman in the context of this discussion, where there is *actual* data on how a market for hunting brought about good results.
Where was the claim you impute here? That "markets" will solve all humanity's ills?
Posted by: East Bay KG at August 08, 2015 11:53 AM (YUrE9)
Sorry, have house guests and had to actually interact with them and stuff.
Actually, my point was in defense of market economics of the Hayekian/Friedmanian nature, and pointing out that the "markets are always better" straw man is most often trotted out not by knowledgable defenders of free markets but by their most vehement opponents.
Markets, like all human institutions, are limited by human knowledge and fallibility. It's just that the nature of markets tends to -- TENDS TO -- maximize human knowledge and minimize human fallibility, whereas any other possible system (i.e. any command-type economy) will tend to exacerbate human fallibility while at the same time diminish overall human knowledge of the economy in question.
If you want lions to survive as a species, you put a price on them for humans to . . . harvest, for want of a better word. But the price has to represent a true market value, not just some price that a bureaucrat pulls out of the air (or some bodily orifice) for instance.
That market value would take into consideration not only the value of a lion as a trophy but alternate uses (opportunity costs) of the lion FOR HUMANS--tourism, primarily, I guess.
The market itself, for reasons in my first post in the thread, is not a perfect mechanism for determining the price, but it is better than any readily available alternative.
If you mess with the market price, at least you should have a clear understanding of just exactly what the hell you're doing, in theory at least. Most people don't have a clue, and just go by their feels. That is guaranteed to produce really, really bad economic outcomes.
Where was the claim you impute here? That "markets" will solve all humanity's ills?
Posted by: East Bay KG at August 08, 2015 11:53 AM (YUrE9)
Sorry, have house guests and had to actually interact with them and stuff.
Actually, my point was in defense of market economics of the Hayekian/Friedmanian nature, and pointing out that the "markets are always better" straw man is most often trotted out not by knowledgable defenders of free markets but by their most vehement opponents.
Markets, like all human institutions, are limited by human knowledge and fallibility. It's just that the nature of markets tends to -- TENDS TO -- maximize human knowledge and minimize human fallibility, whereas any other possible system (i.e. any command-type economy) will tend to exacerbate human fallibility while at the same time diminish overall human knowledge of the economy in question.
If you want lions to survive as a species, you put a price on them for humans to . . . harvest, for want of a better word. But the price has to represent a true market value, not just some price that a bureaucrat pulls out of the air (or some bodily orifice) for instance.
That market value would take into consideration not only the value of a lion as a trophy but alternate uses (opportunity costs) of the lion FOR HUMANS--tourism, primarily, I guess.
The market itself, for reasons in my first post in the thread, is not a perfect mechanism for determining the price, but it is better than any readily available alternative.
If you mess with the market price, at least you should have a clear understanding of just exactly what the hell you're doing, in theory at least. Most people don't have a clue, and just go by their feels. That is guaranteed to produce really, really bad economic outcomes.
Posted by: filbert at August 08, 2015 02:27 PM (JvPqF)
203
In all honesty, if the African Lion went the way of the sabre-tooth, I would be fairly indifferent. Species came and they go.
Posted by: Grump928(C) at August 08, 2015 02:37 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: Grump928(C) can assert with the best of them at August 08, 2015 02:39 PM (rwI+c)
205
"There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to determine if this is true or not."
Oh yeah there is. Economists calculate value all the time.
In terms of Safari Tourism, we're really only talking three countries, South Africa, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. Tourists want the whole package- sunsets, elephants, giraffes, leopards, and, yes, lions. Let's take the numbers I gave earlier. Zimbabwe took in 1.9 billion dollars in Safari tourism in 2014. The country has about 1600 lions, a population right on the brink of genetic viability, the vast majority of which are confined to national parks. Let's divide.
1.187 million dollars per lion. Now, how accurate is that? I don't know. How much would Zimbabwe loose in tourism per lion? How much lower can the population go before our Zimbabwe lions lose genetic viability and start to look like the British royal family? I don't know.
What I do know is that if Zimbabwe has no lions, or few and sickly lions, all those safari tourists will go to South Africa or Kenya and the 1.9 billion dollars in tourism will go to zero. Or something close to zero.
So, 1.187 million dollars per lion, give or take a hundred thousand. This versus the, what 70,000 dollars the dentist paid to shoot his lion? That's 5%.
Ergo, the economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or special status
Now, before you get mad at me and start saying that my numbers are, "all bullshit, man!" think about it. Lions are not endangered, but populations are declining. The Zimbabwean officials are corrupt third-world despots. You really trust them to successfully manage local lion populations? They can't even grow corn. It's better to apply pressure for a total ban.
Allow the tourist market to form, to displace trophy-hunting and conserve existing populations. That is how you avoid the tragedy of the commons.
Open your mind, son.
Oh yeah there is. Economists calculate value all the time.
In terms of Safari Tourism, we're really only talking three countries, South Africa, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. Tourists want the whole package- sunsets, elephants, giraffes, leopards, and, yes, lions. Let's take the numbers I gave earlier. Zimbabwe took in 1.9 billion dollars in Safari tourism in 2014. The country has about 1600 lions, a population right on the brink of genetic viability, the vast majority of which are confined to national parks. Let's divide.
1.187 million dollars per lion. Now, how accurate is that? I don't know. How much would Zimbabwe loose in tourism per lion? How much lower can the population go before our Zimbabwe lions lose genetic viability and start to look like the British royal family? I don't know.
What I do know is that if Zimbabwe has no lions, or few and sickly lions, all those safari tourists will go to South Africa or Kenya and the 1.9 billion dollars in tourism will go to zero. Or something close to zero.
So, 1.187 million dollars per lion, give or take a hundred thousand. This versus the, what 70,000 dollars the dentist paid to shoot his lion? That's 5%.
Ergo, the economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or special status
Now, before you get mad at me and start saying that my numbers are, "all bullshit, man!" think about it. Lions are not endangered, but populations are declining. The Zimbabwean officials are corrupt third-world despots. You really trust them to successfully manage local lion populations? They can't even grow corn. It's better to apply pressure for a total ban.
Allow the tourist market to form, to displace trophy-hunting and conserve existing populations. That is how you avoid the tragedy of the commons.
Open your mind, son.
Posted by: Keith Eppich at August 08, 2015 02:40 PM (do7+Y)
206
@Keith Eppich-Corrupt local governments are the problem in Africa. They set the rules guide services and hunters abide by them. As for the dentist I am not well informed as to the details of his "poaching" here in the states. What I do know is that he harvested an animal out of his designated hunting area. Was it deliberate, or as can happen on occasion, accidental(wandering out of your area). I do not know how experienced of an outdoorsman he is. Granted, as the media has portrayed it, he sounds like a dipshit. However baiting an animal in some African countries is legal. I do not know what the rules are to that particular area (baiting) and I don't know if that has been addressed. Too many holes in the story to come to any concrete conclusion. If he broke the law then absolutely he should suffer the consequences, I have no problem with that. You say nobody has refuted your economic claims as to tourists that shoot lions with a camera or the ones that shoot them with a gun. I can say that the guide businesses I've dealt with do both and it poses a question that I have not thought of asking, which one do they make the most money off of. Another thing is these guide services which are primarily Dutch South African owned don't fuck around when it comes to poachers that encroach on their livelihood. I have heard many stories about poachers being dispatched at the end of many a guide services gun by their local native helpers. Africa is like the old wild west. The guide services I've dealt with have all been ethical. I've guided(not my primary occupation) a few of them myself on hunts here in the states. I would not tolerate anyone that does not employ "fair chase" and they do not either.
Posted by: JROD Trophy Hunter at August 08, 2015 02:54 PM (wnwJC)
207
Oh yeah there is. Economists calculate value all the time.
In terms of Safari Tourism, we're really only talking three
countries, South Africa, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. Tourists want the whole
package- sunsets, elephants, giraffes, leopards, and, yes, lions. Let's
take the numbers I gave earlier. Zimbabwe took in 1.9 billion dollars
in Safari tourism in 2014. The country has about 1600 lions, a
population right on the brink of genetic viability, the vast majority of
which are confined to national parks. Let's divide.
