Glad to hear it, Joseph! :) - Meg

Instablaster.

But in his example, he meant that as people we are aware that not getting a flu shot will probably result in causing harm to our surroundings, which makes this non-action "punishable". As you said, it is true that you don't choose to get the flu, but you are very aware that there is a probability of infecting people if you don't take the shot (which leads to a ripple effect of disease spread). Although this probability is not very quantifiable, as well as the factory's unclear externalities, such opaque properties make the example worthwhile. If public policy made it mandatory for everyone to get a shot, opting out of that standard would imply taxes or fines for those not taking the shot. Hence, drawing this parallel helps him define property rights as a right to clean air and population health, and the opacity extent to which it is hard and time-consuming to find an agreement in either case.

@Robert I think what he meant is in a world of transaction costs and externalities, welfare is maximized if the property right is assigned to the party with a higher cost of reducing the externality.

Unless you're locked in doors, you do "choose" to go outside and put yourself in a position where you are at higher risk of getting the flu. Further, once you have the flu, you do choose to still be around others and consequently create the circumstances that allow you to sneeze on someone (as opposed to sneezing at home). Either way, he wasn't saying that the cases entirely mirror each other. The purpose of that illustration was to point out that property rights and liabilities are sometimes not clearly defined by the law, and this leads to higher transaction costs and market failures.

any ideas? then suggest! :)

well they could sue for damage cause by the pollution

Especially with COVID right now

I also have an exam about this tomorrow XD

Can you tell the person with the flu the same thing - that it's common sense not to pollute others with their coughing?

Well there are some categorical and other differences between the two examples. 1. If you catch the flu and contaminate the space shared with others, it is because you have NOT taken a specific action to prevent that. If the factory pollutes, it is because it is actually carrying out an action that with certainty leads to that. It is therefore actively contributing to produce an externality. It might be worth adding that most people think (common sense) that other people should avoid public spaces when they have the flu. 2. The person catching the flu does so involuntarily and without self-gain. The polluting factory (and the consumers consuming the produce) benefits directly from taking the action which lead to externalities. If someone would profit financially from just having the flu, I think most people (common sense) would think that that person has a responsibility to make sure that others weren't affected (this is the proper analogy). Of course, one can claim that the individual avoids the cost that the vaccination would incur and by doing so would benefit indirectly. However, then you will end up in discussions that goes back to the above.

On what were you typing that comment : ) You are a direct beneficiary of pollution if you own a phone/computer. Less Pollution=more expensive stuff.

jesus what a brainlet can you keep up?

nonsense

Don't know much about beekeeping or farming do you.

Yves Helsen This is trolling, right?

@@TravisTerrell No, unfortunately. It is a lot of stress for the bees to be transportet like that and a lot of them die during the transport. Also the way in which they are transportet (several crowded hives in one transporter) fosters diseases and pests to spread, so... Cheung is making me cringe, too. This is basic ecological knowledge.