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

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
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