NationStates Jolt Archive

I guess these guys will all end up with hearing loss....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6945576.stm


Police target loud car 'cruisers'
Drivers who "cruise" around with loud music booming out of their windows could have their cars confiscated, police in Birmingham warn.
Officers have been targeting drivers who have been blasting music from their cars in the Broad Street area, part of the city's entertainment complex.

A police spokesman said if they commit the offence again, the drivers will have their cars taken from them.

The operation ran over the weekend after complaints from residents.

'Harassment and alarm'

Acting Sgt Jake Flanagan, who oversaw the operation, said: "Where a vehicle is being driven in a careless or inconsiderate manner and is likely to cause harassment and alarm, distress or annoyance to anybody else, we, the police, have the power to seize that vehicle.

"Now, we will of course give a warning and anybody who commits the offence again within 12 months, we will simply take the vehicle from them."

The operation, known as Operation United, was set up after complaints about the behaviour of revellers on Broad Street from neighbour groups.

Sgt Flanagan said complaints about drinking and violent behaviour had fallen and at the last meeting, the only complaint was about "cruising".

"Not only will we tackle people cruising, but also a whole manner of other offences.

"We will be looking at all vehicles on Broad Street, from private cars to taxis and limousines," he said.

I guess these guys will all end up with hearing loss....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6945576.stm


Police target loud car 'cruisers'
Drivers who "cruise" around with loud music booming out of their windows could have their cars confiscated, police in Birmingham warn.
Officers have been targeting drivers who have been blasting music from their cars in the Broad Street area, part of the city's entertainment complex.

A police spokesman said if they commit the offence again, the drivers will have their cars taken from them.

The operation ran over the weekend after complaints from residents.

'Harassment and alarm'

Acting Sgt Jake Flanagan, who oversaw the operation, said: "Where a vehicle is being driven in a careless or inconsiderate manner and is likely to cause harassment and alarm, distress or annoyance to anybody else, we, the police, have the power to seize that vehicle.

"Now, we will of course give a warning and anybody who commits the offence again within 12 months, we will simply take the vehicle from them."

The operation, known as Operation United, was set up after complaints about the behaviour of revellers on Broad Street from neighbour groups.

Sgt Flanagan said complaints about drinking and violent behaviour had fallen and at the last meeting, the only complaint was about "cruising".

"Not only will we tackle people cruising, but also a whole manner of other offences.

"We will be looking at all vehicles on Broad Street, from private cars to taxis and limousines," he said.

Meh,

I think the police should have bigger fish to fry.

Like prosecuting people who steal from libraries :mad:

Well these people are irritating tossers.

Well these people are irritating tossers.

Someone after my own heart.

Well these people are irritating tossers.

I hate having to listen to there crappy music.

*shudders*

Can't they do the same around Basildon District instead?

I remember some counter-trolling some friends of mine and myself did as a parody of these people: we drove around with windows down and blaring out ClassicFM :p

I remember some counter-trolling some friends of mine and myself did as a parody of these people: we drove around with windows down and blaring out ClassicFM :p

With the treble turned up high so you could really hear the piccolo?

I remember some counter-trolling some friends of mine and myself did as a parody of these people: we drove around with windows down and blaring out ClassicFM :p

Brilliant

Got a neighbor with a car like that, followed him home one day and I shit you not a block and a half behind him I could hear all his fittings on the car rattling from the base.

He'll be deaf and the car will be scrap in a year or two.

Good but, waste of police time imo.

Far more important things the regular force can do.

Give community officers more power, and let them deal with bullshit like this.

Or let me, I have plenty of bricks..

Or let me, I have plenty of bricks..

Subsequent to the procurement of the brick, a wide range of superficially non-brick-related situations became the candidates for the application of brick-centric solutions...

Myself, I prefer to find out where the idiot lives, set up speakers at each of his windows, and blast "Panama" until the point sinks in...

I want to know who exactly these idiots think are impressed by their crappy music and crappy cars.

haven't the police got better things to do than panda to a few complainers?

Meh,

I think the police should have bigger fish to fry.

Like prosecuting people who steal from libraries :mad:

Or people who wank in libraries. :p

Hee, you folks are about 30 years behind the "annoying git sharing his music with everyone" trend!

Then again, not a bad thing -- just amusing to see people's feathers ruffled over something that here is 'old hat.'

Or people who wank in libraries.
First of all in the showers.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/1/10/Mastsriusly2.jpg


"Please Masturbate..."
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/de/GeorgiaTech.jpg

Hee, you folks are about 30 years behind the "annoying git sharing his music with everyone" trend!

Then again, not a bad thing -- just amusing to see people's feathers ruffled over something that here is 'old hat.'

This is hardly a new thing; it's just the first time the Police have ever cracked down on people doing it.

I guess these guys will all end up with hearing loss....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6945576.stm


Police target loud car 'cruisers'
Drivers who "cruise" around with loud music booming out of their windows could have their cars confiscated, police in Birmingham warn.
Officers have been targeting drivers who have been blasting music from their cars in the Broad Street area, part of the city's entertainment complex.

A police spokesman said if they commit the offence again, the drivers will have their cars taken from them.

The operation ran over the weekend after complaints from residents.

'Harassment and alarm'

Acting Sgt Jake Flanagan, who oversaw the operation, said: "Where a vehicle is being driven in a careless or inconsiderate manner and is likely to cause harassment and alarm, distress or annoyance to anybody else, we, the police, have the power to seize that vehicle.

"Now, we will of course give a warning and anybody who commits the offence again within 12 months, we will simply take the vehicle from them."

The operation, known as Operation United, was set up after complaints about the behaviour of revellers on Broad Street from neighbour groups.

Sgt Flanagan said complaints about drinking and violent behaviour had fallen and at the last meeting, the only complaint was about "cruising".

"Not only will we tackle people cruising, but also a whole manner of other offences.

"We will be looking at all vehicles on Broad Street, from private cars to taxis and limousines," he said.

hooray!

next they just need to get the wankers who drive around with modded, horribly loud exhausts... you hear one of them coming and you know its a careless, aggressive twat driving it.

They do that here in Chicago and it really really helped cut down on the noise pollution. Now you rarely hear music blasting and you never hear it in a neighborhood with decent police coverage.

I want to know who exactly these idiots think are impressed by their crappy music and crappy cars.
Tigra and Bunny, they like the boom.
haven't the police got better things to do than panda to a few complainers?
One would think.

Yay for Statism! :rolleyes:

why stop at taking their cars? I say they beat the fuckers to a bloddy pulp as well. not really

I'm glad they don't enforce the sound laws here to vigorously. I think I'm a tad over the limit. Not too bad, but they could probably ticket me if someone complained. Luckily my neighbors are cool about it.

Tigra and Bunny, they like the boom.


OMG!!!!

Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

If ever there was a rap duo that belonged in the asshole of history it's one-hit-wonders Tigre and bunny! Why did you do that? I now have a song bouncing between my ears that thankfully hasn't been there in 20 years! :(

We like the cars, teh cars that go boom.

We're Tigre and Bunny and we like the boom.

Dammit!

Must

hear

disco...

I remember some counter-trolling some friends of mine and myself did as a parody of these people: we drove around with windows down and blaring out ClassicFM :p

I used to ride around blasting Phantom.But not nearly loud enough to compete with these dickweeds. I like my hearing, thankyouverymuch.

Yay for Statism! :rolleyes:

Because their right to play really bad music really loud trumps my right to hear my grandma talking. Riiiight.

Because their right to play really bad music really loud trumps my right to hear my grandma talking. Riiiight.
And you can't sort that problem out yourself? You have to go running to the police?

If someone drives by wherever you are, you're going to be annoyed for about 15 seconds. As they say, you have no right not to be offended.

If they stop in front of you and stay there, you can go and talk to them.

What if Middle Eastern music were to annoy someone? Would it then be okay to go and impound whatever stereo plays Middle Eastern music?

Let's face it, the damage done to you because of a car with a loud stereo driving by is minimal. The damage done to that guy because the cops take his car is huge. Where's the proportionality of the punishment? There is none, and that's usually the first sign of populism.

I play Beethoven at 90 decibels...

It drowns out the wanker playing rap next to me.

In light of the battering of a father to death upon his own doorstep, all for attempting to defend his property (would it have happened if the bloody sensible right to shoot trespassers on sight was in place? no), surely the police have better things to occupy themselves with?

Incidentally, does Escape the Fate/Avenged Sevenfold/ Thrice count? We sure showed the **** in the rap eminating fiesta what for!:cool:

And you can't sort that problem out yourself? You have to go running to the police?

If someone drives by wherever you are, you're going to be annoyed for about 15 seconds. As they say, you have no right not to be offended.

If they stop in front of you and stay there, you can go and talk to them.

What if Middle Eastern music were to annoy someone? Would it then be okay to go and impound whatever stereo plays Middle Eastern music?

Let's face it, the damage done to you because of a car with a loud stereo driving by is minimal. The damage done to that guy because the cops take his car is huge. Where's the proportionality of the punishment? There is none, and that's usually the first sign of populism.

