« International Bureaucracies | Main | Here's Why... »

February 20, 2007

What a Surprise

When will people learn?

Fuel subsidies that allow deep-sea trawling fleets to destroy fish stocks must be banned to prevent permanent damage to fragile marine ecosystems, scientists said yesterday.

Industrial fishing operations are devastating marine species and reef habitats that have taken centuries to grow and cannot easily recover because they mature and reproduce so slowly, the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference was told.

Deep-sea fisheries that lie in international waters more than 200 nautical miles from land are largely unregulated.

The fishermen are searching for species such as the pelagic armourhead, black cod, which is unrelated to regular cod, grenadier and orange roughy. The trawlers lay waste to the sea floor in the process.

When you subsidise something you get too much of it. Simply stop pissing away the money on such stupidities.

February 20, 2007 in Your Tax Money at Work | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What a Surprise:


Subsidies also lower quality and increase volume.

We are also forced subsidise immigration though the "welfare" state.

Posted by: AntiCitizenOne | Feb 20, 2007 12:17:33 PM

Are we? I thought immigrants weren't eligible for state benefits or NHS treatments?

Should we, then, abolish the welfare state and let the poor rot in the gutters?

Posted by: sanbikinoriaon | Feb 20, 2007 12:42:14 PM


The simple answer to your last question is "Yes," for a number of reasons.

Most of "the poor" would simply stop being so poor when its rewards are lowered. You might even see a rise in their effective IQs (as they start doing constructive things to alleviate their conditions).

The lessened drag on both the productivity and the attention of the more fortunate will mean greater resources with which the now-lowered needs of the far fewer actually deserving may be addressed.

Have the recently published stats on the great differential between the giving proclivities of the group "conservatives, especially the religious" VS "liberals, especially "progressive' secularists" not made any impression. These are from the US, of course and basically illustrate that the latter give virtually nothing beyond what they've managed to legislate be extracted from everyone. The former, however, give generously--in addition to the extractions from them, which are larger, on a unit basis, than from others, given their somewhat greater average incomes.

Other stats show that the US private givers (both in gross and per capita), are the (by far) largest contributors to the welfare of

foreign poor, exceeding all other nations or organizations (incl EU, UN, etc) when only their PRIVATE contributions are considered. In other words (since the "left," in general, doesn't give much except what they have to), this segment outdoes every other source of assistance on the planet.

As a matter of fact, almost the only rationale for enforced contribution has to be the gut cognition that those backing the taking are making the statement that they, themselves would only chip in what they're forced to and believe the same to be true of everyone else (though it most observedly is not!). Either that must be true or another conjecture sometimes advanced: that they actively promote the maintenance of a separate (and as large as can be managed) class of nhear-marginal parasites.

Posted by: gene berman | Feb 20, 2007 1:36:02 PM