US Federal Government

[CoccoBill]

My point is that Shell, Exxon and BP would have vastly more cash to spend on claiming these resources than private individuals. The sole value of said resources to them would be to drain them from oil at minimum cost, with absolutely no oversight or care about repercussions beyond the next quarter's profits. They would get off not for cheap, but for free. To think that the oceans would somehow be the property of private citizens, the WWF and billionaire philanthropists instead of corporate multinationals with vested interests, is perhaps a tad bit optimistic.

Who would, in your capitalist utopia, buy ocean properties without clear economic incentives? What are some economic incentives that would preserve the health of the oceans, that would be so profitable they would be willing to outbid Big Oil?

[Renton]

My point is that Shell, Exxon and BP would have vastly more cash to spend on claiming these resources than private individuals. The sole value of said resources to them would be to drain them from oil at minimum cost, with absolutely no oversight or care about repercussions beyond the next quarter's profits. They would get off not for cheap, but for free. To think that the oceans would somehow be the property of private citizens, the WWF and billionaire philanthropists instead of corporate multinationals with vested interests, is perhaps a tad bit optimistic.

Who would, in your capitalist utopia, buy ocean properties without clear economic incentives? What are some economic incentives that would preserve the health of the oceans, that would be so profitable they would be willing to outbid Big Oil?

It's kind of insulting and degrading to refer to someone's position as a utopia, but whatever.

First of all, oil drilling and spills don't even hold a candle to over-fishing as an environmental concern. Over-fishing would be all but solved if we got rid of the tragedy of the commons scenario by privatizing waters. That said I'll try to address your oil concerns.

When the oceans are allowed to become a tradable commodity, like anything else they will go to their most valued uses. Yes, oil companies will have a very large interest in exploiting the oil resources that are in the oceans. However, there is other value and resources to be had from the oceans, including fish and other natural resources besides oil. Most likely, due to the ephemeral and speculative nature of oil drilling, oil companies wouldn't just buy all the oceans in order to speculate and drill in a few select spots for a few years each. That would be tremendously wasteful. More than likely they would lease the water from other owners who are using it for different purposes, people who have a major interest in not having the oceans be ruined forever.

We're getting into territory in which I have not much expertise, but there is a lot of good stuff on ocean privatization if you feel like looking for it.

[CoccoBill]

It's kind of insulting and degrading to refer to someone's position as a utopia, but whatever.

Wasn't meant to be insulting, sorry if it came out that way. Just my view on the feasibility of your suggestion.

First of all, oil drilling and spills don't even hold a candle to over-fishing as an environmental concern. Over-fishing would be all but solved if we got rid of the tragedy of the commons scenario by privatizing waters. That said I'll try to address your oil concerns.

I absolutely agree, oil drilling was just the first example that came to mind, one of many similar scenarios.

When the oceans are allowed to become a tradable commodity, like anything else they will go to their most valued uses. Yes, oil companies will have a very large interest in exploiting the oil resources that are in the oceans. However, there is other value and resources to be had from the oceans, including fish and other natural resources besides oil. Most likely, due to the ephemeral and speculative nature of oil drilling, oil companies wouldn't just buy all the oceans in order to speculate and drill in a few select spots for a few years each. That would be tremendously wasteful. More than likely they would lease the water from other owners who are using it for different purposes, people who have a major interest in not having the oceans be ruined forever.

We're getting into territory in which I have not much expertise, but there is a lot of good stuff on ocean privatization if you feel like looking for it.

If by going to their most valued uses you mean going to the use of those, that can and are able to pay the most for them, and be used in a way most profitable to those parties, yes, I agree. The actual value gained from their use, and to whose benefit the value will be, are largely undetermined. I think its safe to assume the benefit will not be for the common good nor the oceans themselves, automatically.

Likewise, overfishing is a problem everywhere right now, even when it dramatically affects the fishing industry itself. Whether it would make financial sense for the oil companies to acquire the oceans or for some other parties would depend on the price set by the markets, that is, we have no clue. I see no reason to assume they would only, or even largely, be acquired by parties, who have any kind of incentive or commitment to care about their well-being, that is purely speculation. For it to make sense for someone to own a piece of ocean and use it sustainably, preserving and nurturing it would have to be the most economical option, which it clearly isn't. Far greater short-term profits can be acquired by drilling and overfishing, the effects of which are the problem of the next fiscal year or generation.

