The parable of the fisherman(blog.figuringshitout.com)
blog.figuringshitout.com
The parable of the fisherman
http://blog.figuringshitout.com/the-parable-of-the-fisherman/
76 comments
I was under the impression that the story was actually about taking chances when they're offered to you, and about the consequences of letting great opportunities pass you by. Not so much about the whole ethical responsibilities of big business.
in the original, the fisherman returns to a life he had before the MBA came into his life. The original story was meant to teach us the evils of money. But!! The thing that is missed is that the fisherman made a fortune and now has
Health insurance
good medical care
can pay for his kids to be well educated
can fund his nations defense
his tax dollars help fund stuff like figuring out the cure for cancer
Has helped to produce wealth
money is not evil folks.
it isn't just about capitalism, it is generic principle of living systems evolution - it isn't possible to stay in static balance with environment forever as environment will change [will be "disrupted" or "paradigm shifted" in local parlance] sooner or later.
nice story, Hang.
[deleted](1)
Server is struggling, here's the text:
A vacationing American businessman standing on the pier of a quaint coastal fishing village in southern Mexico watched as a small boat with just one young Mexican fisherman pulled into the dock. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. Enjoying the warmth of the early afternoon sun, the American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish.
“How long did it take you to catch them?” the American casually asked.
“Oh, a few hours,” the Mexican fisherman replied.
“Why don’t you stay out longer and catch more fish?” the American businessman then asked.
The Mexican warmly replied, “With this I have more than enough to support my family’s needs.”
The businessman then became serious, “But what do you do with the rest of your time?”
Responding with a smile, the Mexican fisherman answered, “I sleep late, play with my children, watch ballgames, and take siesta with my wife. Sometimes in the evenings I take a stroll into the village to see my friends, play the guitar, sing a few songs…”
The American businessman impatiently interrupted, “Look, I have an MBA from Harvard, and I can help you to be more profitable. You can start by fishing several hours longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra money, you can buy a bigger boat. With the additional income that larger boat will bring, before long you can buy a second boat, then a third one, and so on, until you have an entire fleet of fishing boats.”
Proud of his own sharp thinking, he excitedly elaborated a grand scheme which could bring even bigger profits, “Then, instead of selling your catch to a middleman you’ll be able to sell your fish directly to the processor, or even open your own cannery. Eventually, you could control the product, processing and distribution. You could leave this tiny coastal village and move to Mexico City, or possibly even Los Angeles or New York City, where you could even further expand your enterprise.”
Having never thought of such things, the Mexican fisherman asked, “But how long will all this take?”
After a rapid mental calculation, the Harvard MBA pronounced, “Probably about 15-20 years, maybe less if you work really hard.”
“And then what, señor?” asked the fisherman.
“Why, that’s the best part!” answered the businessman with a laugh. “When the time is right, you would sell your company stock to the public and become very rich. You would make millions.”
“Millions? Really? What would I do with it all?” asked the young fisherman in disbelief.
The businessman boasted, “Then you could happily retire with all the money you’ve made. You could move to a quaint coastal fishing village where you could sleep late, play with your grandchildren, watch ballgames, and take siesta with your wife. You could stroll to the village in the evenings where you could play the guitar and sing with your friends all you want.”
Sensing skepticism from the fisherman, the businessman moves onto the next boat and finds a more receptive fisherman. The two, sensing an obvious business opportunity, decide to go into business together. They raise a venture capital round and a year later, return to the pier outfitted with a dozen high tech fishing boats.
Immediately, the price of tuna at the pier drops threefold with increased supply, forcing the young Mexican fisherman to increase his hours at sea just to maintain his existing standard of living.
Shortly thereafter, all of the shallow water tuna have been caught and the young Mexican fisherman discovers his tiny boat is incapable of deep water fishing. Because of his limited savings, he does not have enough capital to invest in a deep water fishing boat and he is forced to sell his tiny fishing boat for pennies on the dollar as scrap because advances in technology have made it obsolete.
