Economics of shark diving: split from Jupiter diver in trauma center after ‘upper extremity’ injury

[Wookie]

Just a question (as a user, not a moderator). But I'm used to looking at things in a broader perspective. If you're talking about how much economic activity is being generated then I think the public sector elements need to be included. In this case, particularly rescue operations and the medical costs of saving a life and reattaching limbs.

So there is $221 million being generated but how much will the rescue and medical expenses of this one accident amount to, because there's a lot of tax payers (government) money involved in those activities and government money is like "anti" economic activity. You can visualize this as revenue (the $221 million) and the societal cost of generating that revenue.

Have there been any studies that look at it like this?

R..

Do you consider this a revenue taker or a revenue earner? I consider it a net zero, as my tax dollars pay for the chopper, the EMS, and the injury itself as a earner, as some insurance company will have to take what would otherwise be obscene profits and spend a little locally here on the treasure coast.

 

[Wookie]

I am all for shark dives, and completely against shark fishing. My sole issue is the hand feeding.

If this is your sole issue (and that's fair), consider it like abortion. If you don't want one, by all means, don't have one. But don't stop me from having one. Your morals are all well and good for your particular blend of looking at yourself in the mirror, but you really need to keep your morals out of my shark diving expedition. To be fair and aboveboard, I have never had an abortion, nor have I ever hand fed a shark. I have eaten octopus, cat, and monkey.

 

[tilikum]

Nevermind, this will go nowhere fast.

 

[Wookie]

My wife says I don't mind at all.

 

[Diver0001]

Do you consider this a revenue taker or a revenue earner? I consider it a net zero, as my tax dollars pay for the chopper, the EMS, and the injury itself as a earner, as some insurance company will have to take what would otherwise be obscene profits and spend a little locally here on the treasure coast.

I'm not sure I can express it well. I think that whatever a government needs to invest in, is basically a waste of money unless it is some kind of "self liquidating asset" that will generate economic activity by virtue of what it is.

An example of a self liquidating asset might be a dam that creates electricity that fuels a factory that manufactures something that generates real economic value. The cost of the dam in eventually exceeded by the value of the thing created.

However, rescue operations and medical expenses are a huge outlay for the government and it's all out of pocket (tax) money. That tax money WOULD have been spent (in theory) on something else if the people paying taxes didn't need to spend it on saving some poor guy from his accident. It could have been SPENT therefore, on creating economic value.

I guess you can see it as the government subsidizing the shark watching industry by providing services that cost the shark watching people nothing but have a negative net effect on the economy in other ways.

I'm not sure if that makes it any clearer, but I sure hope it does.

Therefore, that "subsidy" or out-of-pocket waste that the government has to chip in to the pot in order to keep the shark watching thing running is basically a cost that I believe should offset the revenue.

I don't doubt the numbers that the shark watching people are reporting, but I think if you zoom out enough and look at the total effect in the economy on a macro level that the revenue, once offset by the subsidy, is likely to be quite a bit lower than reported, therefore making the shark watching thing MUCH less important on the whole than they would like you to think.

That's not to say that shark watching isn't fun or that it shouldn't be done but if we want a fair assessment of how *important* it is as an economic factor then we not only have to include the revenue it generates but also the cost of generating that revenue.

I've probably confused you to death by now. Does any of that make any sense?

R..

 

[Wookie]

I'm not sure I can express it well. I think that whatever a government needs to invest in, is basically a waste of money unless it is some kind of "self liquidating asset" that will generate economic activity by virtue of what it is.

An example of a self liquidating asset might be a dam that creates electricity that fuels a factory that manufactures something that generates real economic value. The cost of the dam in eventually exceeded by the value of the thing created.

However, rescue operations and medical expenses are a huge outlay for the government and it's all out of pocket (tax) money. That tax money WOULD have been spent (in theory) on something else if the people paying taxes didn't need to spend it on saving some poor guy from his accident. It could have been SPENT therefore, on creating economic value.

I guess you can see it as the government subsidizing the shark watching industry by providing services that cost the shark watching people nothing but have a negative net effect on the economy in other ways.

I'm not sure if that makes it any clearer, but I sure hope it does.

Therefore, that "subsidy" or out-of-pocket waste that the government has to chip in to the pot in order to keep the shark watching thing running is basically a cost that I believe should offset the revenue.

I don't doubt the numbers that the shark watching people are reporting, but I think if you zoom out enough and look at the total effect in the economy on a macro level that the revenue, once offset by the subsidy, is likely to be quite a bit lower than reported, therefore making the shark watching thing MUCH less important on the whole than they would like you to think.

That's not to say that shark watching isn't fun or that it shouldn't be done but if we want a fair assessment of how *important* it is as an economic factor then we not only have to include the revenue it generates but also the cost of generating that revenue.

I've probably confused you to death by now. Does any of that make any sense?

R..

It all made sense before. I guess it's one of those things that, to me, the government is good for. It provides for the common good. Not to go too far into the pub in a non-pub thread, but could it be a subsidy? Sure, if you want to think of it that way, in the same way that building highways subsidizes AAACooper Transport. Sure, AAAACooper could build a network of private highways, and Randy could have hopped in his F-150 and drove to the local hospital. But the government provides the service of catering to the lowest common denominator, and so the service is provided. To take it a little further, the service is there and available to all taxpayers (which it isn't in the Keys. If a non-resident gets a helicopter ride, they pay as much as $80k from the Tortugas) and if it doesn't get used, it goes away. Then, there is no helo available for the little girl from the other thread.

Unaccounted government subsidies allow us to do a tremendous amount of everyday things we could otherwise not do. Like put ethanol in gas or pollute the Everglades and by extension Indian River Lagoon or Florida Bay and therefore kill all of the coral on the Florida reef tract. I guess once the coral is gone, the sharks will be too, and we can get rid of that helicopter.

 

[scubadada]

If this is your sole issue (and that's fair), consider it like abortion. If you don't want one, by all means, don't have one. But don't stop me from having one. Your morals are all well and good for your particular blend of looking at yourself in the mirror, but you really need to keep your morals out of my shark diving expedition. To be fair and aboveboard, I have never had an abortion, nor have I ever hand fed a shark. I have eaten octopus, cat, and monkey.

Many of us in SE Florida vote with our wallets, you either go out with the shark feeders or you don't, personal choice.

 

[Storker]

medical expenses are a huge outlay for the government

You've been living in a single payer medical care system for too long.

 

[tilikum]

Just don't expect any sympathy when someone gets bit.

 

[drrich2]

Does any of that make any sense?

Yes, I think you're saying we need to discriminate between gross revenue vs. net profit, with the latter representing the real value to the state, and net profit is almost always significantly less than gross revenue.

That said, I doubt shark feed diving is generating enough emergency business to require providing additional infrastructure such as helicopters, hospitals, health care staff, etc..., and probably just puts a bit more strain on pre-existing resources very occasionally.

Richard.