3 ms·
Thanks. You touch upon one of my pet peeves. A huge amount of legislative energy is spent to ensure that capital can move around unfettered. On the contrary, mo
by srean 11y ago
Thanks. You touch upon one of my pet peeves. A huge amount of legislative energy is spent to ensure that capital can move around unfettered. On the contrary, movement of skill and intellectual property seems purposefully hindered. Implicitly it says that capital is much more important than the others, I simply disagree.
- mathattack 11y agoIt helps for capital to have cheaper labor, and vice versa. :-) The system grows best when both are free. (Incidentally, this is also why I'm ok with stock buybacks. If companies can't put their money to good use, retire the stock and let people invest it elsewhere)
- dredmorbius 11y agoIt's less that capital is more important and more that it's inherently more concentrated, and hence, more capable of expressing its political will. A dynamic pointed out quite explicitly by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations.
- mathattack 11y agoThere's an economics term for this, though I'm spacing on the name. It's the same reason the taxi lobby is so strong - it's a subset of 1 issue voters with concentrated financial support of key issues. It's also behind why tax loopholes are so hard to close - a small subset cares a lot, but the masses less so.
- dredmorbius 11y agoThere are several. Smith noted Hobbes's truism: wealth is power. You might be thinking of the logic of collective action, Mancur Olsen.
- mathattack 11y agoYes - Mancur Olson it is. Thanks! It's more subtle than just Wealth is Power, as it also explains some counterintuitive results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
- dredmorbius 11y agoQuite. A personal fave.
- guelo 11y agoYes! Imagine if these trade deals were also about allowing the unfettered movement of people.