Re: Call To Ban All Fishing In 1/3 Of World's Seas

Otis the drunk wrote:
> > > Well one way is to fish more
> > > efficently,..which actually means that you use less fisherman in bigger
> > > factory ships scooping up large amounts of fish.
> >
> > You're talking out of your big, fat ass. Efficiency DOES help to
> > increase profits, but creating more supply than demand wipes out those
> > profits since price will always fall.
>
> Hey,..fuck you dickhead. 

Good morning, east Canadian friend.

> Yes,...we all know that efficiency does help to
> increase profits,....but we're not talking about making widgets to stick up
> you asshole,...we're talking about the fishing industry. 

The fishing industry is not an exception to economic principles like 
supply, demand, elasticity, or market interferences.

> You can only use
> fishing trawlers for so many years before you have no fish left and destroy
> the seabed. 

Ipse dixit. Fish are a renewable resource. The only issue of their 
renewability at issue is the rate of reproduction in relation to the 
rate of harvesting.

> Try talking to a fisheries observer who work on the
> trawlers,

I have.

> ...most of them are disgusted and there's nothing they can do about
> it.  

Ipse dixit. Their concerns range the whole scale and are not monolithic 
as you portray.

> You sound like a pinhead economist who is out of touch with how life
> really works. 

Ad hominem.

> In Halifax there's a "think tank" ( i use that term lightly)
> who said a few years ago that there was no crisis in the fishing industry
> because if there was,..the price of fish would go up.  And since the price
> didn't go up, there was no problem with the stocks.  

Either you didn't understand their argument or they don't understand 
economics. I choose to believe the former given the low quality of your 
response.

> They were so wrapped
> up in their numbers and equations that they forgot that real life doesn't
> always follow their "economic rules". 

"Economic rules" are based on "real life." More evidence of your ignorance.

> A while after that wise statement
> made by the "Atlantic Institute for Market Studies",..the Cod fishery was
> closed.  And damn-it,..if the price had of only gone up like it should
> have,....we would have known and could have done something about it.

More evidence of your economic ignorance. Cod price isn't a function of 
cod in the seas, but cod in the markets, freezer, or on plates in 
relation to demand for it.

> You sit there talking about how market supply and demand will ensure the
> long-term viability of the fishing industry, thinking you have it all
> figured out.  Wake the fuck up buddy! 

You are woefully ignorant. The issues of sustainability are economic in 
nature. The incentives of not overfishing areas are not just long-range 
but immediate. Fishermen have no incentive to work themselves out of 
their jobs. Bringing too many fish in from the sea only serves to 
decrease prices -- which is not beneficial to fishermen unless they 
operate on large volume.

What are the solutions? You offer none. I have several. One is to put a 
quota on catches or restrict the number of commercial fishing licenses. 
Another is to rotate fishing grounds on a sustainable frequency. This 
would allow stocks to rebound without fishing pressure, but it would 
also mean prices would likely rise due to increased travel to get to 
legal fishing zones. Another is to encourage more fish farming. I 
realize aquaculture is not without problems, but encouraging sustainable 
fish farming operations would reduce the load on wild stocks.

I think the best solution, though, is to operate under a system of 
individual transferable fishing quotas (ITQ).

        ITQ's essentially privatize the fishery by entitling holders to
        specified harvests. The sum of all ITQ's should equal the
        optimal industry harvest level. ITQ's can be bought and sold
        between vessels, and are acquired by the most efficient vessels.
        The market value of each quota is the present value of the net
        rent stream from it. Efficient ITQ systems don't require much
        government enforcement, since quota-holders police their own
        fisheries. The government can allocate quotas by auction or
        simply issue them to current vessels. In either case, future
        fishermen have to buy quotas to enter the fishery. If there are
        too many vessels with quotas, the government can tax the quotas
        and/or use tax revenues to buy back and retire some quotas.
        http://www.udel.edu/johnmack/frec424/424lec18.html

> The environment does not adhere to
> your "rules",..it's not all simple cause and effect.   I'm sure eventually
> as you grow up you'll realize the error of your views.  At least i hope
> so,..the last thing the world needs is another simple minded twit thinking
> that the laws of economics will solve all the worlds ills..

Are you happy? I only ask because I've always heard that ignorance is bliss.