Taking a closer look at the full costs of energy acquisition and dissipation
Professor Casey already mentioned his concern with the author's labeling of fisheries economists as "part of the "ponzi scheme." I think that the largest error in the author's argument concerns subsidies. The author identifies subsidies as one of the largest contributors to the depletion of US fisheries. Subsidized fishing is a large problem, but no economist would ever support the implementation of subsidies. Subsidies augment the price of the subsidized good. The basic stance of nearly every economist is that the price of a good must represent the goods true cost. Subsidies do not allow for price-cost.
The subsidies could be either good or bad depending on how they are used. Normally a subsidy would decrease the price of the goods, the problem here would be that if the fish become cheaper, the demand will increase and the industries will catch and sell more fish. If however the subsidies are directed elsewhere for example the development of fish farms or just a subsidy granted in exchange for decreased production, then there could be a positive effect on the fish population. The author talkes about the transformation of 'ugly' fish into marketable forms as if it were negative, but i think it could be viewed as an eficient use of resources that would otherwise be neglected and to a small extent it could alliviate the decline in other fish populations.
Post a Comment