Errr... in my neighborhood, I find that often they guys down on the street think nothing of blaring rap and other annoying music at levels that shake the dishes in my cabinets from parked cars at 2am. I have asked them to stop, and on occasion they do, but the SAME DAMNED PEOPLE are there doing it again the next night. At what point do you think it might be ok to involve something other than ME getting up, getting dressed, finding my keys, going downstairs, asking them AGAIN to cut it out, since it is 2am? Perhaps at some point before I become homicidal from lack of sleep it would be ok to call the police?

If they were playing Middle Eastern music at levels that were not annoying (that is above the legal noise pollution limits), then no, you should not get to take their stereos. But someone blaring classical music at 2am would get my vote for police action too. There ARE noise level ordinances, and they should be followed. And just because the person causing the disturbance is on the move should not exempt him from the punishment for breaking those laws.

I can't hear anything over the sound of my pipes.

Perhaps at some point before I become homicidal from lack of sleep it would be ok to call the police?
And what's the police going to do? As harsh as that must sound to you, taking their cars is still excessive punishment compared to the damage they have done.

If they were playing Middle Eastern music at levels that were not annoying (that is above the legal noise pollution limits), then no, you should not get to take their stereos.
What is and isn't annoying is in the ear of the beholder, as it were. Legal noise pullution limits are meaningless, an indication of nothing but what granny asked for last time the politician turned up at her place asking for her vote. If she said she were annoyed by Middle Eastern music, the government might just as well classify that as noise pollution as well.

Doesn't make it right though.

There ARE noise level ordinances, and they should be followed. And just because the person causing the disturbance is on the move should not exempt him from the punishment for breaking those laws.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with economics, but either way it might be worthwhile to have a look at this (small) pdf-file (http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/CoaseJLE1960.pdf). It's the original article by Professor Ronald Coase on precisely this sort of problem. It's insights won him the Nobel Prize.

Given the nature of the problem at hand, the Coase Theorem is extremely applicable here. There really is little need for the State to become involved, especially if all it can do is heavy-handedly stealing someone's car.

And what's the police going to do? As harsh as that must sound to you, taking their cars is still excessive punishment compared to the damage they have done.


What is and isn't annoying is in the ear of the beholder, as it were. Legal noise pullution limits are meaningless, an indication of nothing but what granny asked for last time the politician turned up at her place asking for her vote. If she said she were annoyed by Middle Eastern music, the government might just as well classify that as noise pollution as well.

Doesn't make it right though.


I'm not sure how familiar you are with economics, but either way it might be worthwhile to have a look at this (small) pdf-file (http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/CoaseJLE1960.pdf). It's the original article by Professor Ronald Coase on precisely this sort of problem. It's insights won him the Nobel Prize.

Given the nature of the problem at hand, the Coase Theorem is extremely applicable here. There really is little need for the State to become involved, especially if all it can do is heavy-handedly stealing someone's car.

I skimmed it, and have to admit that I am not conversant with economics, but gotta say that it reads like a pile of cattle droppings to me. It seems to suggest that if I am harmed by the noise and because of losing sleep I would, for instance, lose a $1 an hour raise, which would net me $40 a week, I should, instead of fining these guys for their noisemaking, offer to pay them $20 a week to stop it?

Did I get that right?

some people just have no appreciation for a good pounding bass-line.

Did I get that right?
:D

Yep. And you reacted exactly like most people do.

The point is that it's not a case of preventing A from harming B. It's a case of deciding who we want to get harmed: A or B. I'm sure you can understand that the government coming in as a third party and impounding stuff is not just deciding to harm A, but to utterly destroy A. It's just not proportional, even if you decided that A is somehow in the wrong.

From the standpoint of economic efficiency, the choices you have is to either put up with the music or decide to pay for it to stop. Anything else would be an inefficient outcome because it would not reflect the costs and benefits accrued by the people involved. You'd get 100% of the benefit with 0% of the costs, they'd get 0% of the benefit with 1000% of the cost.

Now, regardless of any moral considerations you may have right now: do you or do you not think that offering those guys with their cars a contract that you would pay them some amount of money so that they stop playing their music at 2am would make them stop?

Now, regardless of any moral considerations you may have right now: do you or do you not think that offering those guys with their cars a contract that you would pay them some amount of money so that they stop playing their music at 2am would make them stop?

I am certain that this might well be the case.

But no matter what you argue about the economics of it, the MAIN point as I see it remains that if they had NOT played music at insane volumes at 2am in the first place, NO ONE would have been harmed by it. So in final effect, by paying them to stop, you are rewarding bad behavior.

Perhaps I should just start taking potshots out the window and see if they will pay ME to stop?

But no matter what you argue about the economics of it, the MAIN point as I see it remains that if they had NOT played music at insane volumes at 2am in the first place, NO ONE would have been harmed by it.
Except them wanting to listen to loud music at 2am, of course.

So in final effect, by paying them to stop, you are rewarding bad behavior.
Well, in this case you'd end up stuck on the word "bad", trying to define it in a morally consistent way. The beauty of the Coase Theorem is that it doesn't require anything like that.

Perhaps I should just start taking potshots out the window and see if they will pay ME to stop?
If you think that's going to solve your problem, don't let me stop you. Suffice to say that I'm going to be less inclined to defend the use of physical violence than playing loud music.

OMG!!!!

Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

If ever there was a rap duo that belonged in the asshole of history it's one-hit-wonders Tigre and bunny! Why did you do that? I now have a song bouncing between my ears that thankfully hasn't been there in 20 years! :(

We like the cars, teh cars that go boom.

We're Tigre and Bunny and we like the boom.

Dammit!

Must

hear

disco...
Moo ha ha ha...my evil work is done!!!


(I had to do it to someone, the question had put that song in my head...)

Except them wanting to listen to loud music at 2am, of course.

Which they could do elsewhere. They HAVE a car... drive somewhere where it won't bother anyone.


Well, in this case you'd end up stuck on the word "bad", trying to define it in a morally consistent way. The beauty of the Coase Theorem is that it doesn't require anything like that.

Bad in that it is harmful to someone else. If you make the first move in this little scenario (playing music too loud) and it harms someone else (me and the rest of the neighbors) then YOU are at fault here. The Coase Theorem ends up penalizing ME for being harmed. Thanks. Economically it may make some sort of sense, but as can be amply demonstrated in the scenario where I have to pay someone to not hurt me, economics are pretty sucky (obviously an objective opinion, but there you go...)

If you think that's going to solve your problem, don't let me stop you. Suffice to say that I'm going to be less inclined to defend the use of physical violence than playing loud music.

Why? Seems to me in the long run that is where this theory goes. If you do something harmful and I must pay you to stop, why should I not do something more harmful so you will pay me MORE to stop? Economically I come out ahead there, so it is OK, isn't it? And who is to say it is any more or less harmful to me for me NOT to take potshots than it is for them NOT to blast music?

And you can't sort that problem out yourself? You have to go running to the police?

If someone drives by wherever you are, you're going to be annoyed for about 15 seconds. As they say, you have no right not to be offended.

If they stop in front of you and stay there, you can go and talk to them.

What if Middle Eastern music were to annoy someone? Would it then be okay to go and impound whatever stereo plays Middle Eastern music?

Let's face it, the damage done to you because of a car with a loud stereo driving by is minimal. The damage done to that guy because the cops take his car is huge. Where's the proportionality of the punishment? There is none, and that's usually the first sign of populism.

I don't give a rat's ass if the music is rap, Middle Eastern, or Country. Parking in front of my house and blaring it at top volume (loud enough that the glass in the windows rattles) is NOT OKAY! And, yes, I would rather run to the police than risk confronting the people who blast their music in my neighborhood. Our street may be neutral territory at the moment, but that doesn't mean that bangers don't hang out there. Not a risk I feel like taking.

From the standpoint of economic efficiency, the choices you have is to either put up with the music or decide to pay for it to stop. Anything else would be an inefficient outcome because it would not reflect the costs and benefits accrued by the people involved. You'd get 100% of the benefit with 0% of the costs, they'd get 0% of the benefit with 1000% of the cost.


I just re-read this part... and inefficient is not my concern. In my inefficient outcome I would get 100% of the benefit because I suffered 100% of the harm. I would get 0% of the costs because I CAUSED 0% of the harm. If they don't like 0% of the benefit and 1000% of the cost, they should not have caused 100% of the harm.

Which they could do elsewhere. They HAVE a car... drive somewhere where it won't bother anyone.
But that would mean costs for them. You can spin it whatever way you want, it's still a question of harming them or harming you.

Bad in that it is harmful to someone else. If you make the first move in this little scenario (playing music too loud) and it harms someone else (me and the rest of the neighbors) then YOU are at fault here.
Well, that's a moral statement. Say I kill Hitler and save a few million people. I made the first move and killed Hitler, hence I am at fault for his death, hence I should spend the rest of my life in jail.