After discovering that there is limited demand for an employee whose only skills are watching ballgames, playing the guitar and taking siestas, the young Mexican fisherman finds his only option is to take a job working minimum wage on one of the businessman’s fishing vessels.
Several years later, the fisherman’s joints are shot through from the hard manual labor of operating on a commercial fishing vessel and an ill timed lift of a 150lb pallet of tuna finally causes his back to give way, causing permanent crippling. The fisherman discovers intensive lobbying from the businessman has weakened workplace protection rules and the fisherman is summarily let go with only a paltry settlement.
After years of expensive medical treatments and crippling bills, the fisherman is finally forced to sell his land, passed along to him from generation to generation, to a development conglomerate run by the businessman who is buying large tracts of the entire village.
Unbeknownst to the fisherman, the businessman has lobbied for the village to turn into a protected nature reserve, allowing for the rehabilitation of the environment and the restocking of fish in it’s pristine waters. The businessman painstakingly recreates the quaint, costal charm of the village he once visited, making it a paradise where the wealthy flock to when they want to retire into a life of easy indolence.
Finally, 15 – 20 years after the original conversation, the fisherman and his wife are found dead in a homeless shelter. Meanwhile, the businessman retires to the village having made two successive fortunes first in fisheries and then in real estate development. He spends his days sleeping late, playing with his grandchildren, watching high def ESPN ballgames on a 70″ TV, and taking siesta with his wife. He occasionally strolls down to the village in the evenings where he regales his fellow millionaires with the story of how he found an unexploited niche in the marketplace and then took full advantage of it to make the fortune that got him to the comfortable retirement he enjoys today.
A vacationing American businessman standing on the pier of a quaint coastal fishing village in southern Mexico watched as a small boat with just one young Mexican fisherman pulled into the dock. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. Enjoying the warmth of the early afternoon sun, the American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish.
“How long did it take you to catch them?” the American casually asked.
“Oh, a few hours,” the Mexican fisherman replied.
“Why don’t you stay out longer and catch more fish?” the American businessman then asked.
The Mexican warmly replied, “With this I have more than enough to support my family’s needs.”
The businessman then became serious, “But what do you do with the rest of your time?”
Responding with a smile, the Mexican fisherman answered, “I sleep late, play with my children, watch ballgames, and take siesta with my wife. Sometimes in the evenings I take a stroll into the village to see my friends, play the guitar, sing a few songs…”
The American businessman impatiently interrupted, “Look, I have an MBA from Harvard, and I can help you to be more profitable. You can start by fishing several hours longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra money, you can buy a bigger boat. With the additional income that larger boat will bring, before long you can buy a second boat, then a third one, and so on, until you have an entire fleet of fishing boats.”
Proud of his own sharp thinking, he excitedly elaborated a grand scheme which could bring even bigger profits, “Then, instead of selling your catch to a middleman you’ll be able to sell your fish directly to the processor, or even open your own cannery. Eventually, you could control the product, processing and distribution. You could leave this tiny coastal village and move to Mexico City, or possibly even Los Angeles or New York City, where you could even further expand your enterprise.”
Having never thought of such things, the Mexican fisherman asked, “But how long will all this take?”
After a rapid mental calculation, the Harvard MBA pronounced, “Probably about 15-20 years, maybe less if you work really hard.”
“And then what, señor?” asked the fisherman.
“Why, that’s the best part!” answered the businessman with a laugh. “When the time is right, you would sell your company stock to the public and become very rich. You would make millions.”
“Millions? Really? What would I do with it all?” asked the young fisherman in disbelief.
The businessman boasted, “Then you could happily retire with all the money you’ve made. You could move to a quaint coastal fishing village where you could sleep late, play with your grandchildren, watch ballgames, and take siesta with your wife. You could stroll to the village in the evenings where you could play the guitar and sing with your friends all you want.”
Sensing skepticism from the fisherman, the businessman moves onto the next boat and finds a more receptive fisherman. The two, sensing an obvious business opportunity, decide to go into business together. They raise a venture capital round and a year later, return to the pier outfitted with a dozen high tech fishing boats.
