Talk:Tragedy of the anticommons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles.. |
| B | rated as B-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as mid-importance on the importance scale |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! |
|
|
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within game theory. |
Contents |
[edit] Irrelevant reference?
Hickman, J. and Dolman, E.: "Resurrecting the Space Age: A State-Centered Commentary on the Outer Space Regime," Comparative Strategy, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2002. What has this got to do with the article? Mr. Jones 14:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] A prescription of heirarchy?
...there is no hierarchy among owners such that the decision of one owner can dominate those of other owners, forcing them to use their resources in ways they would not, if they were permitted free will by the authority.
This should discuss the input of additional information, rather than just describe centralised control as if it were the only solution. Mr. Jones 14:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] examples, please
surely there are some juicy and enlightening examples? like the grazing cattle in Tragedy of the commons? and more familiar than Heller's empty russian shops? regards, High on a tree 01:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- How about the whole mess of copyrights and patents? There are certainly many juicy and enlightening examples of copyrights causing severe under-exploitation of information (i.e. many people who could put the information to productive use are unable to access it). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
- I don't think copyrights are an example of this phenomenon, at least most of the time. Usually a copyright is held by one person or at least one decision-making entity (e.g., a literary agent acting on behalf of all of a given author's living descendants, or the manager of a corporation that owns copyright in works for hire). If an author's estate is set up so all his descendants have veto rights on reprints of his work, that would be an example of this, but I don't know of any actual cases. -- Jim Henry, 30 Nov 2004
Copyrights generate many example of this phenomenon when *derivative works* are involved. Television shows which use music, plays based on books, movies based on plays based on books, etc., provide dozens of examples; as does computer software, where code based on a previous programmer's work is very common. In addition, in music the overlapping rights to a *song* and to the *recording* (phonogram) of the song can cause trouble. 24.59.111.200 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] global view
Porbably examples could be:
- 80% of money belongs to 5% of people (though tey are used by many of as in business processes..) - food and similar resources are also unproportional in vestern countries vs 3-rd World countries.. - historicaly, for. ex. Endgland, lords had lot's of land/property, while peasants -- very scare..
I think this issue is regulated by property taxes. If You don't use the property, You still have to pay taxes, so You'd better rent/sell your property to others to use/make_business.
Isnt Wikipedia a 'juicy' example of this concept? Many people feel that they have the right to edit and shape a given wiki page as they please, and the conflict results in disputes about how to form the page. You could argue about whether this results in 'waste', but I would say that if these conflicts did not arise then wikipedia would be more useful and therefore better utilized.
[edit] takings, eminent domain
"This is the canonical justification for the takings clause in the US Constitution and eminent domain generally."
I would say this is incorrect and confusing the issues. Canonically, takings are to satisfy a public use, NOT to correct a market inefficiency. While much of the current backlash over eminent domain's use stems from its application in cases of market inefficiency (where properties are not reaching their highest and best use). Granted, many of Heller's arguments are critical of the use of takings in such instances. But to say that it is the basis of the takings clause is not supported by the law's text or long history.
This sentence is bad; the takings clause is a restriction on public domain, not a statement of the acceptability of public domain seizures. Removing the reference to the takings clause. 24.59.111.200 14:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] bad examples abound
Seems to me DVD players are a bad example. Considering the hundreds of brands of DVD players available worldwide, I'd say its hardly an under exploited market. The patents and copyrights parts also smell fishy. Its as though the author of these is attempting to grind an axe here.
[edit] This article is nonsense
This articles refers to certain things being 'wasted'. But isn't 'waste' subjective? It is, since value itself is subjective. Isn't this argument just saying the some individuals disagree with how other individuals allocate their own resources? This whole concept is a fallacy. Perhaps this article is best listed in a page relating to fallacies.
"Oh, I don't like how many sheets of toilet paper you use to wipe your ass! So many externalities!"
DrDimension 08:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- The concept includes the idea that things are being wasted. Wikipedia is only reporting on the concept, not passing judgment on whether it is true. Ken Arromdee 14:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