1.187 million dollars per lion.
They do indeed estimate value, but I guarantee that they don't do so by taking the total revenue from safari tourism and dividing it by the number of lions in the country.
What's it like to live in a world with only one variable?
Open your mind, son.
You need to close yours, your brain done fell out.
In terms of Safari Tourism, we're really only talking three
countries, South Africa, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. Tourists want the whole
package- sunsets, elephants, giraffes, leopards, and, yes, lions. Let's
take the numbers I gave earlier. Zimbabwe took in 1.9 billion dollars
in Safari tourism in 2014. The country has about 1600 lions, a
population right on the brink of genetic viability, the vast majority of
which are confined to national parks. Let's divide.
1.187 million dollars per lion.
They do indeed estimate value, but I guarantee that they don't do so by taking the total revenue from safari tourism and dividing it by the number of lions in the country.
What's it like to live in a world with only one variable?
Open your mind, son.
You need to close yours, your brain done fell out.
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 02:58 PM (WvS3w)
208
If lions are not endangered, why give a crap about the fact they are being hunted.
If hunting lions is such a bad idea, why have African countries allowed it for so long?
If the answer is corruption, then is there no corruption in tourism there?
If hunting lions is such a bad idea, why have African countries allowed it for so long?
If the answer is corruption, then is there no corruption in tourism there?
Posted by: Bearded Spock at August 08, 2015 03:10 PM (MQEz6)
209
))))I will restate my position, a position that has yet to be refuted at all, "The economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or special status." ((((
a statement for which you have provided NO empirical evidence for. as for "refuting", just disagreeing w/ what is an opinion is enough.
a statement for which you have provided NO empirical evidence for. as for "refuting", just disagreeing w/ what is an opinion is enough.
Posted by: chas at August 08, 2015 03:16 PM (Q8uu7)
210
Well, I am an economist, albeit one that addresses ancient economies, not modern ones. And dividing to determine value is precisely what WE do. Hell, man, I'm messing with ANVOA f-stats to figure out value of pottery from the 8th century AD. (The smaller the degree of variance in recovered assemblages, the more likely the majority of ceramics were traded in an open market.)
Without lions, Zimbabwean safari tourism would suffer a total, or near-total collapse. Hence, I'll stand by the 1.187 million number, but I'll admit there's "fuzziness" involved. Give or take a hundred thousand.
So, by my back of the envelope calculations, African lions are much more valuable for tourism than for hunts. And this is why bans on trophy hunting are now spreading across Subsaharan Africa. Such hunting brings bad press that fucks with their bottom line. They're not stupid (corrupt, yes, but not stupid). The market itself is moving to end trophy-hunting.
Don't be afraid of market forces, dude.
Without lions, Zimbabwean safari tourism would suffer a total, or near-total collapse. Hence, I'll stand by the 1.187 million number, but I'll admit there's "fuzziness" involved. Give or take a hundred thousand.
So, by my back of the envelope calculations, African lions are much more valuable for tourism than for hunts. And this is why bans on trophy hunting are now spreading across Subsaharan Africa. Such hunting brings bad press that fucks with their bottom line. They're not stupid (corrupt, yes, but not stupid). The market itself is moving to end trophy-hunting.
Don't be afraid of market forces, dude.
Posted by: Keith Eppich at August 08, 2015 03:21 PM (do7+Y)
211
@Keith Eppich-What would help is to know the numbers of hunting safaris vs photo safaris. As I have pointed out, the guide services I have employed and the ones at the Safari Club International conventions do both. I cannot remember off hand how much photo safaris are but I do know the fees, getting a permits to harvest an animal(s), trophy fees, etc, are astronomical. I have hunted plains game over there and could have afforded to harvest a leopard (like lions, they are in abundance) it's just that it has gotten too risky as it pertains to actually getting the heads and hides shipped to you which can take up to a year. Due to corruption and thievery a lot of hunters, primarily dangerous/cats, do not receive the game they have harvested at all.
Posted by: JROD Trophy Hunter at August 08, 2015 03:25 PM (wnwJC)
212
JROD Trophy Hunter:
Your job sounds like a lot of fun. I spend a great deal of time in Central America, so I know exactly how... um... ethically-challenged government works. In terms of hunting, South African probably does a very good job. I've heard many good things. Somehow, I think Zimbabwe is less than stellar.
