Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- From: royls@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 05:56:16 GMT
On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:29:22 GMT, jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 06:43:39 GMT, royls@xxxxxxxxx in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 00:02:00 GMT, jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 03:55:36 GMT, royls@xxxxxxxxx in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On 29 May 2007 09:47:29 -0700, "James A. Bowery" <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On May 29, 9:18 am, r...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Could you explain why you want to prevent people from thinking about
economic rent?
I'm on your side.
Well, I don't see how linking rent with externalities helps "my" side.
Neoclassical economists have tried to prevent people from thinking
about economic rent by redefining it according to the _amount_ of
return obtained rather than the _source_ of that return. Attributing
rent to externalities rather than privileges has a similar effect:
directing attention away from the fact that rent is the share of
production that is obtained in return for not blocking producers'
access to production opportunities that would otherwise have been
accessible.
Odd that Smith doesn't seem to define rent that way. I guess
he's not a classical economist.
?? He uses somewhat different words, of course, and rent in those
days meant only the return to land, and did not include the return to
what has become known as rent seeking. But with those caveats, Smith
clearly did identify rent very much as I have.
Roy, if that's the case, please get the passages from Smith
where he's suggesting we eliminate private land ownership.
<yawn> Nice attempt to change the subject. Did you have to study for
very many years to get so dishonest?
My point was his emphasis was not really on the ability of
landlords to control who can access their property but that
a) rent is the term for payment to the land input (just like
wage is payment to labor input and profit payment to
capital input) and
Absolutely correct. The only difference is that unlike the recipients
of the payments for the labor and capital inputs, the recipient of the
payment for the land input does not _contribute_ that input.
b) motivations of landlords was not
much different than the other factor owners and
Now you are trying to divert attention from the fact that a laborer
does not get paid for "owning" labor, nor does a capitalist get paid
for owning capital. They get paid for _contributing_ labor and
capital to production. By contrast, the landowner gets paid for doing
nothing while the productive use the land that was there all along,
with no help from him.
c) not
entirely immune to the market processes (competition)
that also forced other factor owners to settle for a more
socially desirable outcome.
Landowners have no reason to settle for a socially desirable outcome,
and the outcome they enjoy is far from socially desirable.
Your definition of rent is colored by your view that
land should not be owned privately.
No, my view that land should not be owned privately is determined by
what land and land rent _are_.
To a certain extent
the issue of private land ownership and land rent are
orthogonal.
No, they aren't.
-- Roy L
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- Next by Date: Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- Previous by thread: Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- Next by thread: Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
