The Fish Market 9.16.2013
Aidan Stuckert
Competition is one of the most
powerful forces in the world of economics. On the other hand, a monopoly is one
of the most destructive forces. Competition leads to lowered prices and better
products. However, when businesses are fighting for money they need to evaluate
opportunity costs. In most cases, ethics
are sacrificed.
Let’s take
a deeper look at what the need for money has done to our environment. If
farmers in the Amazon are faced with the choice to clear a couple hundred acres
of forest or have reduced revenue, the answer is simple for all businesses,
deforestation. Rather than even selling the lumber, the majority of it is just
burned down. This contributes to global
warning on a massive scale, as well as fueling the 35 to 50 extinctions
that happen daily (there are also reports of 200+ daily extinctions).
The
profitability of putting greed before the environment is only temporary. Why
don’t businesses work their employees 16 hours a day? Because continuously
raping your resources isn’t sustainable. You would be able to get a lot of work
done at first, but eventually the workers would rebel or make mistakes from
restlessness. The environment works the same way. Businesses need three things:
Resources, Money, and Time. Businesses cannot operate if one of those three
necessities is missing.
A problem
with the invisible hand theory is it implies businesses don’t care about the
consumers or other businesses. When one company decides to dam a river, they don’t
care that it will kill any salmon that try to reproduce in it. Competition has
lead to the irreversible destruction of the world largest food source. The
Ocean. Once we figured out fishing could be created into a business, we created
an entire industry on it. Boats got bigger and tools became more efficient. Can
we continue to use competition if it will inevitably point to the demise of all
aquatic life? Usually, there are
tradeoffs in businesses. There aren’t any consequences to polluting so there
aren’t any necessary tradeoffs.
Ocean
acidification is one of the least known but worst aspects of businesses not
taking care of their workers (the environment in this metaphor). Pollutants
from the air are absorbed by the ocean and the acid levels increase. A raise of
just 0.1 in pH can kill entire ecosystems. Every fish we hunt has had a massive
population reduction. In this case, having a mixed economy is beneficial. The
government can impose regulations to keep the economy form exterminating the
economy (because without land and resources nothing can operate). Entire states
can be based on fishing.
As fishing increases, the fish
population decreases. Trolling the bottom of the ocean with fish nets is like a
farmer cutting his crops 20 times a year. There wouldn’t be any time for the
crops to grow back before you cut them again. Supply and demand is a main
component of almost all economies. Also, it is part of the Invisible Hand
Theory. If someone needs something, someone else will see that and sell the
need to make money. Just because there is a demand for fish doesn’t mean there
is a supply of them. When (not if) we reach the ‘end of the line’ the markets
that run on the fishing industry.
Fish play a quintessential role in
the world; they have been a part of our culture ever since we discovered them.
Fish are considered holy in some regions. The fishing industry is a micro
economy in itself. If the fish were to leave, the truckers that transport fish
would be affected, the stores that sell fish would be affected, and many
restaurants would be affected.
If
something is not done fast to save the fish and the environment we will have to
worry about things far worse than crashing economies…global starvation.
Yay! Someone else sees this happening. Huge corporations are effectively destroying the environment for the smallest of gains for the shortest of times. In the near future there will not be any more trees to cut or fish to catch. Then what? The businesses that are going to thrive are the ones that are investing in protecting what everybody else is trying to destroy. Google has invested a large chunk of money in a wind farm in Texas. More and more people need to do this to make sure there are resources for us in the future.
ReplyDeleteGood job Aidan! I agree with everything you said. If we don't take care of our resources we won't have anything for the future. You said "If something is not done fast to save the fish and the environment we will have to worry about things far worse than crashing economies…global starvation." Do you have any suggestions?
ReplyDeleteI think a good start is to put a tax on pollution. Charge companies for their smoke stacks and what not. A major problem I should have addressed is the fact that we are focusing on doing the least amount of harm rather than fixing things to reverse the harm.
DeleteMaggie, do you have any suggestions?
DeleteMaggie, do you have any suggestions?
DeleteI love this topic because I think it is something that is important in today’s world but also something that many industries and consumers don’t want to face up to. I agree with all that you had to say. Businesses assume that by producing as much as they can, they will be better off. What they don’t see (or at least don’t want to admit to) are the effects of such production. In the end, using up all resources will be harmful to the entire world, including that so-called “prospering” business. This ignorance will catch-up to all of us if not turned around soon. Nice job!