Immediately, the price of tuna at the pier drops threefold with increased supply, forcing the young Mexican fisherman to increase his hours at sea just to maintain his existing standard of living.
Shortly thereafter, all of the shallow water tuna have been caught and the young Mexican fisherman discovers his tiny boat is incapable of deep water fishing. Because of his limited savings, he does not have enough capital to invest in a deep water fishing boat and he is forced to sell his tiny fishing boat for pennies on the dollar as scrap because advances in technology have made it obsolete.
After discovering that there is limited demand for an employee whose only skills are watching ballgames, playing the guitar and taking siestas, the young Mexican fisherman finds his only option is to take a job working minimum wage on one of the businessman’s fishing vessels.
Several years later, the fisherman’s joints are shot through from the hard manual labor of operating on a commercial fishing vessel and an ill timed lift of a 150lb pallet of tuna finally causes his back to give way, causing permanent crippling. The fisherman discovers intensive lobbying from the businessman has weakened workplace protection rules and the fisherman is summarily let go with only a paltry settlement.
After years of expensive medical treatments and crippling bills, the fisherman is finally forced to sell his land, passed along to him from generation to generation, to a development conglomerate run by the businessman who is buying large tracts of the entire village.
Unbeknownst to the fisherman, the businessman has lobbied for the village to turn into a protected nature reserve, allowing for the rehabilitation of the environment and the restocking of fish in it’s pristine waters. The businessman painstakingly recreates the quaint, costal charm of the village he once visited, making it a paradise where the wealthy flock to when they want to retire into a life of easy indolence.
Finally, 15 – 20 years after the original conversation, the fisherman and his wife are found dead in a homeless shelter. Meanwhile, the businessman retires to the village having made two successive fortunes first in fisheries and then in real estate development. He spends his days sleeping late, playing with his grandchildren, watching high def ESPN ballgames on a 70″ TV, and taking siesta with his wife. He occasionally strolls down to the village in the evenings where he regales his fellow millionaires with the story of how he found an unexploited niche in the marketplace and then took full advantage of it to make the fortune that got him to the comfortable retirement he enjoys today.
With no other opportunity and with a deep resentment towards the millionaire, the fisherman's sons become involved in the drug trade. Violence escalates in the village to the point that kidnappings for ransom become a popular way to finance the importation of drugs for resale. The sons kidnap the millionaire's wife for ransom and kill her when the businessman fails to follow instructions. Later the millionaire and his new trophy wife are gunned down in the street. See Acapulco:
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2013/07/violence-in-acapulco-i...
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2013/07/violence-in-acapulco-i...
[deleted]
This got very dark very quickly.
It does make me wonder though, to what extent are we responsible for the repercussions of our actions? Where along that chain did it stop becoming the fault of the businessman, if ever?
It does make me wonder though, to what extent are we responsible for the repercussions of our actions? Where along that chain did it stop becoming the fault of the businessman, if ever?
Where along that chain did it stop becoming the fault of the businessman, if ever?
Current ethics would probably say, it was never the fault of the businessman. The profits were ripe for the taking; under a capitalist worldview, someone would have taken them, whether or not it was this businessman.
As far as we can tell, the businessman did nothing expressly immoral- the consequences were externalities, and our moral systems are rarely developed to encompass anything beyond externalities of the first degree, because let's face it- externalities are damn hard to predict, understand, or even monitor.
Current ethics would probably say, it was never the fault of the businessman. The profits were ripe for the taking; under a capitalist worldview, someone would have taken them, whether or not it was this businessman.
As far as we can tell, the businessman did nothing expressly immoral- the consequences were externalities, and our moral systems are rarely developed to encompass anything beyond externalities of the first degree, because let's face it- externalities are damn hard to predict, understand, or even monitor.
At what point, when you become aware of the results of your actions do you take responsibility for them?
If you deliberately avoid determining the results of your actions, though you have the capacity to learn, are you still responsible?
If you deliberately avoid determining the results of your actions, though you have the capacity to learn, are you still responsible?
