Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (or: An LVT for Brains)
- From: "The Trucker" <mikcob@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:49:01 -0700
<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4332368a.38053050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 07:23:51 -0400, "Dan in Philly" <djr8@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>Person A owns an acre of land and rents it out for $100,000 per year. He
>>spends all his time playing basketball.
>
> Nice acre.
>
>>Person B is an NBA star; he spends all his time playing basketball and earns
>>$10,000,000 per year.
>>
>>Which is more 'unfair'? How much tax should the government collect from each
>>person?
>
> Because of a complex web of IP monopoly privileges, broadcast spectrum
> rents, taxpayer subsidies to arena construction, etc., the
> professional basketball player is in a position to extract a great
> deal more economic rent than the landowner.
The actual "rent" is being extracted by the owners of the
spectrum rights and the owners of the teams and the
owners of all the rest of the infrastructure necessary to
prevent the customers from viewing the game without
coughing up big gouts of money. The athletes are
simply collecting wages as they bar no person from
becoming an athlete or from viewing the games. They
have no real choice in the matter: If they do not cooperate
with the powers that be then they must wait tables for
a living. And it is the powers that be that extract the
economic rent.
> Just how much more is
> unclear, but certainly the bulk of his salary is economic rent. As a
> general rule, more private rent collection = more unfair.
This determination of economic rent is based on the
neocon definition of the term which has been adopted to
_hide_ actual economic rent. Land rent is economic
rent in that the enforcement of special privilege is
necessary to the extraction. The alternative use of one's
time (opportunity costs) has nothing to do with the
fact of enforcement of special privilege..
> In principle, though, if there were no opportunties for the NBA star
> to extract rents, and his wages still came to $10M, it would be
> because that was the value of his contribution, and the unfairness
> would be with the landowner who would still be getting $100K more than
> the value of his contribution.
It may be "not fair" that the athlete was born with a certain
physical talent that the rest of us lack. But most of us
don't see it that way. We appreciate the difference and
take joy in seeing these people perform. The same is
true of people that pursue science and invent all sorts
of new and wonderful stuff. We celebrate their
ability and their accomplishments and no person is
FORCED to take advantage of the accomplishments.
> You really need to stop thinking about earnings in terms of how much
> people dislike their work, and focus on how much others value it.
> That's the measure of their contribution. You don't seem quite to
> have grasped the fact that having a toothache does not earn you any
> money, but running Playboy Enterprises does.
>
> -- Roy L
Absent force or environmental degradation (a theft
from the rest of humanity) or a case of fraud, it
doesn't matter how the individual is able to produce
what is desired by the rest of us. So long as we
are paying for the actual contribution of the
individual or group then we are not paying
economic rent.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
.
- References:
- Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (spinoff of oil s&d discussion)
- From: Dan in Philly
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (spinoff of oil s&d discussion)
- From: royls
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (spinoff of oil s&d discussion)
- From: Dan in Philly
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (spinoff of oil s&d discussion)
- From: royls
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (spinoff of oil s&d discussion)
- From: Dan in Philly
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (spinoff of oil s&d discussion)
- From: sinister
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (or: An LVT for Brains)
- From: Dan in Philly
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (or: An LVT for Brains)
- From: royls
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (or: An LVT for Brains)
- From: Dan in Philly
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (or: An LVT for Brains)
- From: The Trucker
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (or: An LVT for Brains)
- From: Dan in Philly
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (or: An LVT for Brains)
- From: The Trucker
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (or: An LVT for Brains)
- From: The Trucker
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (or: An LVT for Brains)
- From: Dan in Philly
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (or: An LVT for Brains)
- From: Dan in Philly
- Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (or: An LVT for Brains)
- From: royls
- Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (spinoff of oil s&d discussion)
- Prev by Date: Re: New Orleans and LVT
- Next by Date: Re: New Orleans and LVT
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (or: An LVT for Brains)
- Next by thread: Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (or: An LVT for Brains)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|