If it's like the countries I work in, the law is mostly a big grey area where local officials and police can interpret it any number of ways and usually do so to their financial advantage. What I suspect is that our Dentist was legal until the hullabaloo, and then, suddenly, he's breaking the law. As a hunter myself, his story sounds fishy as hell. Baiting for me is a big no-no. It's right up there with grenade-fishing.
I think the real tragedy in all this is that perfectly ethical, perfectly legal hunting of large ungulates, zebra, kudu, etc, is going to be a casualty of these bans.
I am reminded of the ban on jaguar hunting, which has had no impact on local cat populations and the smuggling of cubs had declined tremendously. Also, it's the same market forces in Central America as in Africa that are driving the bans. It's just that you can't see jaguars in the wild, so the ones you do see are always captive. (or they have three legs or something).
Your job sounds like a lot of fun. I spend a great deal of time in Central America, so I know exactly how... um... ethically-challenged government works. In terms of hunting, South African probably does a very good job. I've heard many good things. Somehow, I think Zimbabwe is less than stellar.
If it's like the countries I work in, the law is mostly a big grey area where local officials and police can interpret it any number of ways and usually do so to their financial advantage. What I suspect is that our Dentist was legal until the hullabaloo, and then, suddenly, he's breaking the law. As a hunter myself, his story sounds fishy as hell. Baiting for me is a big no-no. It's right up there with grenade-fishing.
I think the real tragedy in all this is that perfectly ethical, perfectly legal hunting of large ungulates, zebra, kudu, etc, is going to be a casualty of these bans.
I am reminded of the ban on jaguar hunting, which has had no impact on local cat populations and the smuggling of cubs had declined tremendously. Also, it's the same market forces in Central America as in Africa that are driving the bans. It's just that you can't see jaguars in the wild, so the ones you do see are always captive. (or they have three legs or something).
Posted by: Keith Eppich at August 08, 2015 03:35 PM (do7+Y)
213
@Keith Eppich-Animals rights groups are like cockroaches, they're all over trying to ban all forms of hunting, even in Africa. They're not having much success at least as I know it.
Posted by: JROD Trophy Hunter at August 08, 2015 03:42 PM (wnwJC)
214
@Keith Eppich-If you're against using bait and grenades, then how do you get your fish?
Posted by: JROD Trophy Hunter at August 08, 2015 03:50 PM (wnwJC)
Posted by: Keith Eppich at August 08, 2015 03:59 PM (do7+Y)
216
This is absurd. You make an unfounded statement, you never back it up when you're challenged on it. You follow that up with an appeal to authority fallacy, claiming to be an economist, and then double down on your single variable economic theory. If the lions were gone, nobody would come to Africa to see elephants or gazelles or giraffes or anything else. No economic benefits come from hunting safaris, just photo safaris. Your argument is just so ridiculous that not only isn't it right, it isn't even wrong.
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 04:46 PM (ttpW1)
217
I presented a hypothesis, defended it with quantifiable data, and proceeded to derive conclusions.
I'm sorry you can't understand it. Perhaps you could try harder? I don't know. I'll give it one last attempt.
According to my calculations (given above), each lion in Zimbabwe is worth 1.187 million dollars to the local safari tourist trade. Each lion, to the trophy-hunter, pays 70,000USD, if Cecil is anything to go on. I'm just talking about Zimbabwe. Tourist economies are always in competition. One can't go to both Disneyland AND the beach. Without lions in Zimbabwe, they go to South Africa. Hence, most of Zimbabwean tourism collapses without these big cats. That was 1.9 billion for 2014.
70,000 is less than 1,1870,000. This is the quantifiable data. It is objective, which means that the data exists independently of the observer.
Here's the conclusion:
"The economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or special status."
There is the statement, and the numbers that back it up. This is how economic arguments work. It's how logical arguments work, actually.
Until you can provide additional data that modifies or refutes the given hypothesis, it stands.
This is how rational arguments work. One gives an assertion and supports it with data. Additional data then supports, modifies, or refutes the previous statement.
Why are you so afraid of numbers? Let the market run things, right now, the market is moving against trophy-hunting of big cats. You don't have to be in control, you know.
I'm sorry you can't understand it. Perhaps you could try harder? I don't know. I'll give it one last attempt.
According to my calculations (given above), each lion in Zimbabwe is worth 1.187 million dollars to the local safari tourist trade. Each lion, to the trophy-hunter, pays 70,000USD, if Cecil is anything to go on. I'm just talking about Zimbabwe. Tourist economies are always in competition. One can't go to both Disneyland AND the beach. Without lions in Zimbabwe, they go to South Africa. Hence, most of Zimbabwean tourism collapses without these big cats. That was 1.9 billion for 2014.
70,000 is less than 1,1870,000. This is the quantifiable data. It is objective, which means that the data exists independently of the observer.
Here's the conclusion:
"The economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or special status."
There is the statement, and the numbers that back it up. This is how economic arguments work. It's how logical arguments work, actually.
Until you can provide additional data that modifies or refutes the given hypothesis, it stands.
This is how rational arguments work. One gives an assertion and supports it with data. Additional data then supports, modifies, or refutes the previous statement.
Why are you so afraid of numbers? Let the market run things, right now, the market is moving against trophy-hunting of big cats. You don't have to be in control, you know.
Posted by: Keith Eppich at August 08, 2015 05:03 PM (do7+Y)
218
We all know[/] that, Jack. And mostly agree with it in principle, even if the actual circumstances of the Cecil incident are still cloudy. You don't have to keep repeating it 'leventy-'leven times.
Funny thing about arguing in the internet, people say things as if they aren't true to bolster their argument. Why don't you go count the number of times I said that and see if it ads up to eleventy. I'll save you some time because your Canadian and metric, 2 or 3 isn't eleventy, particularly not when it is being said to refute an argument that keeps being restated over and over. Hell, this entire thread is based on somebody else's argument which was said more than once.
No, I don't think that most people grasp the fact that what happened here wasn't hunting or they would stop arguing that it was some market force. It wasn't. The reason people are upset to the extent they are is because it was the illegal killing of what was probably a fairly domesticated, in the sense that it was used to humans, animal.
The market had already decided and it decided that animals that were kept in a preserve where valuable and killing them wasn't sport or profitable to society. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept even for conservatives.
Funny thing about arguing in the internet, people say things as if they aren't true to bolster their argument. Why don't you go count the number of times I said that and see if it ads up to eleventy. I'll save you some time because your Canadian and metric, 2 or 3 isn't eleventy, particularly not when it is being said to refute an argument that keeps being restated over and over. Hell, this entire thread is based on somebody else's argument which was said more than once.
No, I don't think that most people grasp the fact that what happened here wasn't hunting or they would stop arguing that it was some market force. It wasn't. The reason people are upset to the extent they are is because it was the illegal killing of what was probably a fairly domesticated, in the sense that it was used to humans, animal.
The market had already decided and it decided that animals that were kept in a preserve where valuable and killing them wasn't sport or profitable to society. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept even for conservatives.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 05:08 PM (OGm46)
219
According to my calculations (given above), each lion in Zimbabwe is
worth 1.187 million dollars to the local safari tourist trade.
Yes. And your calculations are ludicrous to the point of comedy. Honestly, I'm starting to think that you're trolling. Or, if you actually are an economist, you must be a Keynesian.
Here's the conclusion:
"The economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value
as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or
special status."
A statement which you have utterly failed to support except by your ridiculous unsubstantiated assertions that it is so, backed up by your fantasy land mathematical calculation.
worth 1.187 million dollars to the local safari tourist trade.
Yes. And your calculations are ludicrous to the point of comedy. Honestly, I'm starting to think that you're trolling. Or, if you actually are an economist, you must be a Keynesian.
Here's the conclusion:
"The economic value of the lion as per tourism exceeds their value
as trophies. By a lot. It has nothing to do with their unique or
special status."
A statement which you have utterly failed to support except by your ridiculous unsubstantiated assertions that it is so, backed up by your fantasy land mathematical calculation.
