Re: novel argument against taxing rents

royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 02:16:09 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:


On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 04:49:02 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<snip>
See above. I don't know what you are talking about, and I suspect
others reading this are in the same situation.

In the history of, say England, the trend as been to go from more
or less independent freeholders to a highly structured society.

It looks to me like one measure of this relative order is the
level of rent. Makes sense; if there's economic order, there'd
be more production, thus more vig.

If this rent is a measure of how close the society is to collapse,
then there's an interesting tradeoff. Yes?


I see no reason to think the level of rent is an indicator of
closeness to collapse. The ratio of private to public collection of
rent is more significant.



Okay, fair enough. The point is that there is an organic
equilibrium which offends the nostrils of $DEITY,
and an artificial equilibrium must be reinvented.

FWIW, I was using the word "rent" as shorthand for
"private collection of rent", since that seems common
enough practice here...but tightening the terminology is
always a good thing...

There is no return to the rent-free state. Even the most violent and
destructive revolutions, invasions and collapses have not eliminated
resource rents entirely, except locally where they have entirely
depopulated a whole region. As a general rule, the greater the
resource rents, the more prosperous the society, and vice versa. The
problem is not resource rents. The problem is who gets them.

No, the problems are establishing a functional/correct
means of *deciding* who gets them , and being capable
of applying it.


No, that's the solution, not the problem.



It's a disaster, not just a problem. Of
coruse, that's what the "reeducation camps"
will be for, I suppose...

But that goes back to the old question - what is earned
and what is unearned? That question seems resistant to
objectification.


Nope. What is earned is a benefit commensurate with contribution.

Best estimator of contribution as we speak, using price theory
and the dreaded revealed preferences doctrine is... what
we now have.

Seriously, we're back to some arcane table of actuarial data of
which I'm unaware, or what?

What is unearned is a benefit exceeding contribution.


The additive inverse of an undefined quantity is generally
still an undefined quantity.


Ultimately, isn't *everything* then a public good?


No.

-- Roy L
--
Les Cargill
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: novel argument against taxing rents
    ... If this rent is a measure of how close the society is to collapse, ... resource rents, the more prosperous the society, and vice versa. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: novel argument against taxing rents
    ... If this rent is a measure of how close the society is to collapse, ... It is the privatization that makes it ... resource rents, the more prosperous the society, and vice versa. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: ZFS, from hells heart I stab at thee!
    ... She's a flatmate. ... She pays a quarter of the rent. ... it with a pin and collapse the quantum state to find out. ...
    (alt.sysadmin.recovery)
  • Re: Social Collapse Best Practices
    ... "One interesting observation is that once collapse occurs it becomes possible to rent a policeman, either for a special occasion, or generally just to follow someone around. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists
    ... >>worth skimming a little wealth off across the top of the whole society so ... definition of evil -- it's merely an argumentative trap. ... They were denied their rights, ... though it *is* sufficient to sustain rent. ...
    (sci.econ)