Ok, first off, many apologies for the long delay.
That being said, this is gonna be a big one, so brace yourselves.
Firstly, the tone of this issue will be different than those in the past. While previous entries were aimed at least as much at admonishing as at educating, I really don't expect most people to have previous knowledge of todays topic. Which isn't to say that your unawareness of this concept isn't indicative of failure, but merely that the failure in question is the American education system's, and not your own.
What I want to explain today is a relatively basic concept from microeconomics called "the tragedy of the commons." Though simple, it is absolutely fundamental to understanding, among other things, the economics of environmentalism. The tragedy of the commons is a parable, in which sheep herders on a pasture of limited size stand in for any situation economic actors have unlimited access to limited resources. The story goes like this:
"The herders are assumed to wish to maximize their yield, and so will increase their herd size whenever possible. The utility of each additional animal has both a positive and negative component:
That being said, this is gonna be a big one, so brace yourselves.
Firstly, the tone of this issue will be different than those in the past. While previous entries were aimed at least as much at admonishing as at educating, I really don't expect most people to have previous knowledge of todays topic. Which isn't to say that your unawareness of this concept isn't indicative of failure, but merely that the failure in question is the American education system's, and not your own.
What I want to explain today is a relatively basic concept from microeconomics called "the tragedy of the commons." Though simple, it is absolutely fundamental to understanding, among other things, the economics of environmentalism. The tragedy of the commons is a parable, in which sheep herders on a pasture of limited size stand in for any situation economic actors have unlimited access to limited resources. The story goes like this:
"The herders are assumed to wish to maximize their yield, and so will increase their herd size whenever possible. The utility of each additional animal has both a positive and negative component:
- Positive: the herder receives all of the proceeds from each additional animal.
- Negative: the pasture is slightly degraded by each additional animal.
Crucially, the division of these costs and benefits is unequal: the individual herder gains all of the advantage, but the disadvantage is shared among all herders using the pasture. Consequently, for an individual herder weighing these options, the rational course of action is to add an extra animal. And another, and another. However, since all herders reach the same rational conclusion, overgrazing and degradation of the pasture is its long-term fate. Nonetheless, the rational response for an individual remains the same at every stage, since the gain is always greater to each herder than the individual share of the distributed cost."
(Quoted text stolen from Wikipedia)
And that my friends, is exactly why the African Elephant population skyrocketed after individual villages were given property interests in elephant herds.
Thats your economics lesson for the time being, coming next Monday will be an even longer-winded explanation of Post-Structuralism.
Thats your economics lesson for the time being, coming next Monday will be an even longer-winded explanation of Post-Structuralism.
Posts
1 comment:
Very interesting - seems to explain a lot of things about American culture, and maybe human nature in general. We continue to expand and consume resources until we have a personal stake in the consumption, case in point, the recent spike in gas prices. Shocker shocker, gas is going to run out eventually! Might be time to invest in something that uses resources more efficiently.
Post a Comment