Posted by: Weirddave at August 08, 2015 05:20 PM (WvS3w)
220
I didn't think you would understand, Wierddave.
There's no point in repeating myself. Lions, in Zimbabwe, are worth 1.187 million dollars to the tourist trade, but you seem to have some... difficulty with large numbers.
Your mind is set on the matter. You made the original argument that, "Allowing a market to form and leaving it alone to work has been proven again and again to be the best, fairest, most efficient way to allocate goods and resources."
Then you turn around and argue that the market should not be allowed to ban the trophy-hunting of big cats. You are giving a perfect example of how people are terrified of letting the market dictate conditions. You are arguing against your own initial thesis. Are you trolling your own column? Is that a thing? I don't know.
JackStraw is completely correct when he says, "The market had already decided and it decided that animals that were kept in a preserve where valuable and killing them wasn't sport or profitable to society. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept even for conservatives."
[applause]
There's no point in repeating myself. Lions, in Zimbabwe, are worth 1.187 million dollars to the tourist trade, but you seem to have some... difficulty with large numbers.
Your mind is set on the matter. You made the original argument that, "Allowing a market to form and leaving it alone to work has been proven again and again to be the best, fairest, most efficient way to allocate goods and resources."
Then you turn around and argue that the market should not be allowed to ban the trophy-hunting of big cats. You are giving a perfect example of how people are terrified of letting the market dictate conditions. You are arguing against your own initial thesis. Are you trolling your own column? Is that a thing? I don't know.
JackStraw is completely correct when he says, "The market had already decided and it decided that animals that were kept in a preserve where valuable and killing them wasn't sport or profitable to society. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept even for conservatives."
[applause]
Posted by: Keith Eppich at August 08, 2015 05:33 PM (do7+Y)
221
Always about the money. Depressing.
Posted by: Prince Matchabelli at August 08, 2015 05:58 PM (zmZ2x)
222
>>But Jack, by far the most efficient strategy of fish management has been for the government to transfer ownership of the fish stocks to the fishermen themselves - Who then have a market incentive to preserve them as well as harvest them. It's areas where fisherman have no ownership stake that get fished out, and why not? That was what my tragedy of the commons post was all about.
This isn't actually true. Again, I live on an island in the middle of the most valuable commercial and pleasure fishing on the North Atlantic, everything from tuna, stripers, flounder, cod and swordfish to clams and lobster and everything between. I have neighbors that are commercial fishermen. All of it has been threatened at one time or another and the only thing that stopped it was outside regulation. Never heard of anywhere this wasn't true.
It would be great to believe that human nature was as intelligent and benevolent as you say. My experience says the opposite.
This isn't actually true. Again, I live on an island in the middle of the most valuable commercial and pleasure fishing on the North Atlantic, everything from tuna, stripers, flounder, cod and swordfish to clams and lobster and everything between. I have neighbors that are commercial fishermen. All of it has been threatened at one time or another and the only thing that stopped it was outside regulation. Never heard of anywhere this wasn't true.
It would be great to believe that human nature was as intelligent and benevolent as you say. My experience says the opposite.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2015 06:13 PM (OGm46)
223
Do any fools want to reinstate grizzly bears back into California?
Those babies eat Clydesdales for breakfast.
Likewise, how is the reintroduction of wolves working elsewhere in the West?
A couple of years ago the police had to shot a cougar found on the my daughters' elementary school grounds here in San Jose.
What's going on is ecological secession. Just like the redwood trees succeed the poison oak, humans are displacing the apex predators.
As potential prey, I think that's a good thing.
Do any fools want to reinstate grizzly bears back into California?
Those babies eat Clydesdales for breakfast.
Likewise, how is the reintroduction of wolves working elsewhere in the West?
A couple of years ago the police had to shot a cougar found on the my daughters' elementary school grounds here in San Jose.
What's going on is ecological secession. Just like the redwood trees succeed the poison oak, humans are displacing the apex predators.
As potential prey, I think that's a good thing.
Posted by: Whitehall at August 09, 2015 08:31 PM (6wF0x)
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.036 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0131 seconds, 232 records returned.
Page size 192 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat