Mia (I am a boy but want to be a girl)

Posted Wednesday, March 6, 2024

2mo

INFP

Sagittarius

Coase Theorem

Today, I want to talk about the Coase Theorem with everyone. I just looked it up, and to my surprise, it turns out to be part of the high school social studies curriculum in Taiwan, and I've only just come into contact with and understood it. I want to share my insights with you. The first shock the Coase Theorem gave me is that all harm is mutual. Let's take an example. In the past, when trains burned coal, it was technically inevitable that sparks would fall from the train. If these sparks caused the flax piled by a farmer beside the track to burn, whose fault is it? I guess everyone's first instinct would be to blame the train, and I think this idea comes from the fact that the farmer is the victim, the one who suffers the property loss. But from the perspective of the train company, they also feel wronged. Everyone knows that trains can drop sparks, so why didn't you move your stuff farther away from the track? Is it reasonable to blame me when your things get burned? Right, this is my first insight: harm is mutual; there is no absolute victim. If we agree with this premise, then we might acknowledge the conclusion of the Coase Theorem: as long as transaction costs are low, both parties can reach the optimal allocation of resources through negotiation results. 今天想跟大家聊寇斯定理。 我剛剛查了一下，這居然是台灣的高中社會科課程的內容，而我現在才接觸到並了解， 我想跟你分享我的啟發。 寇斯定理給我的第一個震撼是，所有的傷害都是互相的。 我們舉一個例子，在過去火車還是燒煤的時代，從火車上落下火星是技術上不可避免的，而如果落下的火星使得軌道旁農夫堆放的亞麻燒掉，這是誰的錯呢？ 我猜大家的第一個直覺是，火車的錯，而我認為這個想法的來源是因為，農夫是受害者，是財產的損失者。 可是站在火車公司的立場，他也覺得他很冤啊，火車會掉火星大家又不是不知道，你自己不把東西拿離軌道遠一點，結果東西燒掉了來怪我合理嗎？ 沒錯，這就是我的第一個啟發，傷害是互相的，沒有絕對的受害者。 如果認同了這個前提，那麼才可能去認同寇斯定理的結論：只要交易成本夠低，雙方就能夠通過協商的結果達到資源的最適配置。