Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- From: royls@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:37:07 GMT
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:40:43 GMT, jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:47:00 GMT, royls@xxxxxxxxx in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:58:52 GMT, jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:30:00 GMT, royls@xxxxxxxxx in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:41:39 GMT, jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You can also just read Part 2 of the chapter, sine that is where
Smith talks about the production activities where land may or may
not earn rent.
I would assum this is perfectly fine with your position.
He's not saying anything I'd object to, it's just that his analysis is
restricted to the rent of land, and does not extend to other rent
collection privileges.
Really?
Yes.
So what about all his comments about mechantilist and
labor unions?
He does not call their returns rent, although obviously he is aware
that they are not rightly called wages or interest.
Exactly the point. The concept is the same, but terminology
proved to be a chain around the classical economist analysis.
?? _My_ concept is the same. Smith's isn't, and the neoclassical one
is not the same as either Smith's or mine. _That_ is exactly the
point.
Neoclassical treatment of the phenomenon is the same and simplifies
the situration by adobpting the term that has a very simple and
understandable example historically.
No. I have explained to you why the neoclassical concept is not the
same: it defines rent according to the _amount_ of a factor payment,
not its _source_.
Clearly the issue to Smith was widespread but he
simply reserved the lable "rent" when talking about income going
to Land owners.
Right. Which proves you are a liar.
Not at all. If I'm the liar so is Smith and since the
issue hear is about what Smith wrote,
No, that is _not_ the issue here. The issue would be the same even
had Smith never existed. You don't seem to understand that it is a
scientific issue, not a mere matter of exegetical scholarship.
and is quoted above
it's obvious you have not moral fiber at all and simple
seek to twist everything into your world view, right or wrong
doesn't matter. All that matters is agreemet or disagreement
with you.
<yawn> I have explained why the neoclassical redefinition of rent is
inherently misleading.
You've lost the ability to recognize anyone else's thoughts that
conflict with yours.
No, I recognize them as erroneous, and show why.
No. You've blindly applied you view and done so with
way more text than required. If rent is simply the payment
to the Land factor input then that's a simple definition
and has 0 import to the issue of legitimacy or fairness
or equal rights. It's just a Lable and nothign more.
Nonsense. If rent is the payment for land, then it is self-evidently
a payment for nothing, as the land was already there with no help from
the owner.
If the issue is more than the definitional arguement
The definition is absolutely central. Science cannot proceed without
clear, accurate, agreed definitions. The neoclassical definition of
rent may be (largely) agreed, and it may be clear, but it is not
accurate or scientifically useful because it defines rent as an amount
paid, but provides no means to measure that amount because it is the
excess over a hypothetical and circularly defined amount.
then clearly understanding that the concept
Smith was descriping about rent being a surplus
value above and beyond what is necessary to satisfy
the economic exchanges within society that lead to
its wealth is critical.
No. That concept of rent is not even useful (let alone critical) to
scientific understanding of economics because we have no way to
measure or determine the _amounts_ of payment necessary for exchanges
to proceed. The neoclassical concept is furthermore circular, because
it defines rent by reference to a rate of profit that is itself
determined by the availability of rent collection opportunities.
By contrast, defining rent by its source rather than its amount makes
it glaringly (and, to moneyed interests, unacceptably) clear that even
a rent return _less_ than the prevailing rate of profit is not
necessary for the exchanges that create national wealth.
Your the one wishing to blur
that insight and the value that comes from understanding
rent in the neoclassical sense and the value that adds
to political economic analysis.
See above. The deliberate misdefinition of rent to rationalize
parasitism is a crucial error at the center of neoclassical
economics's failure as an empirical science.
You're so myopic on the definiton and you belief that
land cannot be privately owned that you're willing to
not only toss out the baby with the bath water but
actually put the baby on the alter and split it wide
open to pay tribute to "rent".
I am not the one sacrificing not only scientific clarity but the
rights of the productive in order to rationalize the unearned rent
incomes of wealthy, idle parasites. You are.
-- Roy L
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- From: jmh
- Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- From: royls
- Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- From: jmh
- Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- From: royls
- Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- From: jmh
- Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- Prev by Date: Re: Making less than dad did
- Next by Date: Re: Making less than dad did
- Previous by thread: Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- Next by thread: Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
