7 ms·

Shared usage of a limited resource is a hard problem to solve. Given the current system maybe the most honest one would be if the state ”owns” all the quota an

Shared usage of a limited resource is a hard problem to solve. Given the current system maybe the most honest one would be if the state ”owns” all the quota and then let fishermen bid for fishing rights. But I have a feeling that will quickly become politicized with strange carve outs benefiting a few.

inigyou 18d ago
Bidding for rights is basically an ownership system already. Once you win a bid for a right, then you own the right.
- ViewTrick1002 18d ago
  Even if time limited? So you bid for 5, 10 years or whatever becomes a good balance between stability to invest in the business and an agile market.
  - inigyou 18d ago
    Yes, then you become a landlord for 5 or 10 years. Once the rights are given out by whatever method and set for 10 years, then anyone else who wants one in the next 10 years has to buy or rent one from whoever has one. That's landlordism.
    - ViewTrick1002 18d ago
      But that would trend to cutting out the middle man due to the inefficiencies they create. Middlemen will only work if either these middlemen make the utilization more efficient or you make the requirements to bid so onerous that only these specialized middlemen have the competency to do fulfill them.
      - inigyou 18d ago
        No, middlemen would happen if it's profitable to be a middleman. Extreme case: one person bids just enough to get all the rights, then charges double that to fishermen to use them.
        ViewTrick1002 18d ago
        Which means in the next bidding round the fishermen would bid somewhere between the double they were charged, and could still apparently have a working businesses with, and what the middleman bid. All it means is that they were expecting too large profit margins and someone called their bluff.
        inigyou 18d ago
        Has this been tried? It's been tried with housing (that's the current housing system).
        ViewTrick1002 18d ago
        No idea. But it is quite similar to how public transport works for archipelago ferries in Scandinavia. 15 year contracts when large investments are required. Otherwise 5-10 years. And you get a ”quota” for a guaranteed traffic to run for that period based on the requirements in the contract. Just took the same idea and applied to fishing, to prevent the ”legacies” from monopolizing it while giving the public the income of their shared resources.
        inigyou 18d ago
        A government contract isn't the same as a rights system. Presumably anyone else is also allowed to set up a ferry?
        ViewTrick1002 18d ago
        And anyone would be allowed to bid on the fishing quotas? What’s the difference between a ferry and a fishing boat?
runarberg 18d ago
My personal opinion is that trawling should be banned. Without trawlers shoveling up entire populations and destroying the ecosystem around it, a lot of these issues will solve them selves.

inigyou 18d ago

Bidding for rights is basically an ownership system already. Once you win a bid for a right, then you own the right.

ViewTrick1002 18d ago
Even if time limited? So you bid for 5, 10 years or whatever becomes a good balance between stability to invest in the business and an agile market.
- inigyou 18d ago
  Yes, then you become a landlord for 5 or 10 years. Once the rights are given out by whatever method and set for 10 years, then anyone else who wants one in the next 10 years has to buy or rent one from whoever has one. That's landlordism.
  - ViewTrick1002 18d ago
    But that would trend to cutting out the middle man due to the inefficiencies they create. Middlemen will only work if either these middlemen make the utilization more efficient or you make the requirements to bid so onerous that only these specialized middlemen have the competency to do fulfill them.
    - inigyou 18d ago
      No, middlemen would happen if it's profitable to be a middleman. Extreme case: one person bids just enough to get all the rights, then charges double that to fishermen to use them.
      - ViewTrick1002 18d ago
        Which means in the next bidding round the fishermen would bid somewhere between the double they were charged, and could still apparently have a working businesses with, and what the middleman bid. All it means is that they were expecting too large profit margins and someone called their bluff.
        inigyou 18d ago
        Has this been tried? It's been tried with housing (that's the current housing system).
        ViewTrick1002 18d ago
        No idea. But it is quite similar to how public transport works for archipelago ferries in Scandinavia. 15 year contracts when large investments are required. Otherwise 5-10 years. And you get a ”quota” for a guaranteed traffic to run for that period based on the requirements in the contract. Just took the same idea and applied to fishing, to prevent the ”legacies” from monopolizing it while giving the public the income of their shared resources.
        inigyou 18d ago
        A government contract isn't the same as a rights system. Presumably anyone else is also allowed to set up a ferry?
        ViewTrick1002 18d ago
        And anyone would be allowed to bid on the fishing quotas? What’s the difference between a ferry and a fishing boat?

runarberg 18d ago

My personal opinion is that trawling should be banned. Without trawlers shoveling up entire populations and destroying the ecosystem around it, a lot of these issues will solve them selves.