« Public schoolboys and political success | Main | John Lennon and the decline of the left »

December 09, 2005

Comments

dsquared

Coasian negotiation is IMO more or less useless as a solution to environmental problems because there's a huge and obvious missing markets problem; future generations can't send money back through time to pay us for not consuming environmental assets.

Blimpish

While obviously not impressed with the party's environmental policy (it wasn't that great before, mind), that last bit's a bit overdone, about the origins of property. Proper Tories like me (rather than the more libertarian or classical-liberal tinged parts of the party) don't have any Lockean illusions about the justice of hierarchy and the distribution of power and wealth. Allow me to revise Brezhnev: "don't talk to me about capitalism; what we have, we hold."

Innocent Abroad

Isn't the "endowment effect" two effects?

Rational: my computer is worth more to me than to anyone else because it's where I (but no one else) want it.

Irrational: the National Trust won't allow fox-hunting on its land no matter how much the hunts offer - as Blimpish implies, no one can be compelled to behave according to the assumption of economic rationality.

Kevin Carson

I second your comments on Coase. Although the land may be used more "efficiently," it matters a great deal to the dispossessed peasant whose customary property rights were violated by enclosure or other expropriation. I don't have much use for such utilitarian property rights theory.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad