Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 06/13/04 

Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:42:21 GMT

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:11:06 GMT, Grinch <oldnasty@mindspring.com>
wrote:

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

??? No, moron. The cheeseburger has been _added_to_ the sum of all
wealth. Economic rents _do_not_ add to the sum of all wealth. They
are merely a way to _transfer_ wealth from those who create it to
those who do not.

>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.

Do you or do you not understand that the maker of a cheeseburger
charges for what _he_ brought into existence, while the landowner
charges for what _already_ existed with no help from him nor from any
previous owner he may have paid for the privilege?

>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.

Right. Because the cheeseburger is an _addition_ to the total sum of
all wealth. Rent is not.

>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.

What a load of crap. Just the same way, if somebody built a giant
machine that sucked in air and stored it, and charged others for
bottles of it to breathe, they wouldn't pay his price unless not
suffocating was worth more to them than the money.

_Get_it_??

>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.

The difference is, the landowner is not _contributing_ anything in
return for the increase in his welfare: the land would have been
there, just the same, even had he never existed. We've been through
all this before, Grinch. Why do you refuse to know the facts?

Never mind. I know why.

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

Lie. It's not a positive sum transaction. Everything the landowner
gets comes out of the user's pocket, and the user is
_not_better_off_than_if_the_landowner_had_never_existed_. He is
_worse_ off. _Un_like the case of the cheeseburger.

When are you going to tire of seeing your evil views on this issue
demolished and exposed, and yourself humiliated, Grinch?

>>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.

The difference: the cheeseburger would not have existed but for its
maker. The land existed without any help from the landowner. His
title is a pure rent-seeking privilege granted and enforced by
government.

It's not like I haven't informed you of this fact of objective reality
on multiple previous occasions, Grinch. Why (and perhaps more to the
point, _how_) do you continue to refuse to know it?

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

Lie. The cheeseburger maker is paid in return for a benefit
_he_contributes_. If he wasn't getting paid, the cheeseburgers would
not exist. OTOH, the landowner qua landowner contributes exactly
nothing. Everything he gets is a pure welfare subsidy, a privilege
bestowed on him by government, in return for no contribution whatever
from him.

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

The difference: his "rhetoric" was the simple truth. Yours is lies.

-- Roy L

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists
    ... So when your kids benefit by collecting rent, ... The same is true for the sale of a cheeseburger -- when you collect ... someone else pays for it. ... a normal human being isn't going to pay $X in rent ...
    (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)