ReplyDeleteYou did a really good job of incorporating a lot of our economic vocab words into your post. Your comment, “Businesses cannot operate if one of those three necessities is missing.” Is very accurate! I agree that corporations shouldn't be destroying a lot of the land across the world because once it is gone, it cannot come back.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your information but do you think it is fair that the government can split up a company just because they worked harder than everyone else and became more successful? Who's to tell a company that they worked to hard and became to successful so that we have to split you up.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you showed the negative consequences of these big corporations instead of just focusing on their success, and their benefits. The rainforest was a good example because it shows just how far these big companies are willing to go to make a profit, even if they need to cut down trees and kill helpless animals. Great job!
ReplyDeleteImposing regulation on fishing can help reduce the impending effects of environmental destruction, but what if the main source of income and food in a country was from fishing? Maybe in a mixed economy you can regulate how much fish can be taken in, but then you have to split the amount around each company. But even then the price for fish could still drive up the price because of the lack of supply. Then when there is also a lack of supply, we could import the fish, but that would also pollute the ocean.
ReplyDeleteGood job Aiden! Using the fishing industry as an example is a great illustration of over production and its effect on the economy. I agree with you completely that the ocean produces some of the largest and most important industries but is easily overlooked. Companies do not realize the devastating reality of over production and its effect on the economy and nature. You nailed it when you said, in your last paragraph, that one thing effects another, which effects another and etc. Good job!
ReplyDeleteHey Aidan, insightful post. What do you think though, is a solution? Sure, it's never good to wipe out species, pollute our environment, and live on the edge of disaster. Yet businesses are notorious for making short term decisions in favor of cash in hand, over more ethical long term decisions. So how do we mitigate the effects of environmental irresponsibility without sacrificing the benefits of a market system?
ReplyDeleteI like that you brought up the part about how this all affects the environment! I agree with all of the information that you stated. I also agree with how you said “supply and demand is a main component of almost all economies”. This brings up a good point, because supply and demand is basically what runs our country too. You also said “If something is not done fast to save the fish and the environment we will have to worry about things far worse than crashing economies…global starvation.” Do you think global starvation could be a possible outcome in the next 10 years? Or do you think we will have figured something out to save the fish or even other things that will affect our economy and leave us in global starvation?
ReplyDeleteWell done, Aidan! I really liked how you incorporated several examples through out the response; it helped prove your point. However, similar to what Jacob said, how do you propose we fix this problem? It seems as if society is pretty much set on the way things are operating now which would make it difficult to make an drastic changes. Overall, good job!
ReplyDeleteIt's sad to see huge corporations destroy the environment, all they are thinking about is now and not he future. Because in the future there will be no trees/fish, then where will we get our supplies? I just hope someone will figure this out and limit or protect these crucial things that we all need.
ReplyDeleteOverall nice job Aidan. The one problem I had was the last sentence of your fourth paragraph. Rather than stating flat out that there aren't any consequences caused by pollution (because there are), go more into detail as to how businesses don't see the consequences because they don't show up in the cost of the item. We actually talked about this during APES last year, and the only solution we could come up with were tighter regulations to prevent over-harvesting.
ReplyDeleteI would have to totally agree with everything you said, but there are actually laws trying to come into effect to try to stop the fish population from depleting. So commercial companies would have to monitor how many fish they take from that lake or ocean. Also companies are starting the new technique where they have their own enclosure in the lake where they can grow their own fish commercially. So that is would help out with balancing the population.
ReplyDeleteAidan this was overall a very well written piece. I must say competition is good for the world, despite some of it's flaws. However without competition what would do? I will admit it's a shame that business ethics and ethics in general, are thrown out the door between competitors just for that extra dollar. I think what can be concluded from the the whole ethics situation is that sources are limited and are only to become more limited, and you pointed that out and did a great job of doing that. My question is though, how are we going to solve this problem of scarce resources and how will we be more resourceful in the future? It's scary to think about but as time goes someone will have to step up and take inniative.
ReplyDeleteAidan, I had no clue that the population of fish was decreasing so fast. I agree with you, me being an outdoors man you can tell the DNR is trying to reduce limits on how many fish you can catch. On some lakes in Missouri they don’t let you keep the fish that you catch no matter what size it maybe. What that would do is keep the fish in the lake so then if that fish hasn’t laid eggs yet it will be able to reproduce. What lakes in Michigan are struggling with is there laws on the catch and release, when the people that fish the lakes are keeping the fish and now the fish is very scares in lake in Michigan.
ReplyDelete