[Renton]

For it to make sense for someone to own a piece of ocean and use it sustainably, preserving and nurturing it would have to be the most economical option, which it clearly isn't. Far greater short-term profits can be acquired by drilling and overfishing, the effects of which are the problem of the next fiscal year or generation.

If what you say is true, then beef companies would just slaughter every single cow tomorrow and put them on the market to maximize the short term gain.

Overfishing happens because each fisherman is acting in his own short term AND long term best interest by extracting as much as possible. It is in his best interest because he must assume that the other fishermen will do the same. This is called the tragedy of the commons. If a seafood company owned a plot of ocean, it would be in it's financial best interest to farm it in a sustainable manner so the company may reap profits long term. Not only that, the company would also want to preserve the ecosystem and food chain as much as possible so that the crop they are harvesting will thrive and many more catches will be possible.

A lot of people assume that capitalists are all about short term profits but thats not true. Businesses are long term endeavors and the people who run them have to consider the long term, they cannot afford not to. Shortsighted fishermen who fish out their plots will be put out of business by their more prudent counterparts in due time.

[CoccoBill]

Shortsighted fishermen who fish out their plots will be put out of business by their more prudent counterparts in due time.

Is that before or after the fish stocks are depleted and oceans polluted? This is my point really, no one is stopping them from being stupid, and most people are stupid*.


*"Stupid" used for added emphasis, replace with "ignorant", "ill-informed", "only human" or something similar as seen fit.

[Renton]

Is that before or after the fish stocks are depleted and oceans polluted? This is my point really, no one is stopping them from being stupid, and most people are stupid*.


*"Stupid" used for added emphasis, replace with "ignorant", "ill-informed", "only human" or something similar as seen fit.

Certainly before. Markets have a way of rectifying these problems rather quickly. If a scarce resource with alternative uses isn't being used in its most valued way, then that resource will be bid on by people who intend to get full value out of it. In this hypothetical context of short term over-fishermen, that would happen in the form of prices rising such that it isn't worthwhile to buy a plot with only short-term gains in mind.

Free-market capitalism isn't pro-business. Probably the vast majority of CEO's today would be hugely in disfavor of truly free markets because it would threaten their state-enabled monopolies. The kind of "stupid" or "ill-informed" behavior you are speaking of cannot happen for long in a competitive market before bankruptcy occurs. It can only happen when competition is not allowed to happen, when property rights are inadequate.

[CoccoBill]

Certainly before. Markets have a way of rectifying these problems rather quickly. If a scarce resource with alternative uses isn't being used in its most valued way, then that resource will be bid on by people who intend to get full value out of it. In this hypothetical context of short term over-fishermen, that would happen in the form of prices rising such that it isn't worthwhile to buy a plot with only short-term gains in mind.

The market will rectify it in a way that can squeeze the most value out of what's left. If the previous fisherman harmed the fish stocks enough, it makes no sense for others to invest there and breed and revive the stocks until it's the least harmed part of the ocean. There's no mechanism in the free market to ensure that resources that are not directly providing market value are preserved or maintained, such as making sure oceans aren't polluted, or that they are instantly revived if something happens to it.

Free-market capitalism isn't pro-business. Probably the vast majority of CEO's today would be hugely in disfavor of truly free markets because it would threaten their state-enabled monopolies. The kind of "stupid" or "ill-informed" behavior you are speaking of cannot happen for long in a competitive market before bankruptcy occurs. It can only happen when competition is not allowed to happen, when property rights are inadequate.

I highly doubt that the vast majority of businesses enjoy state-enabled monopolies. There's no rule that says a business must become bankrupt well before any natural catastrophes or that sort will happen.

[Pascal]

Certainly before. Markets have a way of rectifying these problems rather quickly. If a scarce resource with alternative uses isn't being used in its most valued way, then that resource will be bid on by people who intend to get full value out of it. In this hypothetical context of short term over-fishermen, that would happen in the form of prices rising such that it isn't worthwhile to buy a plot with only short-term gains in mind.

Free-market capitalism isn't pro-business. Probably the vast majority of CEO's today would be hugely in disfavor of truly free markets because it would threaten their state-enabled monopolies. The kind of "stupid" or "ill-informed" behavior you are speaking of cannot happen for long in a competitive market before bankruptcy occurs. It can only happen when competition is not allowed to happen, when property rights are inadequate.

This completely ignores the concept of externalities, the costs being bourne by society rather than the businesses. Given they don't appear on balance sheets, businesses will ignore them. And I don't believe society is strong or organised enough to completely boycott a product due externalities they can't see or feel personally until it's too late