The fact that perhaps the world is a better place because I killed Hitler and saved all these people isn't considered in your definition of "bad". It's an extreme example, but you can see what I'm aiming at.

In terms of valuation, it's hard to tell whether your sleep is more valuable than their music. And precisely because we can't tell, Coase proposes that you two sort it out amongst yourselves because if anyone knows how to put some sort of value on these things, it's you two.

Why? Seems to me in the long run that is where this theory goes.
Well, the theory is about externalities, that is negative (or positive) effects of your actions on others.

If people play loud music, they do it because they want to listen to loud music, and you are suffering external effects. Putting a value on those effects to determine whether or not listening to loud music is a good idea is where the problem lies.

If you shoot someone, that's not an external effect. You took the action in order to hurt the other person. Granted, putting a dollar value on it isn't necessarily any easier, but in moral terms it's a whole lot less ambiguous.

And, yes, I would rather run to the police than risk confronting the people who blast their music in my neighborhood. Our street may be neutral territory at the moment, but that doesn't mean that bangers don't hang out there. Not a risk I feel like taking.
If you risk suffering physical harm, then I would agree, the police should be involved.

My point is about the act of playing loud music, not the fact that those who play loud music might be dangerous criminals. If they are, it becomes a different matter altogether.

I just re-read this part... and inefficient is not my concern.
Well, you've got a bit of a conflict of interest. ;)

In my inefficient outcome I would get 100% of the benefit because I suffered 100% of the harm. I would get 0% of the costs because I CAUSED 0% of the harm. If they don't like 0% of the benefit and 1000% of the cost, they should not have caused 100% of the harm.
I'm not sure you fully understood the point about A and B yet. If these guys want to play loud music in your neighbourhood at 2am in the morning, they obviously assign some value to doing so. They derive some level of happiness from it.

If you stop them from listening to their music, you take that happiness from them. That is, you are causing them harm.

Because the two of you have irreconcilable interests on the issue, declaring either side to be right means harming the other side. The only place in between is through money changing hands, because money can be used as a unit of value that can change the either/or nature of the problem to a compromise - you pay $20 (so you suffer $20 in damage), the other guy suffers $30 from not being able to listen to loud music but gains $20 for doing so, so he only suffers $10. Play around with the numbers and you can get to a level where you both suffer equally but at a lower level than you would have if the other side "won".

I can see why you wouldn't want to get into this compromise because right now you have the option of using the violence provided by the police to get a greater pay-off. But from my "neutral" point of view that's a suboptimal outcome. Especially if the police impounds a car, because it would be hard to justify valuing your night of sleep higher than price of the car.

But that would mean costs for them. You can spin it whatever way you want, it's still a question of harming them or harming you.


Well, that's a moral statement. Say I kill Hitler and save a few million people. I made the first move and killed Hitler, hence I am at fault for his death, hence I should spend the rest of my life in jail.

The fact that perhaps the world is a better place because I killed Hitler and saved all these people isn't considered in your definition of "bad". It's an extreme example, but you can see what I'm aiming at.

I do, and it is extreme, but if you killed someone, you should go to jail. If you didn't kill him, then he killed several million people, HE should be punished for that. By your lights, however, if Hitler payed you 20 million NOT to kill him and to let him kill several million people, and you took it, you would not be a bad person.

In terms of valuation, it's hard to tell whether your sleep is more valuable than their music. And precisely because we can't tell, Coase proposes that you two sort it out amongst yourselves because if anyone knows how to put some sort of value on these things, it's you two.

And so, back to your extreme example, if you and Hitler work things out, then it is ok for you to let him go on to kill and kill.

Well, the theory is about externalities, that is negative (or positive) effects of your actions on others.

If people play loud music, they do it because they want to listen to loud music, and you are suffering external effects. Putting a value on those effects to determine whether or not listening to loud music is a good idea is where the problem lies.

If you shoot someone, that's not an external effect. You took the action in order to hurt the other person. Granted, putting a dollar value on it isn't necessarily any easier, but in moral terms it's a whole lot less ambiguous.


If you risk suffering physical harm, then I would agree, the police should be involved.

But I was never shooting AT them... I was taking random potshots out the window. If they happen to get in the way of my shots, I think that is their problem. Just as if I happen to be awakened by the music, or if random knick knacks fall off my shelves from the vibrations, that is, apparently, my problem. Yes, my example, too, may have been a bit extreme, but it goes to the same place.




I'm not sure you fully understood the point about A and B yet. If these guys want to play loud music in your neighbourhood at 2am in the morning, they obviously assign some value to doing so. They derive some level of happiness from it.

If you stop them from listening to their music, you take that happiness from them. That is, you are causing them harm.

I DO understand the point, I heartily disagree with it. I was happily sleeping, not bothering anyone, and some guys started making loud noise which harmed me. Just because it makes them happy to make that noise gives them no right to do so in such a way that harms me. You seem to be saying that it is OK for them to do something wrong (disturb a person who was not causing any harm at all in the first place (which, by the way, is where your Hitler argument looses steam)) as long as it makes them happy. And I, who was not doing anything at all to them (I don't think you can argue that me, sleeping in my apartment at 2am is an act which causes harm) am now harmed and it is up to ME to pay them to stop it simply because it makes them happy to do it and so it is somehow my fault they are unhappy?

I don't buy it. There are other ways to find happiness that these folks could easily do that would not cause me any grief at all. It is NOT my fault that they place a value on something that is harmful to me, a person who was engaged in an activity that is in no way harmful to them. It is crazy to make me have to pay because I was disturbed. No matter how you slice it, claiming that my sleeping is harmful to them is ridiculous.

So, the way I see it, this parties A and B thing ONLY works if both parties are actively involved in creating problems for the other party. If party B is merely a passive sufferer, one who was not harming, but has been harmed by the actions of A, then party A, no matter how much they will suffer AFTER the fact, is responsible and should stop, or pay the consequences.

Because the two of you have irreconcilable interests on the issue, declaring either side to be right means harming the other side. The only place in between is through money changing hands, because money can be used as a unit of value that can change the either/or nature of the problem to a compromise - you pay $20 (so you suffer $20 in damage), the other guy suffers $30 from not being able to listen to loud music but gains $20 for doing so, so he only suffers $10. Play around with the numbers and you can get to a level where you both suffer equally but at a lower level than you would have if the other side "won".

I can see why you wouldn't want to get into this compromise because right now you have the option of using the violence provided by the police to get a greater pay-off. But from my "neutral" point of view that's a suboptimal outcome. Especially if the police impounds a car, because it would be hard to justify valuing your night of sleep higher than price of the car.

Your neutral point of view thinks that it makes no difference who actually causes the harm. I think it is important to consider. Economically there may be no difference, but here in the real world, there really is. This is why we have laws. If not, if it were just a matter of "do whatever you want, then when you get caught convince someone to pay you to stop" we would rapidly dissolve into anarchy and chaos.

I do, and it is extreme, but if you killed someone, you should go to jail.
Regardless of the effects on society?

If you didn't kill him, then he killed several million people, HE should be punished for that.
Well, we already know that he didn't really get punished for it, so we can't rely on the law in this case.

By your lights, however, if Hitler payed you 20 million NOT to kill him and to let him kill several million people, and you took it, you would not be a bad person.
That depends on how much value one would place on a human life. Suffice to say that $20 million is probably not high enough a figure.

But in principle you're right. An important point to consider though is that the amount has to be newly created money, it can't simply be a transfer. The point is that there is some addition to society that is greater than the subtraction caused by the death of all these people.

It's extreme utilitarianism (and perhaps rule utilitarianism would be better), but if your goal is the greatest good for the greatest number, then you won't be able to get around the fact that sometimes "unfair" things are good.

But that's independent of the Coase Theorem, because this has got nothing to do with externalities. In fact, because all the potential victims of Hitler would enjoy positive externalities if I killed him, they might even want to pay me to do it.

But I was never shooting AT them... I was taking random potshots out the window. If they happen to get in the way of my shots, I think that is their problem.
Far be it from me to question your hobbies, but shooting your gun randomly out your bedroom window is pretty dangerous for the health of others. A little bit like detonating a nuclear bomb in your house...you can expect the effects on other people's health to be pretty serious. I generally see physical harm (or the threat of it) as a bit of an exception to the rule.

A better example would be if you owned a piece of land and shoot at targets on it. If they wanted to cross the land without being shot, they could pay you not to practice today (and because otherwise they might be trespassing).

Maybe that's the weakest part of my argument...their cars aren't on their property as such. It'd work better if they were your neighbours and they played loud music at home.

Your neutral point of view thinks that it makes no difference who actually causes the harm. I think it is important to consider. Economically there may be no difference, but here in the real world, there really is. This is why we have laws. If not, if it were just a matter of "do whatever you want, then when you get caught convince someone to pay you to stop" we would rapidly dissolve into anarchy and chaos.
I snipped the other parts because it all comes down to the same thing. The harm caused to them is whatever stops them from playing the music, for example the police impounding their car. Clearly it exists, clearly it has some economic value (in this case both that they can't do what makes them happy and that the punishment is so ridiculously harsh). In order for you to stay asleep this harm has to be caused to them, one way or another.

