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

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more