= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open thread, Nov. 24 - Nov. 30, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (317)
<this is a political comment, usual mindkill caveats apply>
Here is a problem with an interest group:
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/03/05/3362801/nra-ivory-elephants-guns/
It's easy to hate the NRA if you come from certain parts. But the NRA is not very unusual in this respect. Interest groups, by their nature are unable to have the overview to know when to throw their cause under the bus for the "greater good." This is a general problem for all interest groups, regardless of whether their cause is noble or not.
The real question is how do we fight Moloch by a different method than competing interest groups (which will follow the usual "behavior physics" of interest groups, which feminism is not exempt from, regardless of how noble its goal is).
</political comment>
I don't see a problem. Or, rather, I see a problem with the blanket prohibition on the sale of <100-year-old ivory as it looks unreasonable to me.
Do you see a problem with the dwindling elephant population too? If so, are you able to judge which is the greater problem? If so, what is your judgement?
Yes, of course.
You are engaging in a classic false dilemma fallacy.
Do tell, how the prohibition on selling 50-year-old ivory helps the dwindling elephant population?
Lots of existing ivory becomes illegal, leading to a local drop in value, leading to lots of US ivory being traded to countries where it isn't illegal. Right?
So that first of all that sets up excellent opportunities for police sting operations. But it also drives down prices (at least for a few years), making elephant poaching less lucrative.
In parallel to that, the US is setting an example. A lot of countries copy US criminal laws rather than thinking them up from scratch (the War on Drugs being the textbook example), and since almost everyone loves elephants and the ivory trade is a huge and growing threat to them, there'll be a particularly low threshold to copying this one.
Sigh. Wrong. Why don't you at least look at the original link to the article about the ban? Notably, it says (emphasis mine):
I neither said nor meant it was going to be exported legally. It'll be black market trade, but it'll still respond to market forces, just like drug trafficking does.
Hold on. No new ivory products can (legally) be imported or exported from the US, but ivory products already in the US can still be bought and sold, albeit subject to restrictions. Providing demand for ivory remains roughly constant, and the US continues not to be an ivory producer, we would expect that to lead to a rise in ivory prices in the US market, and almost no ivory being exported (but some being imported on the black market).
So how much ivory do you expect to be illegally exported out of the US as a result of that law?
And if you don't care about legality, why would you export ivory, anyway? The prohibition destroys legal markets, but tends to raise prices in the black markets.
False. Scarcity raises prices, and black market goods are often scarce, but where illegal goods are not scarce (say street quality heroin) the profit margins are fairly low because illegality makes it hard to compete on brand so everyone competes on price.
I don't see how my estimate would matter in the slightest.
And you don't think ivory is scarce in the US..?
It would because your argument is that US exports will depress prices in the rest of the world. If the US exports amount to half a tusk, it's not going to depress world prices much :-/
In any case, this seems to be descending into bickering. Agree to disagree?