In dollar terms, what causes what is not important. The magnitude of the damages is important. So you're right when you say I don't see the difference.

Say your sleep is worth $50, the guy wanting to play his music values it at $25 and the guy's car is worth $1000.

If there is no law, you can't stop him from playing the music so society loses $50 (your sleep) and gains $25 (his music). So society has a net loss of $25.

With the law society gains $50 (your sleep) and loses $1025 (the music and the car).

If there is no law and you pay him $25 (which is the minimum amount he would accept) for not playing the music society gains $50 (your sleep), loses $25 (your money) and gains $25 (the other guy getting your money). So society has a net gain of $50.

The only issue would be if we were to say that you only value your sleep at $25 and the other guy values the music at $50, in which case you'd have no negotiating basis. The other guy wouldn't want any less than $50 to stop playing, but you don't value your sleep that highly. There'd be a $25 net gain to society still, but it wouldn't be optimal. And Coase' point is really that you have to look very carefully at how you define the property rights over stuff to make sure that people can use the values they put on stuff to get to an optimal outcome, so that in this case it would be him having to pay you for the right to play music. Who is right and who is wrong shouldn't necessarily be determined by who did what to whom first, but by how to limit damage to society on aggregate.

The point about the "real world" is that this sort of stuff is precisely what matters. Everything else is variable, made up by people (in this case populist politicians). And even things like fairness and "who caused what" can sometimes be quite bad things if they lead to bad outcomes.

We have laws because politicians and courts pass them, based on all sorts of ideas. You'll notice that Coase is writing in the Journal "Economics and Law" - he's not saying laws are wrong, he's saying that laws have to follow an economic imperative. You can make the case for an economic imperative universally, regardless of culture, history or religion.

Regardless of the effects on society?


Well, we already know that he didn't really get punished for it, so we can't rely on the law in this case.


That depends on how much value one would place on a human life. Suffice to say that $20 million is probably not high enough a figure.

But in principle you're right. An important point to consider though is that the amount has to be newly created money, it can't simply be a transfer. The point is that there is some addition to society that is greater than the subtraction caused by the death of all these people.

It's extreme utilitarianism (and perhaps rule utilitarianism would be better), but if your goal is the greatest good for the greatest number, then you won't be able to get around the fact that sometimes "unfair" things are good.

But that's independent of the Coase Theorem, because this has got nothing to do with externalities. In fact, because all the potential victims of Hitler would enjoy positive externalities if I killed him, they might even want to pay me to do it.


Far be it from me to question your hobbies, but shooting your gun randomly out your bedroom window is pretty dangerous for the health of others. A little bit like detonating a nuclear bomb in your house...you can expect the effects on other people's health to be pretty serious. I generally see physical harm (or the threat of it) as a bit of an exception to the rule.

A better example would be if you owned a piece of land and shoot at targets on it. If they wanted to cross the land without being shot, they could pay you not to practice today (and because otherwise they might be trespassing).

Maybe that's the weakest part of my argument...their cars aren't on their property as such. It'd work better if they were your neighbours and they played loud music at home.


I snipped the other parts because it all comes down to the same thing. The harm caused to them is whatever stops them from playing the music, for example the police impounding their car. Clearly it exists, clearly it has some economic value (in this case both that they can't do what makes them happy and that the punishment is so ridiculously harsh). In order for you to stay asleep this harm has to be caused to them, one way or another.

In dollar terms, what causes what is not important. The magnitude of the damages is important. So you're right when you say I don't see the difference.

Say your sleep is worth $50, the guy wanting to play his music values it at $25 and the guy's car is worth $1000.

If there is no law, you can't stop him from playing the music so society loses $50 (your sleep) and gains $25 (his music). So society has a net loss of $25.

With the law society gains $50 (your sleep) and loses $1025 (the music and the car).

If there is no law and you pay him $25 (which is the minimum amount he would accept) for not playing the music society gains $50 (your sleep), loses $25 (your money) and gains $25 (the other guy getting your money). So society has a net gain of $50.

The only issue would be if we were to say that you only value your sleep at $25 and the other guy values the music at $50, in which case you'd have no negotiating basis. The other guy wouldn't want any less than $50 to stop playing, but you don't value your sleep that highly. There'd be a $25 net gain to society still, but it wouldn't be optimal. And Coase' point is really that you have to look very carefully at how you define the property rights over stuff to make sure that people can use the values they put on stuff to get to an optimal outcome, so that in this case it would be him having to pay you for the right to play music. Who is right and who is wrong shouldn't necessarily be determined by who did what to whom first, but by how to limit damage to society on aggregate.

The point about the "real world" is that this sort of stuff is precisely what matters. Everything else is variable, made up by people (in this case populist politicians). And even things like fairness and "who caused what" can sometimes be quite bad things if they lead to bad outcomes.

We have laws because politicians and courts pass them, based on all sorts of ideas. You'll notice that Coase is writing in the Journal "Economics and Law" - he's not saying laws are wrong, he's saying that laws have to follow an economic imperative. You can make the case for an economic imperative universally, regardless of culture, history or religion.

In your examples, I've noticed something. It's not always just A vs B, many times it's A vs B, C, D, E, F, and etc. I live in an apartment complex that has 42 buildings, with 4 apartments per building. When some idiot blasts his music at extreme decibels, it can usually be heard all over the complex. Thus, it has the potential to affect 168 apartments (usually with 2 or more people in each apartment) whenever these jerks decide to exceed the noise ordinances. My question to you is, how is allowing 1 person to blast his music at rediculous volume causing less harm to him (according to your examples) than to the people around him?

Aww... can these cops come to my city and do this? I hate people who play loud obnoxious music.

That depends on how much value one would place on a human life. Suffice to say that $20 million is probably not high enough a figure.

But in principle you're right. An important point to consider though is that the amount has to be newly created money, it can't simply be a transfer. The point is that there is some addition to society that is greater than the subtraction caused by the death of all these people.

It's extreme utilitarianism (and perhaps rule utilitarianism would be better), but if your goal is the greatest good for the greatest number, then you won't be able to get around the fact that sometimes "unfair" things are good.
Good lord man, you've gone so far off the end that you're using 'economics' to defend Death Rays. I have a Death Ray. It gives me $100 billion worth of pleasure to have it, so if you want me to turn it off you better give me $101 billion.

Did Coase wear a metal skull cap and cape? Was he prone to wringing his hands and cackling?

With that little theory I could travel the world making quite a hefty living being a total jackass. Don't like me slamming pots and pans together screaming "I am so great! I am so great!" Pay up. Writing my name on the side of your car with this key is worth a ton to me, better pay up or drive around with "Mr. Awesome" on your door.

Your proposal makes 'asshole' the most valuable job out there.

But that's independent of the Coase Theorem, because this has got nothing to do with externalities. In fact, because all the potential victims of Hitler would enjoy positive externalities if I killed him, they might even want to pay me to do it.


Far be it from me to question your hobbies, but shooting your gun randomly out your bedroom window is pretty dangerous for the health of others. A little bit like detonating a nuclear bomb in your house...you can expect the effects on other people's health to be pretty serious. I generally see physical harm (or the threat of it) as a bit of an exception to the rule.

Ah, well then-welcome to the Effects of noise pollution (http://www.fi.edu/brain/stress.htm#stressnoise). This is just a random selection, simply google 'effects of noise pollution' and you'll see a ton of it.

It's far more than dude wants to listen to his music so let him. You want to live with other people you have to make concessions. You don't want to you got to pay the cost, and I'm not picking up the bill for you so that some imagined ledger sheet will balance.

My question to you is, how is allowing 1 person to blast his music at rediculous volume causing less harm to him (according to your examples) than to the people around him?
I think you might have misphrased that. He wouldn't be harmed by playing the music at all, or if he did it would be outweighed by the fun he has doing it.

As for the exact figures given to everyone, they don't really matter. The principle is still the same.

Good lord man, you've gone so far off the end that you're using 'economics' to defend Death Rays. I have a Death Ray. It gives me $100 billion worth of pleasure to have it, so if you want me to turn it off you better give me $101 billion.
Look, I'm not saying it's a fair or moral theory, in fact the beauty of it is its amorality - but surely you can see that paying you to turn it off is a better outcome than either you blasting everyone or you being forced to turn it off without a return.

Did Coase wear a metal skull cap and cape? Was he prone to wringing his hands and cackling?
It's quite possible. By the way, I found this:
http://www.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ101/merrill/fall97/chap18-22/sld064.jpg
I've probably done a bad job explaining the thing in full. In reality, you could imagine that people have a property right to their lives, so the death ray would infringe upon that and it would be you who has to pay others to be allowed to use your death ray. But economically, it makes no difference who has which property right, the figures come out the same. I suppose it should be added though that the proportions of the benefits or losses vary between parties with the original setup of property rights. If you want a more equitable outcome, you have to define the property rights of interest accordingly. The current arrangement does nothing like that, which is why I'm against it.

