Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists

From: Grinch (oldnasty_at_mindspring.com)
Date: 06/13/04 

Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:11:06 GMT

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:39:48 GMT, "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

<snip>
>
>Bizarre and incoherent. Rent is zero-sum---when you collect rent, someone
>else pays for it. So when your kids benefit by collecting rent, others'
>kids lose.

The same is true for the sale of a cheeseburger -- when you collect
for the cheeseburger, someone else pays for it. So when your kids
benefit from your collecting that payment the other guy's kids lose.

Well ... only to the extent that we think only of the money side of
the transaction, and not what is received for the money. Which would
be rather bizarre.

Of course, a normal human being wouldn't pay $X for a cheeseburger
unless the cheeseburger was worth *more* than $X to him -- if it was
worth less he'd just keep his money in his pocket. (And if the
cheeseburger is worth more than $X to him then his kids probably
benefit from daddy increasing his welfare). Of course, the seller of
the cheeseburger increases his welfare via his profit from the sale.
This is *not* a zero sum transaction, this is a win-win positive sum
transaction in terms of human welfare.

Just the same way, a normal human being isn't going to pay $X in rent
for a plot of land unless the land is worth more than $X to him for
the rental period -- else, obviously, he'd just keep his money in his
pocket, say "not such nice land", and move on.

If he rents the land for $X because it is worth more than $X to him he
increases his welfare, while the landlord also increases his welfare
from receiving the rent.

Again, this obviously is a positive sum transaction -- to think of it
as "zero sum" seems rather bizarre and incoherent.

>Not only that; the benefits are conferred by an enforcement
>regime backed by the government's monopoly on violence.

Yes, well, if you walk out of a restaurant without paying for your
cheeseburger the cheeseburger seller will have the cops cart you away
for that too.

So cheeseburger sellers have their benefits "conferred by an
enforcement regime backed by the government's monopoly on violence" as
well.

I mean, if you want to resort to such rhetoric.

<snip>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Alphas 2009 TR - MK
    ... Once the kids started school, ... it's really cute and every year we want to ride it. ... basket for Chip, and a kid's meal cheeseburger ... with a tea for us and a Sprite for Chip. ...
    (rec.arts.disney.parks)
  • Re: Alphas 2009 TR - MK
    ... Once the kids started school, ... and a taco salad, a bacon double cheeseburger basket for Chip, and a kid's meal cheeseburger for Dale, with a tea for us and a Sprite for Chip. ... I can't remember a time when I was quite so hot as I was there in the fort. ...
    (rec.arts.disney.parks)
  • Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists
    ... So when your kids benefit by collecting rent, ... The cheeseburger has been _added_to_ the sum of all ... >the cheeseburger increases his welfare via his profit from the sale. ... Rent is not. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists
    ... So when your kids benefit by collecting rent, ... In this transaction a cheeseburger was created and someone ... The point not whether or not the user of the land will pay. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Narnia at WDW/DL?
    ... (Evidently common to wartime UK kids in the book, but when one aborted movie version tried updating Edmund's temptation to "a cheeseburger", purists howled.) ... And, to underscore the other point, ie. that resentful Edmund was willing to rat out for a common-snack mess of pottage, the cheeseburger was going to be a minor plot point, ie. he'd wanted to get one before ...
    (rec.arts.disney.parks)
Loading