I think most economists would argue that it is unrealistic to expect everyone to shy away from a profit opportunity just because of a moral flag... Better to regulate the industry through government or privatize under tax/regulation to align everyone's incentives whether they be profit or moral...
Responsibility is not a binary proposition.
And I would argue the moral paucity in the story is more of a 'death by a thousand cuts' sort of thing.
And I would argue the moral paucity in the story is more of a 'death by a thousand cuts' sort of thing.
> someone would have taken them, whether or not it was this businessman.
Gimme a break - "someone else would have done that"? Is there really an ethics system that would score this above "shitty excuse"?
Gimme a break - "someone else would have done that"? Is there really an ethics system that would score this above "shitty excuse"?
Well, there's always the famous inverse example:
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
i.e., it was not ethical because no one else would make the step either.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
i.e., it was not ethical because no one else would make the step either.
The profits were already being enjoyed by the fisherman. The problem is that the profits were rapidly extracted at a rate that the environment could not support. Sucked dry.
Enter stage left: Sustainability.
As someone posted above, the Triple Bottom Line presents a different concept of capitalism that takes into account the limited supply of resources that make profitable life possible. At our current rate of growth, if we do not refocus efforts on sustainable consumption, we will all end up like the fisherman.
Enter stage left: Sustainability.
As someone posted above, the Triple Bottom Line presents a different concept of capitalism that takes into account the limited supply of resources that make profitable life possible. At our current rate of growth, if we do not refocus efforts on sustainable consumption, we will all end up like the fisherman.
Last sentence particularly rings true for me! Where ever there are profits, there is also a deficit elsewhere, this is one of the core problems with our monetary system.
We are brought up not to be greedy and to be generous, then as soon as we enter the real world as adults that need to earn a living, many are forced to make decisions that are not ethical in order to survive/support family etc.
I have been spending a lot of time looking into the Resource Based Economy recently and this model seems far superior to anything we have at the moment, unfortunately, it is so radically different from what we have that it is going to take a lot of educating and a lot of work to start abandoning our current failing system in favour of another. Still, I have a lot of hope for the future, we have everything we need right now to change the world, we just need everyone to be willing and ready to accept this change!
It is obvious that is the problem. I am not disputing that.
It's never the fault of the businessman because capital is amoral, but there's a case to be made that his choices are an instance of poor ethics.
Brilliant re-write. If you skipped this link, thinking it was going to just be the well-known tale, look again.
Indeed, I thought it was a repeat, until verifying today's posting date. For reference, here's a variant of the 'original':
http://renewablewealth.com/the-parable-of-the-mexican-fisher...
http://renewablewealth.com/the-parable-of-the-mexican-fisher...
The movie "Local Hero" tells the tale in a much less heavy-handed way. And great soundtrack.
dynamite. sounds like real life. modern greek tragedy.
unless we humans decide to harness greed, and quickly, we will shortly follow all of the other large mammals to the mass extinction which we engineered ourselves.
-bowerbird
unless we humans decide to harness greed, and quickly, we will shortly follow all of the other large mammals to the mass extinction which we engineered ourselves.
-bowerbird
Tragedy of the commons => common anti-capitalist fodder, whether fish, pollution, fur, logging, etc.
Also what is not shown here are the millions of people that were able to eat fish due to its drastic drop in price. The omega balance raising IQs and resulting in more eco-scientists, sociologists, and general income for the government or charities for retooling of bronze-age fisherpeople.
Also what is not shown here are the millions of people that were able to eat fish due to its drastic drop in price. The omega balance raising IQs and resulting in more eco-scientists, sociologists, and general income for the government or charities for retooling of bronze-age fisherpeople.
Yeah, factoring in where the money came from takes the moral in a completely different direction.
In the end, a lot of people are getting cheaper food, and more fish is being produced with fewer workers. The suffering is caused by unexpected change, not because the corporate fishing fleet is inherently bad.
