I am sorry to have missed last week's discussion on Zero-Sum Gain. I hear there was extensive debate about the classification of the stock market; is the trade of shares likely to benefit everyone involved? This is a tough question that the great figures of economics can debate while I watch my shares in the market increase in relative value.
This week's article on Collective Theory is a gift in my attempts to explain away liberal jabbering on the tragedies of common resources. It happens that, while I was unfamiliar with the name, I have been discussing the conclusions of collective theory for quite some time. The Taylor Grazing act has been around for more than half a century. Permits are granted on a long term basis, giving incentive to use their rangelands responsibly in order to ensure continuing profit. Water resources in the Western US are allocated in a manner that forces an economic expression of ecological principles. As a final example, the permits granted to fishermen in the Gulf of Alaska are bestowed as a sort of property where holders have direct monetary incentives to adhere to sound ecological principles.
Naturally, there are a great number of examples that have nothing to do with natural resources where governments have managed to build an effective system to regulate collective action. My peers here may have a greater number of examples to nullify this selection; I hope there can be a discussion that I can bring back to those professors of mine who pick one perspective to indoctrinate with.
I suppose the question I find most thought provoking is: Is government by nature less capable of dealing with collective action? I am inclined to believe that there are cases where a central regime can more effectively promote wellness than the spontaneous cooperative relationships proposed by Ostrom.