Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 02:03:37 +0000, jmh wrote:

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 06:54:33 -0700, The Trucker in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
"jmh" <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrnf6ecom.bbo.jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:37:07 GMT, royls@xxxxxxxxx in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:

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.

What "scientific issue"? The question of material existance
of the external world is not in questions here.

The question of man having created that external world is
also not is question here.

The only question here is whether or not man can individually
own some of that external world and then allow other's to
use it for the owner's gain. This is NOT a scientific
issue outside the question of "Is that happening now or
not?" Since that's NOT the question here your "scientific
issue" is a red herring.


I think you are asking all the wrong questions. The answers to
the questions you pose are readily apparent. As RoyL might
say "A matter of objective reality". But what about the question
of whether or not privatization of natural resources is a "good"
thing? That puts us on the spot because it insists that we reveal

Yes, the "can" should have been "may" or "should
we allow..."

our social priorities, i.e. we must define "good"; we must define
where we THINK we are going. Different people working
toward different conceptualizations of "good" cannot possibly
agree on the political economy that would be "best". I want
equality of rights and, as much as possible, equality of
opportunity as an end in itself. I do not propose that this will
make people "better" or worse or that it will take them closer
to some concept of God, or that it will tend to create a race
of Gods or demons. Somehow I think the land ownership people
have a different idea of "good" and that this is the _real_
problem. I am not a big fan of Ayn Rand, but she is quoted as
saying something to which I most heartily subscribe:
"If a person or group or culture or creed wishes to believe that
an afterlife will offer eternal rewards that are proportional to one's
Earthly poverty, sickness, disfigurement, ignorance, and brevity
of life, then a system of rules promoting Earthly prosperity, health,
and longevity would be inappropriate. If, however, one seeks
rules that are likely to optimize or maximize 'life on Earth,' these
rules must at least be consistent with, or respect, the natures of
'life' and 'Earth'." --- Ayn Rand

So let's have it. What is your idea of "good" and how does your
economic ideal play toward that "good"? I can't imagine why
someone would _want_ privatization (in perpetuity) of any natural
resource. Perhaps that might be a more fruitful discussion. Is
private ownership of land somehow GOOD for the individuals of
a society or for the society as a whole?

First off, you ideal that natural resources will not
be privatized in perpetuity is much more image than reality.
Those special interests within society that currently have
such disproportionate influence within govvernment as well
as the politicians will effectively be the private owners.

I want to start right out here, like instantly, and say that you have not
given us a glimpse of what your ideal might be. Are you stiving for
maximum production, maximum freedom, maximum liberty, or simple economic
effeciency? I understand your disillusionment with government, but I don't
agree that the way to solve the problem is to dump government.


I don't buy the argument that govemrnet colletion of the
rent will be done well. The most dangerous aspect I see is
that the intra-socail weath transfers that occur in market
transactions will shift to political transfers.

I do not have a lot of respect for intra-social wealth tranfers (otherwise
known as inheritance of daddy's money, and political payoffs).

The result
will be that the transfers will be less transparent, larger,
more costly to produce and taken from a smaller pie.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. But I hasten to add that
this is what they are. I do not share these opinions and I most certainly
do not share these opinions if OUR House of Representatives is increased
to a a proper size to safegaurd the common people from the lobby, and the
rich folks. The solution to the problems of government as we have it today
is more representatives looking out for the common people as agents of the
common people. And lest you procede to tell us that the common people are
too stupid to govern themselves I suggest you read my signature.

I'm not convenced that the LTV works that well for the
type of large scale production inherent in the modern
world.

I am much interested in LTV (labor theory of value), but I think you are
proabably meaning to type "LVT" for (land value taxation).

Prvate ownership imparts a certain consistency
or certainty for planning that is not present in the
suggested approach.

There is a halfway measure that insulates certain resources from direct
political mayhem and that is the notion of "trusts".

Technological advancement and dispursed ownership of land
should drive whatever rent the land owner gets to a minimum
within the society.

Ricardian land rent is uneffected by dispursed ownership. And you are
right. Within a well informed rational society privatization of rent
should be minimal. What does this tell us about our current
politicians and their bought and paid for "neoconomists"? What does it
tell us about sales taxes and income taxes? Can anyone spell LYING?

I'm not convincent those same dynamics
apply when land is centrally owned -- and lets not fool ourselves,
we're not talking aboe everyone owning the land but about
government owning the land.

Actually most of us are talking about a much higher tax on land value as a
substitute for other taxes. I am, of course, going further than that, but
that is MY opinion as opposed to the consensus.

Theoretically that's not suppose
to matter in our society we in reality it most certainly does.

It can be fixed by expanding OUR House of Representatives.

Today individuals are largely free from the bondage of
land. Creating what I see as something that will just
develop into the Feudal State (it almost is already)
will only serve to make us all surfs once again.

Oh horsecrap, on both of those opinions.

The social evolutionary porcesses has done a great job
of eliminating bad social structures and allowing the
beneficial ones to flurish. If private land ownership is
as bad as claimed, let it live and then die it's natual
life with the replacement to the current function it
provides within an economy and society as that better
institutional framework emerges. That framework is not
government.

This is where we really diasagree. A proper government is a soultion as
opposed to a problem. IMHO the US system AS RATIFIED was a good one. We
need to actually do it the way it was insisted upon by those who ratified
the Constitution. What we have is a mistake or a deliberate sabotage. Most
people are totally unaware of "Article the first" (the actual FIRST
amendment to the Constituition set forth AHEAD of the "Bill of Rights"
BECAUSE of the importance placed on it by those who agreed to ratify the
Consistution). The "Federalists" would have been unable to get
ratification without promising this amendment. As the text read in the
version that went to the states for ratification ONE WORD WAS CHANGED BY
THE ARISTORATIC SENATE AND THE HOUSE LET IT STAND. That one word
completely reveresed the intent of the amendment and annuled the promise
made by the Federalists. Thus the amendment was not ratified and should
not have been ratified as worded. The amendment was destroyed before it
went to the states. "Article The First" would have set the MINIMUM size
of the House of Representatives in respect of population growth and thus,
the MAXIMUM size of electoral disrticts. In the final stanza the words
"no less than" were changed and it read "no more than" and that was the
end of that.

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/article1_history.htm


http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-04.htm

We need to double the membership of the House to FIX what is wrong with
OUR government. The neocons and the neoconomists want to throw out the
baby with the bath water by destroying what is left. Aristocrats ALL.

--
"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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
    ... Somehow I think the land ownership people ... a society or for the society as a whole? ... as the politicians will effectively be the private owners. ... I understand your disillusionment with government, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
    ... Somehow I think the land ownership people ... a society or for the society as a whole? ... as the politicians will effectively be the private owners. ... I understand your disillusionment with government, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: more electoral defeats for the feudalists
    ... Humanity has always had society, which is an outrgrowth of family, a biologically and psychologically natural unit. ... Government came much later when agriculture became the major mode of food production and land became property. ... To put landless folkd to work to sow and reap groups, then take the product of the labor of these landless folk. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
    ... Then why were you claiming that a government can infringe on a person's ... rights if those rights are not codified or even accepted by those people? ... The idea of inalienable rights for anyone in a Western society only exists ... can't claim that anyone has a right to the land they live on. ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
    ... Then why were you claiming that a government can infringe on a person's ... rights if those rights are not codified or even accepted by those people? ... The idea of inalienable rights for anyone in a Western society only exists ... can't claim that anyone has a right to the land they live on. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)