Speaking of Pollinization Services...

By -
that was a famous example of an externality in economics textbooks for many years. Bees, it was said, provide pollinization, a good, but since the beekeeper can't charge for it, there will be an "insufficient" number of bees kept. The people who kept repeating this apparently had never looked in the yellow pages and seen that the beekeepers do charge for the service, all the time.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy8:02 AM

    Normally I "criticize" Gene's posts but it is usually in good fun, whereas this one I think actually deserves some comment. Going back at least to Coase and his mentioning of the lighthouses, free marketeers like to "refute" positive externality arguments by pointing to market provision of things.

    However, strictly speaking the mainstream economist isn't saying that the market provision is zero, just that it is below the optimal level. E.g. take military defense. If NATO invades Somalia, Robert Lucas isn't going to be stunned if some guys have AK-47s. But he will still say, "If they had had a government to tax and spend on military equipment, they would have had tanks and so on."

    (Yeah yeah I know, Somalia might not be in anarchy anymore. Too bad for them.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah10:33 AM

    Yes, of course there might be less beekeeping than is "optimum" -- the point here is that the externality example said "Beekeepers can't make money off it" -- and they clearly can. (And it's the same with Coase -- he was refuting the case that you can't have private lighthouses, not saying that the optimal amount was provided.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Murphy5:08 PM

    Oh I grant you that certain people carelessly use the externality argument, but by the same token free marketeers carelessly "refute" it. (I.e. if you say, "Mainstream economics says there should be zero beekeepers..." then someone who is sharp will think you don't understand marginality.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous12:23 PM

    Why would the beekeeper want to charge the bees for this?

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  5. Margaret12:25 PM

    Hey, I logged in. I'm not an anonymous! I want credit for my lousy comedy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous2:36 AM

    Great article! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous8:34 AM

    Nice Blog!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous8:34 AM

    Thanks for interesting article.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous9:42 AM

    Thank You! Very interesting article. Do you can write anything else about it?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous7:46 AM

    Very interesting site. Blog is very good. I am happy that I think the same!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous10:02 PM

    Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous8:33 PM

    Welcome to our company which sells all kinds of Sword of the New World Vis, very cheap Sword of the New World Gold, and the more cheap snw vis. If you have to buy vis, please come to our company, we can give you the best Sword of the New World money and best service.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more

Against their will / we were taxing against their will / we were young and we were strong and we were taxing against their will

By -
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
Read more