In the case of the car, it's obvious that the property right to the car stereo is much better defined than the property right to the spectrum of sound in a given area. What the law is doing is trying to shoehorn an outcome on a situation that wouldn't have naturally produced it, meanwhile dishing out penalties in no relation to the externalities in question. Hence my opposition to the law.

Your proposal makes 'asshole' the most valuable job out there.
No, because the actions you mention are quite clearly only to annoy other people, which is blackmail or sorts. Coase doesn't talk about blackmail, he talks about externalities.

And besides, it looks like you're just plucking values like "$100 billion" out of thin air. If you actually value the death ray so much, then it's not that valuable a job, because you lose most of the money in not being able to use it. Remember, if the property rights are set up properly (for example with the death ray, such that if you use it without permission people die and you go to jail), both parties will end up with roughly the same proportion of the costs and benefits.

Ah, well then-welcome to the Effects of noise pollution (http://www.fi.edu/brain/stress.htm#stressnoise). This is just a random selection, simply google 'effects of noise pollution' and you'll see a ton of it.
If you get sick, sue for damages. The law covers that fairly well.

It's far more than dude wants to listen to his music so let him. You want to live with other people you have to make concessions. You don't want to you got to pay the cost, and I'm not picking up the bill for you so that some imagined ledger sheet will balance.
It's not an imagined ledger, it's a representation of the happiness in society. I consider that pretty important.

I think you might have misphrased that. He wouldn't be harmed by playing the music at all, or if he did it would be outweighed by the fun he has doing it.

I'm sorry, what I meant to say with that statement was, how is allowing one person to blast his music at rediculous volume causing less harm to others, than the harm he suffers from people preventing him from it?

My friends and I don't do this, we just drive around screaming black metal style at people at about 1 AM. It's fun.

I hate having to listen to there crappy music.
Ditto here. If THEY want to listen to it, that's fine with me as long as they don't, by turning up the volume as high as it will go (or otherwise), force ME to listen to it, because I don't waznt to hear it.

I want to know who exactly these idiots think are impressed by their crappy music and crappy cars.
Not ME, I can tell you that. They are not impressing me; they are annoying me, and probably a high percentage of other people who involuntarily hear them.

They do that here in Chicago and it really really helped cut down on the noise pollution. Now you rarely hear music blasting and you never hear it in a neighborhood with decent police coverage.
If only they would do that here in Tennessee...

I play Beethoven at 90 decibels...

It drowns out the wanker playing rap next to me.
I understand your point, but it only raises noise pollution more. Noise pollution reduction can only be achieved by BOTH of you turning the volume DOWN.

I never drive slow enough to hear someone elses music. Maybe I should slow down and listen.


Nah.

<Snip>.

I'm not going to do a point by point but I'm lazy and distracted and I kind of tease you because I like you (though your policy opinions sometimes horrify me) but while I know you take it in stride (your always polite no matter what someone says to you, which is commendable) sometimes others don't know the context as it where so I'll just make a quick point, which already isn't quick because of this lengthy pre-amble...

What your angling doesn't take into account is that noise levels affect the value of real property. Real Estate in noisy areas like near airports or train tracks or where there is a lot of noise suffer a reduction in value (while these properties can sometimes still be valuable it is in spite of the noise and most often would be greater without it.) So, even if you don't account for the cumulative cost of decreasing the health and well being of all the people effected by the loud stereo versus the one guy who wants to play his music loudly-there is still the Real Property value that is being lost by surrounding noise pollution, so they are actually righting an imbalance that already happens when the stereo car decreases the Real Property value and value of the peoples loss of health and productivity.

The citizen doesn't have the ability to just run down and issue court papers to that cat in the Impala at 2am, for that level of civil maintenance we have police.

Police target loud car 'cruisers'
Drivers who "cruise" around with loud music booming out of their windows could have their cars confiscated, police in Birmingham warn.
Officers have been targeting drivers who have been blasting music from their cars in the Broad Street area, part of the city's entertainment complex.


"Not only will we tackle people cruising, but also a whole manner of other offences."


I hope the police don't put on their sirens when they go after these offenders. That would be maaad crazy.

I can picture an officer running out onto the highway and attempting to tackle some sort of "pimped out" car.

If you get sick, sue for damages. The law covers that fairly well.


I would prefer the problem not reach the "I get sick and need to sue" stage. I would rather that, as the law suggests, my right NOT to suffer the harm in the first place be upheld. If the guy whose car is then taken away feels that this is not an appropriate reaction and HE is damaged, he can fight to have the law changed so the level of punishment is not so harsh and then sue the city to get his car back.

Look, I'm not saying it's a fair or moral theory, in fact the beauty of it is its amorality - but surely you can see that paying you to turn it off is a better outcome than either you blasting everyone or you being forced to turn it off without a return.


But it ISN'T. It is not a better outcome for me because I am either forced to pay him to stop or listen to the noise all night. Currently, the best outcome for ME and for the rest of the neighborhood, is that the police come and say "cut it out, buster" and if he does not, they remove the cause of the problem (in this case, his car). Of course this is not the best outcome for him, but the law is on my side in this... he is not allowed to harrass me with loud noise after a certain time at night. Under those rules, however, which are on the books and easy for anyone to understand, the best outcome for him is to find some other form of quieter entertainment. Then he wins, he gets to keep his car, and I win, I get to sleep.

If I am forced to pay him to stop, then what is to prevent him from thinking "ah, this thing which nobody but me likes gets me money. What else can I do?" Much like a school bully who gets everyone's lunch money and then moves on to larger and larger crimes, a system which forces people to pay for rights which the law currently provides them encourages blackmail and bullying.

If the guy with the car were NOT the kind of person who would do such a thing, then he would have simply not turned the music up so loud in the first place, or turned it down after the first time I mentioned it and been kind enough to REMEMBER that and not do it again.

I'm sorry, what I meant to say with that statement was, how is allowing one person to blast his music at rediculous volume causing less harm to others, than the harm he suffers from people preventing him from it?
In my example the sleep/economic value of no music being played is valued at $50, while the value of the music is just $25.

It's just an example, rest assured it still works out the same way if you change some of the numbers. The guy won the Nobel Prize for that realisation, afterall.

So, even if you don't account for the cumulative cost of decreasing the health and well being of all the people effected by the loud stereo versus the one guy who wants to play his music loudly-there is still the Real Property value that is being lost by surrounding noise pollution, so they are actually righting an imbalance that already happens when the stereo car decreases the Real Property value and value of the peoples loss of health and productivity.
You're right, but that would only change the numbers, not the principle. Still, chances are that it's the person who lives in that house knows better than the police what the dollar value of all these factors might be.

The citizen doesn't have the ability to just run down and issue court papers to that cat in the Impala at 2am, for that level of civil maintenance we have police.
I think a better criticism would be to say that there are in fact significant transaction costs associated with making the contract in which money changes hands and the music stops (or not, depending on who pays whom for what). Afterall, the guy has to get up at 2am, walk down, perhaps incur legal costs and so on. If there are many people in the neighbourhood, that cost increases significantly. And one might even have to do it for every single person with a loud stereo who decides to drive through the neighbourhood. In that case the guy might just stay in bed, suffer through the music and deal with all the damages caused by that because it still outweighs the costs associated with making the contract to get some quiet.

That would also be a suboptimal outcome for society.

Still, assuming that isn't a problem, and some contract is signed - if the guy then still plays loud music you can call the police and get him for breach of contract, in which case you could claim the money you paid and damages for the negative effects of the music: emotional, physical and economic.

Still, assuming that isn't a problem, and some contract is signed - if the guy then still plays loud music you can call the police and get him for breach of contract, in which case you could claim the money you paid and damages for the negative effects of the music: emotional, physical and economic.

The contract we currently all live under is our code of laws, which currently provide for a limit on noise. So if I call the police, I am, in effect, asking them to enforce that contract. To implement your system would require us to revamp every single relationship in our entire society. The cost of that, alone, is staggering... especially when the contract currently in force works moderately well (not saying it is PERFECT, mind you...). Now, if our friend with the loud car doesn't LIKE part of that contract (the part where his car is confiscated) then HE can go to the government and try to renegotiate it in the form of having the law changed. Since the idea of the current contract (set of laws) is ideally the most good for the most people, why would we want to change that in such a way that only benefits wrongdoers?

People that drive around "bumping" are overcompensating for a shortcoming.

they do have bigger fish to fry, but i really hate rap :D

I would prefer the problem not reach the "I get sick and need to sue" stage.
Of course. By the way, you'll find this horrid, but have a read: On Drunk Driving (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/12/drunk_drivingpo.html). The author is Richard Posner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner), another member of the "Chicago School" of Economics and an appeals court judge.

