[badsandwitch]

Tragedy of the commons is why short term is all that matters and will ever matter to non-ideological investors.

If an action that hurts the stock short-term but will help int he long-term needs to be performed why would you as an investor enact it or even stay for the ride?

You are better off either opposing it or selling your stock and then waiting to see if someone will enact the changes, then you have the "insider" information to know that the short-term stock drop was a good thing for the long-term and rebuy the shares cheaper.

[DennisP]

Since investors are forward-looking, I don't think there are many situations where a change that's good for the long-term value of the company will necessarily drive down the share price in the short term.

You might drive down the share price if earnings go down, but that's not necessarily the case if the long-term value is clear. An example would be any company reinvesting earnings in a new factory.

[fasa99]

>If an action that hurts the stock short-term but will help int he long-term needs to be performed why would you as an investor enact it or even stay for the ride?

Yes and this underpins what most consider the disgusting trait of being excessively greedy, not just executives, doctors specialties like dermatology, anything.

The doctor who wants the ultra high paying medical specialty sometimes cares nothing about becoming rich. Fear. Fear of being crushed by all that student debt. Doing everything possible to avoid that. Planning to start a family, fear of homeless, etc. Fear of being unable to retire. Excess, irrational fear. Then, it passes, and now we have what seems in retrospect, simply a greedy bastard with now an excessive amount of money.

Same with executives, the thought may not be "let me cheese short term gains as hard as possible" but "let me hedge against short term losses as much as possible".

Aggression from sheer greed is human human thought modality. Predatory. Aggression when cornered, anxiety / fear response, arguably a more vicious and nasty aggression, is another very much different type of aggression because it is not predatory. The difference is predatory feels more voluntary and fear is about whether I should risk being super aggressive or not. In defense-of-self aggression, fear as already there plenty, so a person can do about any hyper aggressive evil thing in the name of defending from a perceived threat - such as lay off half the work force, destroy customer relationships, etc. In this way a good leader must have a steady hand and outlook with regards to fear.

[kennywinker]

> Tragedy of the commons is why short term is all that matters and will ever matter to non-ideological investors.

Tragedy of the commons was an ideological essay designed to justify privatization of public goods. It was disproven by data before it was published. I am sure there are some hyper specific examples where it has happened as described, but as a “fact” about the world and as a justification for any course of action, it’s highly suspect.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false...

[IggleSniggle]

I don't disagree that it was an ideological "essay" but I dunno why you're linking that when it's most associated with Aristotle, in particular:

"What is common to many is taken least care of, for all men have greater regard for what is their own than for what they possess in common with others."

Maybe you're suggesting that that essay popularized the phrasing? But I'm pretty sure even as a coined "term" it was around before then

[eutropia]

This is the first I've heard that it's false; however it seems like many times in my life I've observed something suffering, seemingly from lack of ownership despite being a common good.

What do you call that if you can't call it a tragedy of the commons?

[reaperman]

On HN I’ve seen regular claims that “tragedy of the commons has been disproven”. I’ve not yet identified which social bubble propagates this or what it is based on but there seems to be some niche in which people are being taught that it is categorically proven to be an invalid concept.

[bombcar]

It's more than one person - it happened in a recent comment I made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41758008

I suspect some popular blog/YouTube channel made some waves around it.

[9dev]

That persons argumentation is awful, however. Another patient soul took the time to challenge the idea with logic, and there wasn’t much actually supporting the idea in response.

[kennywinker]

I’d just like to note that i disagree with your summarization. They defend their perspective quite well imo

[kennywinker]

> I am sure there are some hyper specific examples where it has happened as described, but as a “fact” about the world and as a justification for any course of action, it’s highly suspect.

You read that and understood “categorically proven to be an invalid concept”?

[reaperman]

I hope it was clear to most readers of my comment that I was talking about a general line of rhetoric rather than this specific post.

However, from the parent comment I keyed in on your quote less, and much more on:

> It was disproven

FWIW.

[kennywinker]

Lack of accountability.

People cite the tragedy of the commons to discourage sharing of resources. The idea that common land should be divvied up into private ownership to prevent them falling into ruin. When really shared resources just need accountability between the people who make use of them. It’s just basic game theory: If there is no cost to abusing your opponent, that strategy will get used. But if you’re going to be playing long term with the same people, systems will form to deter abuse.

[SideQuark]

Tragedy of the common is a concept dating back to ancient times that has extremely broad empirical support throughout history. The essay you mention took the name from all this real world experience, and even if the essay is bad, the concept is anything but.

A simple search finds more examples and references to literature than you can likely read in years.

I’d recommend starting here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[kennywinker]

Dating back to ancient times - specifically Aristotle. Aristotle also believed that women are deformed men. That some people deserve to be enslaved. That deaf people are incapable of reason.

So, just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s true. Just like “kids these days” or “seems like nobody wants to work anymore” some bad ideas are evergreen.

[SideQuark]

> So, just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s true

No one claimed it's true because it's old. If you like reasoning fallacies, you should love the concept of a strawman.

[HDThoreaun]

When the UK enclosed their fields so that they were privately controlled crop yield immediately went up 20%. Theres overwhelming empiric evidence of tragedy of the commons being real.

[kennywinker]

it’s a specific viewpoint that chooses to measure success in terms of crop yields, rather than quality of life…

The tragedy of the commons didn’t claim that crop yields are slightly depressed. The claim is that the commons will be overused to the point of threatening to destroy it.