(Posting this seems all but pointless but my first post got modded down)
From the wikipedia: "...Hardin's work has been criticised on the grounds of historical inaccuracy, and for failing to distinguish between common property and open access resources. Subsequent work by Elinor Ostrom and others suggest that using Hardin's work to argue for privatization of resources is an "overstatement" of the case..."
But lets assume the meaning of the term "tragedy of the commons" is exactly what you say it is, this has mind bending consequences: the "tragedy of the commons" can explain every (negative-) externality (Note how an externity is an effect). So what does this mean? This theory would allow the economists to state: "The act of burning fossil fuel caused global warming." (J.Stigliz calls global warming an externality)
This was the point of the joke about Milton Friedman, even todays economist can't realy predict very much (how should this kind of "theory" help to implement some sort of "market incentives" or reduce "market destortion" as proposed above) and most comments on Slashdot regarding economics sail in the shallow waters of the Chicago school of economics, the term "tragedy of the commons" is invoked qwit frequently there see WSJ, all british news papers etc.
The "tradgedy of the commons" are mostly a myth. Commons can have better results than "free markets".
But M.Friedman would call global warming an "externity". (It's completed redderick of course, but virtually all captialist problems can be excused as "externity" or alternatively as "information asymmetry".)
Slashdot Mirror
(Posting this seems all but pointless but my first post got modded down)
From the wikipedia: "...Hardin's work has been criticised on the grounds of historical inaccuracy, and for failing to distinguish between common property and open access resources. Subsequent work by Elinor Ostrom and others suggest that using Hardin's work to argue for privatization of resources is an "overstatement" of the case..."
But lets assume the meaning of the term "tragedy of the commons" is exactly what you say it is, this has mind bending consequences: the "tragedy of the commons" can explain every (negative-) externality (Note how an externity is an effect). So what does this mean? This theory would allow the economists to state: "The act of burning fossil fuel caused global warming." (J.Stigliz calls global warming an externality)
This was the point of the joke about Milton Friedman, even todays economist can't realy predict very much (how should this kind of "theory" help to implement some sort of "market incentives" or reduce "market destortion" as proposed above) and most comments on Slashdot regarding economics sail in the shallow waters of the Chicago school of economics, the term "tragedy of the commons" is invoked qwit frequently there see WSJ, all british news papers etc.
The "tradgedy of the commons" are mostly a myth. Commons can have better results than "free markets". But M.Friedman would call global warming an "externity". (It's completed redderick of course, but virtually all captialist problems can be excused as "externity" or alternatively as "information asymmetry".)