But it ISN'T. It is not a better outcome for me because I am either forced to pay him to stop or listen to the noise all night.
I'm probably the last person in the world who should say this...but aren't you being a bit selfish? :p:D

If I am forced to pay him to stop, then what is to prevent him from thinking "ah, this thing which nobody but me likes gets me money. What else can I do?"
I think you've got the same misunderstanding as CtoaN had before. When I'm saying the guy values his music, I actually mean it. If he values it at $20 and you pay him $20 to not play it, he's not actually better of. He wouldn't actually think "hey, this is a good deal, let's do it again".

Since the idea of the current contract (set of laws) is ideally the most good for the most people, why would we want to change that in such a way that only benefits wrongdoers?
Well, what I'm saying is that the current laws are suboptimal. They're not good laws for society, though they may well be good laws for parts of it.

i think people should be allowed to carry miniature cruize missles and launchers that automaticly target them!

or at least some sort of e.c.m. that will pop their speakers!

=^^=
.../\...

I wonder if Coase would approve of me setting a toll booth at the end of the road. That would certainly give me pleasure, ooh, to some arbitary £ value. A value I could use to allow people to pass.

I realise that the theory got him a nobel prize, but I cannot help but think it is system that would only reward the meanest, most antisocial and most mercenary sections of society.


Not to say that I agree with what the police in Birmingham are doing. Especially in light of the fact that there are bigger problems in the city to be focusing on.


Of course. By the way, you'll find this horrid, but have a read: On Drunk Driving. The author is Richard Posner, another member of the "Chicago School" of Economics and an appeals court judge.

Ugh, disgusting imo.

Of course my opinion is probably coloured somewhat by knowing people whose lives have been pretty much been ruined through drunk driving and reckless driving.

I wonder if Coase would approve of me setting a toll booth at the end of the road. That would certainly give me pleasure, ooh, to some arbitary £ value. A value I could use to allow people to pass.
It would only work if
- the effect your action has on others is secondary and is a hard to quantify external consequence
- you weren't just making up that £ value

Remember, it is not arbitrary.

It would only work if
- the effect your action has on others is secondary and is a hard to quantify external consequence

Ooh, it would be.

Honest ;)

(not being facetious, the next bit is more interesting to me)

- you weren't just making up that £ value

Remember, it is not arbitrary.

How else would I come to it?

I could be missing the point, but to move back to the car stereo, how else would you work out how much to pay someone to go away?

In other words, how do you put a price on doing things you enjoy?

In my example the sleep/economic value of no music being played is valued at $50, while the value of the music is just $25.

It's just an example, rest assured it still works out the same way if you change some of the numbers. The guy won the Nobel Prize for that realisation, afterall.

Your example is assuming that there's only two people involved (the person blasting the music, and the one being annoyed by it). What about my example, where there's 168 apartments in the complex (with at least 2 people in each apartment, for a total of 336)? Even assuming that 10% of them wouldn't be bothered by the noise, that's still 302 people. Using your figures, that's $15,100 worth of sleep lost, to $25 worth of music played. Therefore, the guy with the stereo should turn it down. Even in your example, there's a greater loss of sleep , than the value of the music, so the guy should turn it down.

I could be missing the point, but to move back to the car stereo, how else would you work out how much to pay someone to go away?
That's your own thing. He could say "Give me $1000" and you'd say no. You'd offer $1, and he'd say no. He'd offer $100 and you'd say no. You'd offer $5 and he'd say no. And eventually someone offers an amount you both can agree to.

It may not be the exact value of the benefit you derive from the respective activities, but we know that the benefit outweighs the cost (or, theoretically, is at least equal to it) for the both of you.

So in short: no one knows how you arrive at some amount you'd be willing to give up your activity for. You probably don't know yourself. But somehow you do - it's like in a supermarket. It's quite an incredible feat to walk through the isles, collect all that information about products and prices and make thousands of "buy or not buy" decisions, based on some reservation price that must by definition exist but you might never have consciously calculated and that can change all the time.

That's your own thing. He could say "Give me $1000" and you'd say no. You'd offer $1, and he'd say no. He'd offer $100 and you'd say no. You'd offer $5 and he'd say no. And eventually someone offers an amount you both can agree to.


At risk of splitting hairs, that still sounds fairly arbitrary.

It may not be the exact value of the benefit you derive from the respective activities, but we know that the benefit outweighs the cost (or, theoretically, is at least equal to it) for the both of you.

So in short: no one knows how you arrive at some amount you'd be willing to give up your activity for. You probably don't know yourself. But somehow you do - it's like in a supermarket. It's quite an incredible feat to walk through the isles, collect all that information about products and prices and make thousands of "buy or not buy" decisions, based on some reservation price that must by definition exist but you might never have consciously calculated and that can change all the time.


Experience has taught me that those decisions tend to be fairly arbitrary too.


Though the answer could always be I'm an arbitrary person :)

Your example is assuming that there's only two people involved (the person blasting the music, and the one being annoyed by it). What about my example, where there's 168 apartments in the complex (with at least 2 people in each apartment, for a total of 336)? Even assuming that 10% of them wouldn't be bothered by the noise, that's still 302 people. Using your figures, that's $15,100 worth of sleep lost, to $25 worth of music played. Therefore, the guy with the stereo should turn it down. Even in your example, there's a greater loss of sleep , than the value of the music, so the guy should turn it down.
It's not about him turning it down or not. The assumption is that he will turn it down either way because the benefit all the people in their apartments get is greater than the benefit he gets from playing the music.

So the choice is between
a) him not being able to play the music (-$25) and all of you being able to sleep (+$15,100) for a total of $15,075.
b) you all paying him $25 to not play the music, for a total of ($15,100-$25)+$25 = $15,100.

Really, in scenario a) someone loses out and is actually worse off. In scenario b) no one is worse off - the people in their apartments each pay 7.4c but derive far more benefit from a good night's sleep, and the guy with the stereo comes out even. In b) $25 changes hands, in a) $25 is destroyed.

It's not about him turning it down or not. The assumption is that he will turn it down either way because the benefit all the people in their apartments get is greater than the benefit he gets from playing the music.

So the choice is between
a) him not being able to play the music (-$25) and all of you being able to sleep (+$15,100) for a total of $15,075.
b) you all paying him $25 to not play the music, for a total of ($15,100-$25)+$25 = $15,100.

Really, in scenario a) someone loses out and is actually worse off. In scenario b) no one is worse off - the people in their apartments each pay 7.4c but derive far more benefit from a good night's sleep, and the guy with the stereo comes out even. In b) $25 changes hands, in a) $25 is destroyed.


I don't know why. There is something that I can't put my finger on that just doesn't seem right about this system.

It is when you say "in a) $25 is destroyed."

Economics isn't my forte, but surely the $25 isn't destroyed, it doesn't exist in the first place (other then in the mind of antagonist and in the wallets of the tenants, where is stays, not destroyed).

However, I thing the main thing that bothers is that it pretty much amounts to blackmail, which ever way you cut it. Intentionally or not the antagonist is pretty much coercing the tenants to cough up if they want a good night sleep/not to be disturbed.

To be honest, nobel prize or no. I really hope this doesn't happen.

Economics isn't my forte, but surely the $25 isn't destroyed, it doesn't exist in the first place (other then in the mind of antagonist and in the wallets of the tenants, where is stays, not destroyed).
Of course it exists. That's what I was saying to Upper Botswavia: the benefit the guy derives from playing loud music exists and matters. Without making subjective moral judgements, you cannot get around that fact.

It's like a factory polluting the river and the people downstream paying for the factory to install a filter system: the factory produces some real benefit, one that really matters. Otherwise the factory wouldn't exist in the first place.

That's why I don't think the death ray example is valid - the death ray doesn't provide some benefit other than that it hurts others. That's its primary function, not some accidental secondary effect.

To be honest, nobel prize or no. I really hope this doesn't happen.
Hey, I'm not sure I want it to happen either. I'm just saying that economic efficiency matters, that it is a measure that does not require subjective value judgements and thus on some (utilitarian) level superior to law based on morality and that the current arrangement smacks of populist statism.

Ok, I read through that article and as I thought it would be his theory took a simplicitic approach, which is fine as I like things to be as simple as the next person. However, the real world never operates in such a simplistic way and is in fact as we all very well know a very complex thing with many different factors determining even one outcome.

Neu Leonstein- While, I agree that Ronald H. Coase's theory is a interesting one, in this case his theory doesn't apply with the original statement of loud music and others harm. However, that said the theory can still be applied in the follow up statement made about the person's car being confiscated. As such, I'm going to break this up into two parts.

1. Before, I begin I think it's wise to point out that theory has to do with economics and that the following should be kept in mind as it's relates to economics. The following is taken from the article "If factors of production are thought of as rights, it becomes easier to understand that the right to do something which has a harmful effect (such as the creation of smoke, noise, smells, etc.) is also a factor of production."
As, I read the article I was left with the following two questions which I now leave with all of you. My answer to the following questions left me with the conclusion that the following theory does not apply to the original statement, yet each of you may come to a different conclusion and as such I leave it up to you.
The questions are as follows "Is happiness a factor of production?" and if so "Is the loss of happiness a harm to production?" In other words, by this person's loss of happiness what has he/she failed to produce that has benefitted society for the greater good? I.E. the good outweighs the harm caused in this case by the person's loss of sleep and thereby loss of productivity the following day or even following days/weeks.

