Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists

From: The Trucker (mikcob_at_verizon.net)
Date: 06/09/04 

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:38:27 -0700

Matt Timmermans wrote:

>
> "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:rNJwc.7944$QI2.5944@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>> "Matt Timmermans" <mt0000@sympatico.nospam-remove.ca> wrote in message
>> > Determining the optimal distribution and how best to encourage movement
> in
>> > that direction is far more practically important than worrying about
> _how_
>> > it got to be the way it is.
>>
>> Not when one of the most important factors behind the current
>> distribution is government forcing people to pay holders of titles to
>> scarce natural resources like land for the use of said resources.
>
> If the most socially efficient distribution of wealth is highly skewed,
> and I believe it is,

Well.... At least you admit that this is a "belief" as opposed to going
off on a tangent using cherry picked "data" to supposedly "prove" your point
or screeching "look at the defunct Soviet Union".

> and if it's better to have one's wealth determined by
> past economic success than by lottery or decree, and I believe it is,

I tend to agree with this particular "belief" but reject the notion
that one's descendent's are to be included or that there needs to be
a _noble_ group that is supported forever because their "daddy" did
good.

> then
> there must be some mechanism in place to give wealth some inertia, i.e.,
> to make it easy for wealthy people to acquire wealth, so that they can
> stay wealthy even with their increased consumption.

This conclusion is horse manure. Those that actually _earn_ wealth
will have no problems in consuming AND staying wealthy. There should
be a mechanism to provide short term protection to productions that
stem from actual creativity (patent and copyright), but that is all.

> Without such mechanisms, the distribution of wealth would tend to go flat.

More horse manure. Those that are able and willing and capable will
be more wealthy than those who are not so long as they employ their
talents to serve the greater community. Free markets make it that
way. Those that actually PRODUCE good stuff will be rewarded by
the rest of the people.
 
> Since any income produced by any such mechanism is economically classified
> as rent, I have to confess that I think a little rent is a good thing.

Agreement again! A _little_ rent is just fine. The problem with
the George Bush monopoly loving Repugnican form of government is that
it is a lot more than a _little_ rent.

> There may be too much rent available today, and deciding how much is best
> is part of the problem I referred to as important above, but the basic
> notion of rent is not inherently evil when it is created and maintained by
> consensus.

You would get a gold star on this one if the word "informed" appeared
between the words "by" and "consensus".

http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/The_Mob.php

> I, and most people, I think, want whatever wealth I leave to my children
> to be of benefit to them, for example -- that's one of the primary reasons
> I
> work for it. Since I can't expect a free society to allow special rent
> just
> for my kids, I must concede it to everyone else. Similarly, I expect
> whatever wealth I manage to accrue during my lifetime to be of benefit to
> me, so I grant the same to everyone else as well. We should all have to
> play the game by the same rules, and we pretty much do.

And now for the kicker: If your kids inherit your wealth then do they
have the right to give it to their kids? I say no. They did not earn
it and therefore do not have the same rights as you did in the deposition
of this wealth. Others will argue that your kids have already received
major benefit from your wealth while you are alive and that should be
the end of it. But if rent is heavily taxed, thus removing the millstone
of taxation from the producers in the economy, then the problem is
resolved without clumsy inheritance tax structures. Many proposals
have existed to institute land rent on a generational basis and I
believe this to be a good compromise. The current land owner would
not need to pay any of the land taxes (up to a certain value cap) but
the inheritors of the land WILL pay such taxes. Corporations would
be required to pay the tax immediately and always.

> In short, while I accept Georgists' argument that rent taxes are
> economically efficient, I don't accept their claim to the moral high
> ground.

That is a religious position. My _religion_ is Utilitarianism. I have
no problem with wealth concentration until such concentration deprives
the greater majority of a better life style and more FREEDOM. The
basis of "economic efficiency" being "good" is that it improves the
well being of the vast majority.

> I think that the benefits of wealth should exist, and I accept the
> fundamental mechanism that produces them -- rent -- because it's better
> than the alternatives, and so a lot of the hue and cry about the "evil
> landlords" who currently have the wealth and get to collect these rents
> sounds like petty jealousy to me.

Ah, yes.... The "Envy Pony". The Repugnican favorite. 

-- 
http://GreaterVoice.org (a work in progress)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments.
    ... When you rent an apartment from a private landlord you are not ... the community can offer land for rent and accept the offer of ... Ridiculous, wealth accumulation is the standard measure of wealth, not ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: The Great Divide
    ... The young people don't benefit from being robbed to pay for the ... > government services that make the land more valuable, ... >>It IS stacked against the people who rent all of their life. ... wealth is, because that is also what attracts criminals. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: The Great Divide
    ... >> investment income exceeds your living expenses. ... Wealth begets wealth. ... Certainly rent accounts for the overwhelming bulk of unearned income. ... Capitalism will work better without the rent-seeking free riders. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists
    ... > If the most socially efficient distribution of wealth is highly skewed, ... > as rent, I have to confess that I think a little rent is a good thing. ... In the case of land, it's not just some abstract economic rent---it's ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists
    ... >must be some mechanism in place to give wealth some inertia, i.e., to make ... >as rent, I have to confess that I think a little rent is a good thing. ... inherited wealth will allow them to receive rent income they have not ... justice are more moral than tyranny and privilege. ...
    (sci.econ)