I would argue that the poor working conditions are caused by the temporary oversupply of fisherman, not by anything inherent to the job structure. Once that oversupply is corrected, you end up with fisherman working for a good wage to provide cheaper food to thousands of people. The community as a whole can work fewer hours and enjoy more of their life.
So capitalism ruthlessly exploited the people it pushed out of a niche, a one-time cost to a small group of people, in exchange for permanent good effects for everyone.
Obviously it would be better if the company was giving good wages from the start, and a social safety net kept that small group from suffering at all. But even with that terrible side effect, the search for efficiency was a good thing.
In the end, a lot of people are getting cheaper food, and more fish is being produced with fewer workers. The suffering is caused by unexpected change, not because the corporate fishing fleet is inherently bad.
I would argue that the poor working conditions are caused by the temporary oversupply of fisherman, not by anything inherent to the job structure. Once that oversupply is corrected, you end up with fisherman working for a good wage to provide cheaper food to thousands of people. The community as a whole can work fewer hours and enjoy more of their life.
So capitalism ruthlessly exploited the people it pushed out of a niche, a one-time cost to a small group of people, in exchange for permanent good effects for everyone.
Obviously it would be better if the company was giving good wages from the start, and a social safety net kept that small group from suffering at all. But even with that terrible side effect, the search for efficiency was a good thing.
> So capitalism ruthlessly exploited the people it pushed out of a niche, a one-time cost to a small group of people, in exchange for permanent good effects for everyone.
That's pretty much the definition of totalitarianism (the end justify the means, like in The Prince).
> Obviously it would be better if the company was giving good wages from the start, and a social safety net kept that small group from suffering at all. But even with that terrible side effect, the search for efficiency was a good thing.
Our moral compass should tell us that if achieving efficiency without exploitation is possible then it must always be chosen over achieving efficiency with exploitation.
There's another subtle thing to consider here: the capitalists seem to justify and enforce the means when the terrible side effects only apply to others. The line between socialist despotism and liberal despotism is a bit blurry.
That's pretty much the definition of totalitarianism (the end justify the means, like in The Prince).
> Obviously it would be better if the company was giving good wages from the start, and a social safety net kept that small group from suffering at all. But even with that terrible side effect, the search for efficiency was a good thing.
Our moral compass should tell us that if achieving efficiency without exploitation is possible then it must always be chosen over achieving efficiency with exploitation.
There's another subtle thing to consider here: the capitalists seem to justify and enforce the means when the terrible side effects only apply to others. The line between socialist despotism and liberal despotism is a bit blurry.
That's a utilitarianism, not totalitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical outlook, totalitarianism describes a category of government. I don't think this counts as totalitarian because it was not the government who did the pushing here.
Ah, yes! Good point, upvoted.
There is no homogenous group that can be named "the capitalists".
There is no consensus on what exploitaition is.
There is no such term as liberal despotism.
There is no consensus on the directions of moral compass.
The definition of totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.
So what's left? Oh I got it: CAPITALISM IS BAD.
So what's left? Oh I got it: CAPITALISM IS BAD.
> There is no homogenous group that can be named "the capitalists". There is no consensus on what exploitaition is.
I don't get your point. Clearly here "capitalists" refer to the group the businessman represents in the story. I didn't pass any judgment on the capitalism doctrine here. I passed judgment on the doctrine "the end justify the means", which has nothing to do with capitalism.
> There is no consensus on the directions of moral compass.
In today's western society (let's just assume you are living in a western society), it is now commonly accepted that slavery, for instance, is badbad. This is a moral compass. Of course it hasn't always been like that. And it might change again. But this is still a moral compass.
> So what's left? Oh I got it: CAPITALISM IS BAD.
Are you trying to put words into my mouth ?
I don't get your point. Clearly here "capitalists" refer to the group the businessman represents in the story. I didn't pass any judgment on the capitalism doctrine here. I passed judgment on the doctrine "the end justify the means", which has nothing to do with capitalism.
> There is no consensus on the directions of moral compass.
In today's western society (let's just assume you are living in a western society), it is now commonly accepted that slavery, for instance, is badbad. This is a moral compass. Of course it hasn't always been like that. And it might change again. But this is still a moral compass.
> So what's left? Oh I got it: CAPITALISM IS BAD.
Are you trying to put words into my mouth ?
>That's pretty much the definition of totalitarianism (the end justify the means, like in The Prince).
I don't understand your argument here. As far as I understand it, totalitarianism means that the government has total control. Whether they do good, or bad, or both, justification doesn't play into it because they are beyond needing justification.
I don't understand your argument here. As far as I understand it, totalitarianism means that the government has total control. Whether they do good, or bad, or both, justification doesn't play into it because they are beyond needing justification.
Totalitarian governing bodies in the making always justify their actions in regard of the coming end. But this coming end never actually comes because a totalitarian body can never truly exists because there'll always be a part of society that can't be controlled, no matter how small it is. Thus the governing body will seek more and more control but it is without end. Totalitarianism can't sustain itself without the belief (or the propagandist fake belief) that the end justify the means. Both notions are so intertwined that claiming the end justify the means is de facto a totalitarian way of thinking. Hence my "pretty much the definition" (which is different from "the end justify the means is the definition of totalitarianism).
I hope you now better understand my reasoning.
I hope you now better understand my reasoning.
totalitarianism -> ends justify means
but
ends justify means -\-> totalitarianism
WTF?
The term 'tragedy of the commons' was coined at the time of the biggest transfer of land from common ownership to private interests in the history of GB. It describes the very benefits the businessman in the OP describes - the profit motive of efficiency due to privatisation. It is in itself capitalist fodder.
Over time it has may have come to signify anti-capitalism. Perhaps the only thing that kept the tragedy of the commons in check was social responsibility. Which, by virtue of remote capital, has been decimated - once again, as the OP describes.
Your argument about feeding the millions is both common and fallacious. The world population has increased more than sevenfold from that time.. the increase in population much more closely mirrors the increase in production, than production does the increase in need.
The term 'tragedy of the commons' was coined at the time of the biggest transfer of land from common ownership to private interests in the history of GB. It describes the very benefits the businessman in the OP describes - the profit motive of efficiency due to privatisation. It is in itself capitalist fodder.
Over time it has may have come to signify anti-capitalism. Perhaps the only thing that kept the tragedy of the commons in check was social responsibility. Which, by virtue of remote capital, has been decimated - once again, as the OP describes.
Your argument about feeding the millions is both common and fallacious. The world population has increased more than sevenfold from that time.. the increase in population much more closely mirrors the increase in production, than production does the increase in need.
Except of course when it's true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#Instances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#Instances
Capitalism isn't designed to handle non-ownership. That is why it is an easy target. Either privatize or regulate, but don't blame it on a system that is DESIGNED to maximize profit.
don't blame the system for having massive, glaring flaws!
or... do, do that
THE SOLUTION IS TO REGULATE, except that capitalists use their enormous wealth to lobby against any and all effective regulation, but that's not capitalism's fault lolz
or... do, do that
THE SOLUTION IS TO REGULATE, except that capitalists use their enormous wealth to lobby against any and all effective regulation, but that's not capitalism's fault lolz
Capitalism is based on private ownership. Is it really a flaw if it applies badly to an area of public/common ownership? Is a plane flawed because it doesn't fly underwater?
I like the analogy !
But whose fault is it now that someone is trying to apply the system to public/common ownership ?
But whose fault is it now that someone is trying to apply the system to public/common ownership ?
It seems that it would be the fault of whoever is trying to apply it.
It's not like even die-hard supporters of capitalism claim that applying it to public property works well. From Mises.org:
It's not like even die-hard supporters of capitalism claim that applying it to public property works well. From Mises.org:
On the contrary, when the individual is merely a tenant, either of
a farm or a dwelling or a business site, his interest is in taking
out all he can to compensate for the cost of the rent he pays. This
is true whether his landlord is a private person or a government.
Actually, in those cases where government has become the landlord,
the evidence abounds that tenants are even less interested in
improving or even maintaining the property they occupy.
You know, if you write all your arguments in capslock they will be even more persuasive.
There is no homogenous group of "capitalists". Many regulations are the product of collective wishes of 99% and its absurd to blame some non-existent group for lobbying against "any and all" effective regulation.
I swear someday I will write browser extension to analyze and hide such hand-wavy arguments like this one.
There is no homogenous group of "capitalists". Many regulations are the product of collective wishes of 99% and its absurd to blame some non-existent group for lobbying against "any and all" effective regulation.
I swear someday I will write browser extension to analyze and hide such hand-wavy arguments like this one.
In the example of overfishing, there is no group lobbying against "any and all" regulation.
But the owner of the fishery/cannery is lobbying against quotas, the owner of the fishing boat is lobbying against worker protections that would slow down the harvest, and the restauranteurs sure have a significant interest in keeping the price of fish as low as possible.
Heterogeneous groups, acting in their own interests, end up working towards the same goal - preventing regulation that would slow overfishing. That's the tragedy of the commons.
But the owner of the fishery/cannery is lobbying against quotas, the owner of the fishing boat is lobbying against worker protections that would slow down the harvest, and the restauranteurs sure have a significant interest in keeping the price of fish as low as possible.
Heterogeneous groups, acting in their own interests, end up working towards the same goal - preventing regulation that would slow overfishing. That's the tragedy of the commons.
OK, am I getting you right? You say the system is totally ok, shall take no blame, because it just is that way?
That naturalistic argument (don't blame it on the missing rain, that your crops died) is good for natural processes. But you are talking about a cultural/societal process here. So this system was designed in a special way. It could have been designed in a more ethical way. In a way to internalize externalities.
It was designed intentionally is what I wanted to say. And that invalidates a naturalistic argument.
That naturalistic argument (don't blame it on the missing rain, that your crops died) is good for natural processes. But you are talking about a cultural/societal process here. So this system was designed in a special way. It could have been designed in a more ethical way. In a way to internalize externalities.
It was designed intentionally is what I wanted to say. And that invalidates a naturalistic argument.
I think you and pi guy are on the same wavelength, but emphasizing different pieces... He is saying that pure capitalism doesn't work well against common goods (e.g. capitalism in fishing leads to over-fishing). He further says to privatize or regulate (via government intervention). This is the same as "internalizing the externalities" as you described.
In other words, don't blame capitalism (a natural set of incentives aligned around gain from profit) for the disruption of the fish supply in the small town. Blame the Mexican (per the parable) government for not either licensing the fishing rights to a single charter or regulating the amount of fishing in the area. Properly managed, either approach would incentivize business to reign in the take-all (free capitalism) approach for long-term sustainability (and thus, greater overall profit).
In other words, don't blame capitalism (a natural set of incentives aligned around gain from profit) for the disruption of the fish supply in the small town. Blame the Mexican (per the parable) government for not either licensing the fishing rights to a single charter or regulating the amount of fishing in the area. Properly managed, either approach would incentivize business to reign in the take-all (free capitalism) approach for long-term sustainability (and thus, greater overall profit).
Riight. And National Socialism is not to blame for the unfortunate fate of Jews. After all it is DESIGNED to exterminate lesser races.
Capitalism cannot fail. It can only be failed.
The effect of omega 3 acids on human intelligence is a heavily disputed fact. Maybe they get one genius or two, maybe none.
I was trying to emphasize that nutrition has more than first order effects, but thanks for letting me know about the omega 3 things being disputed, I didn't know that.
Nothing is permanent, innovate, disrupt, adapt or die... So this parable is about Silicon Valley (businessman) crushing the complacent entrenched corporations (fisherman) with new technology? Am I missing something?
No, the fisherman represents fishermen, and the businessman represents businessmen.
It's about just what it says it's about: the businessman crushing everyone else to satisfy his own greed, and destroying the quality of life for anyone that's not rich.
You know, like real life, as oppposed to the self-serving silicon valley fantasy where getting rich is somehow socially beneficial.
It's about just what it says it's about: the businessman crushing everyone else to satisfy his own greed, and destroying the quality of life for anyone that's not rich.
You know, like real life, as oppposed to the self-serving silicon valley fantasy where getting rich is somehow socially beneficial.
The businessman didn't "crush" anyone, he just made the fishing industry a thousand times more efficient through technology. You see the fisherman losing his job, not the thousands of villagers who now have cheaper food.
The problem is all the wealth created from this went to the businessman alone and the fisherman was left with nothing. Because we stupidly live in a society where everyone depends on the value of their labor to get by. When technology makes your labor obsolete, as it should, then you have nothing.
The problem is all the wealth created from this went to the businessman alone and the fisherman was left with nothing. Because we stupidly live in a society where everyone depends on the value of their labor to get by. When technology makes your labor obsolete, as it should, then you have nothing.
Call me naive, but I actually believe it is possible nowadays to make labour obsolete, without making the labourer obsolete.
Really? Because the only people able to get paid after their work has been automated (textiles, manufacturing) are those who are able to collect from social safety nets, and they barely get by.
I'm all for a more equitable distribution of wealth though, through a combination of a much more solid web of social programs and higher taxes levied on top recipients of income (I dare not confuse those with "earners").
I'm all for a more equitable distribution of wealth though, through a combination of a much more solid web of social programs and higher taxes levied on top recipients of income (I dare not confuse those with "earners").
That depends on the state that makes the social net. Scandinavian countries make way better social nets.
Much more realistic than the usual version that ends early.
[deleted]
Nice re-write. The most interesting part: the businessman never knew what impact his actions had on the fisherman.
He knowingly lobbied for lower compensation rights for his workers. At the protests outside the fisheries he may not have noticed our protagonist given he was wearing crutches at the time and his hair had grown unkempt.
I doubt it would have changed his course of action. In his mind, if he didn't take advantage of the niche opportunity, someone else would.
True, it wouldn't have changed his actions, but it's interesting to think of how all that we do has an impact somewhere else. People reading this now are creating jobs for some and destroying jobs for others. Such is business life.
This isn't a story about all capitalism. It's a cautionary tale, a story of what happens when capital is not responsive to local conditions and social factors. This is why the concept of Triple Bottom Line accounting was created http://www.economist.com/node/14301663 . However, power in late American capitalism still stems from short-term decisions in finance, ignoring the issues of natural finite resources, ably conceptualised by the Rocky Mountain Institute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Capitalism:_Creating_th... .
I also recommend the writings of American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen from 100 years ago on how it is remote capital that increases the likelihood of businesses to have terribly deleterious effects on the physical, biological and social environment. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/438 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorstein_Veblen
Change happens, and often it brings benefits: but unless we are mindful, as say Elon Musk attempts to be, in our desires to improve the world with our technolgies, then dystopias will follow.
I can also recommend the various works of David Brin on the near to medium future, whose mind is quite as sharp as Musk's and other meta-systemic thinkers we know and appreciate. http://www.davidbrin.com/
I also recommend the writings of American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen from 100 years ago on how it is remote capital that increases the likelihood of businesses to have terribly deleterious effects on the physical, biological and social environment. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/438 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorstein_Veblen
Change happens, and often it brings benefits: but unless we are mindful, as say Elon Musk attempts to be, in our desires to improve the world with our technolgies, then dystopias will follow.
I can also recommend the various works of David Brin on the near to medium future, whose mind is quite as sharp as Musk's and other meta-systemic thinkers we know and appreciate. http://www.davidbrin.com/
Communist propaganda. Shame on you successful one percenters.
Well that was a surprise turn around. Great for the entrepreneur, not so great for the kind natured protagonist.
Also http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/misc/patfitty.gif
Also http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/misc/patfitty.gif
This is a famous German short story by Heinrich Böll, from 1963. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekdote_zur_Senkung_der_Arbei...
nope read it again, this one has an alternate ending
"democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies." by Isaac Asimov
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Overpopulation
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Overpopulation
What do you refer to a story like this? An Epitome? ANecdote? Vignette?