In closing this part, I thought it wise that the theory and other posters, didn't address the myriad of factors that can be effected and thereby make the theory unusable. One being by turning down the music some, the person should and would still be able to enjoy the music without causing others harm. That just being one factor that can come into play.

2. As stated above, this part deals with the theory as it relates to said person's car being taken and thereby causing that person harm. The following passage being taken directly from the article is a good summary of this. "The problem which we face in dealing with actions which have harmful effects is not simply one of restraining those responsible for them. What has to be decided is whether the gain from preventing the harm is greater than the loss which would be suffered elsewhere as a result of stopping the action which produces the harm."

Now, as noted above what first has to be determined is being deprived of happiness causing a harm to production. If so, then what type of harm. Third, what is the impact of this harm if any? Is it a small impact or a major impact, so on... Finally, we can begin to try to determine what harm (loss of production) is being caused by this person's sleep loss so as to compare it to the loss of happiness if this lost of happiness has indeed been determined to cause some type of production loss. The following are just a few factors to determine the monetary value of the production lost due to sleep loss.
A. How long has this sleep loss been going on? [Days, weeks, months]
B. What has this loss cost on a day to day basis?
C. Has the person gotten sick, fired or any other factor that caused the person to be unproductive and thereby lose money for both themselves and the company.
D. Unknown factors that would result in loss of production.

With all that said above, I thought it fitting to close with the following as I think it applies perfectly with the argument on the value of harm.

"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

By person continuing the action of playing loud music that is harmful, they are depriving said person(s) of sleep and thereby their time and money.
By person calling the cops with their reaction, they are depriving said person(s) the use of their vehicle/stereo and thereby their time and money.

In the end, it balances it self out as both have been harmed. Whether one is more harmed then the other is of course debatable and I leave that part to all of you.

What would be the economic cost to society, if all the money spent on educating economists was wasted, because they kept get stabbed and shot trying to use simplistic theories in real world situations?

What would be the economic cost to society, if all the money spent on educating economists was wasted, because they kept get stabbed and shot trying to use simplistic theories in real world situations?

True enough. I'd love to see the outcome of some pasty office worker heading down to a group of homeboys at 2am with $25 to 'move on,' trying to explain Coase.

Honestly this still at the very best smacks of 'indulgences,' where the rich can essentially buy assholery and at worst assholes can make a living extorting people (after all, who is to say that I don't derive pleasure from the banging of pans and yelling, "I am so great! I am so great!" I want people to be aware of my greatness and it will take a mint for me to leave people ignorant.)

At this point we have established a real health threat from noise pollution and the threat to property values. Music or other noise over a certain level have a real and negative affect to those around the noise, this really falls under 'your right to swing your arm ends at my nose,' or however that goes. Coase's "Dr. Doom" theory doesn't do anything to that except make being a nuisance profitable. I don't know how you can tell me that as soon as someone finds out that stereo guy got $25 to turn off his music there wouldn't be fifteen cars there the next night blaring their music and waiting for their payday. This is the opposite effect that the people are going for.

Hell where I live, people are executed when such acts are commited.

I want to know who exactly these idiots think are impressed by their crappy music and crappy cars.

Other idiots.

And you can't sort that problem out yourself? You have to go running to the police?

If someone drives by wherever you are, you're going to be annoyed for about 15 seconds. As they say, you have no right not to be offended.

If they stop in front of you and stay there, you can go and talk to them.

What if Middle Eastern music were to annoy someone? Would it then be okay to go and impound whatever stereo plays Middle Eastern music?

Let's face it, the damage done to you because of a car with a loud stereo driving by is minimal. The damage done to that guy because the cops take his car is huge. Where's the proportionality of the punishment? There is none, and that's usually the first sign of populism.

When Economists Masturbate will be right back after this message from the International House of Shit that Looks Good on Paper.

I love people living in perfect paper worlds. They produce so much lulz!


Well, say, you pay $25 to each car with music. What would you pay to make 4chan Party Van go away?

Dear god Neu Leonstein, do you apply a cost-benefit analysis to everything? It wouldn't surprise me if you applied one for sexual intercourse.

If a guys being an inconsiderate arsehole then he certainly shouldn't be rewarded for it. He should be told to turn it off or else. Screw the costs. A society where every tiny aspect of our lives is ruled by economic bean counting isn't a society that I want to live in.

there is nothing more annoying then being stuck at a traffic light next to someone that think they have to play their music loud enough for the whole world to hear. especially if their choice in music is rap with very heavy bass.

the sad thing is that there is an industry of selling such equipment and people who shouldn't be spending their money on crap like that are the biggest buyers of it.

However, the real world never operates in such a simplistic way and is in fact as we all very well know a very complex thing with many different factors determining even one outcome.
Well, when you try to isolate relationships and help understand them, you're going to have to assume that the rest of the world stays the same. Economists call it ceteris paribus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus). It's not ideal but without it you could never hope to understand what's going on.

"Is happiness a factor of production?" and if so "Is the loss of happiness a harm to production?" In other words, by this person's loss of happiness what has he/she failed to produce that has benefitted society for the greater good? I.E. the good outweighs the harm caused in this case by the person's loss of sleep and thereby loss of productivity the following day or even following days/weeks.
I would suggest that in an abstract sort of sense, happiness is indeed something that is produced. Coase's example is obviously aimed at a more industrial application, but I don't think the principle varies much.

You've got a bunch of inputs (sleep, income, loved ones etc) and you derive some "amount" of happiness. For comparative purposes, the only thing we can do is to try and see what sort of dollar value you would assign to that happiness.

I think it's also important to note that when I talk about society I don't mean some "greater good". I don't believe an independent greater good exists. When I speak of society I simply mean the aggregate happiness, that is the sum of all the happiness (for our purposes measured in dollars) of every individual within society. Therefore, if you fail to be happy but could have been if another policy option had been chosen by the courts, there was in fact a loss of happiness, meaning society is worse off than it could have been. I don't think there is a difference between making you unhappy and failing to make you happy (which may or may not be a contradiction for my own personal house of cards, but I'm working on it and it's a different story anyways).

One being by turning down the music some, the person should and would still be able to enjoy the music without causing others harm. That just being one factor that can come into play.
Certainly. But we have to assume that a person isn't entirely indifferent between loud music and quiet music. Afterall, isn't the point of buying a huge, heavy stereo system being able to play your music at really big volumes?

In the end, it balances it self out as both have been harmed. Whether one is more harmed then the other is of course debatable and I leave that part to all of you.
I think the second question you posed came moreso from a misunderstanding of happiness being the final measurement of "production", as it were. We just use dollars as a measure because we can observe you trade levels of happiness for each other using money, and because it's a measure that can be compared among people, while just plain happiness cannot.

Still, I think you understand what's going on, given the summary above. Coase is saying that if we have a situation like this, in which both people can't be happy because one person's happiness causes another's unhappiness, then letting the two people sort it out amongst themselves by exchanging money will lead to an optimal outcome (if such a trade can in fact come about), while approaches based on moralistic theories, fairness and guilt may not. In this case, I maintain that impounding the car causes a lot more harm (= prevents a lot more happiness) than not being able to sleep.

What would be the economic cost to society, if all the money spent on educating economists was wasted, because they kept get stabbed and shot trying to use simplistic theories in real world situations?
I'm sure it would be huge. ;)

True enough. I'd love to see the outcome of some pasty office worker heading down to a group of homeboys at 2am with $25 to 'move on,' trying to explain Coase.
*imagines the "dat nigga Coase" dialogue*

Maybe they'd finally learn something. :D

Honestly this still at the very best smacks of 'indulgences,' where the rich can essentially buy assholery and at worst assholes can make a living extorting people (after all, who is to say that I don't derive pleasure from the banging of pans and yelling, "I am so great! I am so great!" I want people to be aware of my greatness and it will take a mint for me to leave people ignorant.)
I hope that you've got access to Jstor or something, because this one and its references should be worth their weight in gold: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-2530(197406)3%3A2%3C499%3ALRATTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

I don't know how you can tell me that as soon as someone finds out that stereo guy got $25 to turn off his music there wouldn't be fifteen cars there the next night blaring their music and waiting for their payday. This is the opposite effect that the people are going for.
The point is that the first guy didn't earn anything. If the negotiations function properly (which may be a limitation, given that there is something of a monopoly power thing going on), no one will be earning anything in the long run.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;12971664']Dear god Neu Leonstein, do you apply a cost-benefit analysis to everything? It wouldn't surprise me if you applied one for sexual intercourse.
You're too late (http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Reason-Richard-Posner/dp/0674802802)
:D

If a guys being an inconsiderate arsehole then he certainly shouldn't be rewarded for it. He should be told to turn it off or else. Screw the costs.
Running the risk of getting some sort of neo-Godwin happening - isn't that sort of thinking exactly what brought the Soviet Union down?

They didn't care about efficiency, they had bigger moral and ethical goals to achieve. As a result the rug was pulled down from under them by material reality.

*snip*

The point is that the first guy didn't earn anything. If the negotiations function properly (which may be a limitation, given that there is something of a monopoly power thing going on), no one will be earning anything in the long run.


You bring up a very good point. What power do I, as the sleeper, have in this negotiation? If we reach a point at which I am absolutely unable to pay, since I don't make that much, and the guy with the music wants more, then I am forced to suffer. Then what?

You bring up a very good point. What power do I, as the sleeper, have in this negotiation? If we reach a point at which I am absolutely unable to pay, since I don't make that much, and the guy with the music wants more, then I am forced to suffer. Then what?
Then them's the breaks, so to speak. The Classical Approach would then be to say "well, try earning more". The relevance of that to the real world is probably somewhat limited. :p

Underlying all this is the assumption that you earn enough to take part in the negotiations.

Then them's the breaks, so to speak. The Classical Approach would then be to say "well, try earning more". The relevance of that to the real world is probably somewhat limited. :p

Underlying all this is the assumption that you earn enough to take part in the negotiations.

I would think that economists might take the fact that NONE of us earn enough to take part in this sort of negotiation into consideration. :D

I simply mean the aggregate happiness, that is the sum of all the happiness (for our purposes measured in dollars) of every individual within society.
NL, this might be where you're having problems selling this whole thing to us.

Nevermind that it still smacks of indulgences. Society is already slanted to benefit the rich, we don't need to hand the whole game over to them entirely to the point where we are absolutely powerless.

But the important thing is that not everyone here measures happiness in dollars.

You shouldn't either, but thats another issue.

I hope that you've got access to Jstor or something, because this one and its references should be worth their weight in gold: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-2530(197406)3%3A2%3C499%3ALRATTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B


I don't even know what Jstor is.
The point is that the first guy didn't earn anything. If the negotiations function properly (which may be a limitation, given that there is something of a monopoly power thing going on), no one will be earning anything in the long run.
Stereo guy is going to see it as a gain, since he can meander down the road, turn his stereo back up and then collect another $25 from someone who just wanted to get to sleep and is instead trapped in this economist justified mad scientist scheme.

A shame. They might play shitty tunes, but it's quite a laugh to see them trying to be awesome.

It's not about him turning it down or not. The assumption is that he will turn it down either way because the benefit all the people in their apartments get is greater than the benefit he gets from playing the music.

So the choice is between
a) him not being able to play the music (-$25) and all of you being able to sleep (+$15,100) for a total of $15,075.
b) you all paying him $25 to not play the music, for a total of ($15,100-$25)+$25 = $15,100.

Really, in scenario a) someone loses out and is actually worse off. In scenario b) no one is worse off - the people in their apartments each pay 7.4c but derive far more benefit from a good night's sleep, and the guy with the stereo comes out even. In b) $25 changes hands, in a) $25 is destroyed.

Oh, I see. I don't know how I could have missed it.




















You're advocating extortion. Regardless of the amount, that's what it boils down to.

Oh, I see. I don't know how I could have missed it.




















You're advocating extortion. Regardless of the amount, that's what it boils down to.
That's what I've been saying. It should be called Coase's Death Ray Therum, or Dr. Doom Economics...

So the choice is between
a) him not being able to play the music (-$25) and all of you being able to sleep (+$15,100) for a total of $15,075.
b) you all paying him $25 to not play the music, for a total of ($15,100-$25)+$25 = $15,100.

I knew there was something wrong with this. It took a while for me to find it, though.

Yes, the total in in the first circumstance is $15,075. But so is the total in the second. You forgot the disutility of not playing music.

$15,100 (for sleep) - $25 (what they pay) + $25 (what the music player receives) - $25 (for not having the opportunity to play music.)

$15,075.

NL, Besides my deep urge to move next to you so I can bash cymbals together at 2am to help pay my own rent, you realise that you are putting FAR more thought into this than those who blast 'Ol Fiddy are even capable of.

Oh well, maybe if this Coase was around when the Mafia was just starting out...

I knew there was something wrong with this. It took a while for me to find it, though.

Yes, the total in in the first circumstance is $15,075. But so is the total in the second. You forgot the disutility of not playing music.

$15,100 (for sleep) - $25 (what they pay) + $25 (what the music player receives) - $25 (for not having the opportunity to play music.)

$15,075.
....

Damn.

Remind me never to try to look smart when I'm sitting at home with a cold. :D

I think in Coase's article there is a much better illustration with numbers, taking into account different levels of production, their negative effects on others and so on. I had a feeling I was cutting a corner somewhere, but couldn't quite put a finger on it. Plus, this is an all or nothing example, which is probably not a good choice to start with.

I suppose if anything we have now shown that it does not in fact matters who is considered to be violating whoms rights (also, English grammar sucks).

I think I'll leave this thread as gracefully as I can. I think when people try to liken the Coase Theorem to extortion, they've got it wrong. But that's most likely my fault for explaining it badly.

CtoaN - JStor is a database for academic papers. Most unis have access to it, but if you're not a student, you're probably boned. :(
There isn't actually anything wrong with measuring happiness in terms of dollars. If you want we can try to measure it in 'smiles'. One of my early Econ textbook used 'smiles' instead of something silly like "utils", and I thought that was a cute touch. Dollars are just a good measure of value, that's all. We're not saying that happiness comes from dollars, the only suggestion in that direction might be that we assign a value to a state of happiness in terms of willingness to accept compensation in terms of money changing hands, ie being around family is worth X dollars and if I gave you X dollars you wouldn't mind me taking you away from your family. Of course, X could be virtually infinite, but not actually infinite (since that would make the maths break and the whole exercise would be pointless). I suppose I'm saying that every state of happiness actually has a price that is less than infinity.

Anyways, long story short: if we can all come to the conclusion that regardless of the choice of law you make in the end, taking someone's car away is so big a punishment that it outweighs the good done by the law in the first place. It's the sort of punishment a bunch of old, angry men (and women) come up in a pub.

....

Damn.

Remind me never to try to look smart when I'm sitting at home with a cold. :D

Happens to all of us.

I suppose if anything we have now shown that it does not in fact matters who is considered to be violating whoms rights (also, English grammar sucks).

Well, it depends.

The real problem is ambiguity. If I rent an apartment under the assumption that it will be quiet, and the girl next door blasts loud music, if I have to pay her I'm paying for quietness twice.

If something like "the right to quietness" is included--or excluded--explicitly, the problem is avoided. And it looks a whole lot less like extortion.

Anyways, long story short: if we can all come to the conclusion that regardless of the choice of law you make in the end, taking someone's car away is so big a punishment that it outweighs the good done by the law in the first place. It's the sort of punishment a bunch of old, angry men (and women) come up in a pub.
Maybe it is a bit harsh but it's the fault of the person who's been playing the loud music, nobody else's. I don't see why normal people should be forced to give in to the extortion of someone that the vast majority of people will agree is clearly in the wrong. On a matter of principle I'd sooner see that person's car taken away than for others to be forced to pay even a penny of extortion money.

CtoaN - JStor is a database for academic papers. Most unis have access to it, but if you're not a student, you're probably boned. :(

Yeah, figured that out. But my student days are long over so no dice.

There isn't actually anything wrong with measuring happiness in terms of dollars. If you want we can try to measure it in 'smiles'. One of my early Econ textbook used 'smiles' instead of something silly like "utils", and I thought that was a cute touch. Dollars are just a good measure of value, that's all. We're not saying that happiness comes from dollars, the only suggestion in that direction might be that we assign a value to a state of happiness in terms of willingness to accept compensation in terms of money changing hands, ie being around family is worth X dollars and if I gave you X dollars you wouldn't mind me taking you away from your family. Of course, X could be virtually infinite, but not actually infinite (since that would make the maths break and the whole exercise would be pointless). I suppose I'm saying that every state of happiness actually has a price that is less than infinity.
Has MasterCard taught you nothing? Somethings are priceless.

Anyways, long story short: if we can all come to the conclusion that regardless of the choice of law you make in the end, taking someone's car away is so big a punishment that it outweighs the good done by the law in the first place. It's the sort of punishment a bunch of old, angry men (and women) come up in a pub.
A law is a deterrent, not a fair cost to perform the activity you want to.

If the people with loud vehicles where not deterred by ticketing they had to up the ante. The end goal is not to level a balance sheet or make sure dude gets his moneys worth from his stereo, but to stop them from adding to noise pollution. The hope is that the risk of losing ones car might reign that shit in.

Now I'm not entirely for the law, it's just that your defense was so out there I had to address it. I do think that it is really a way to get at youth, and if I might make a stretch, minority youth since more hay was made about stereos than bikes with loud pipes (though the pipes guys have the whole 'loud pipes save lives' thing going for them...)

But yeah, taking their cars is something you come up with because the previous punishment wasn't working.