4 ms·

Maybe I put too much emphasis on the structure of private property. I sort of connect trading of private property rights as rent seeking almost by definition. I

Maybe I put too much emphasis on the structure of private property. I sort of connect trading of private property rights as rent seeking almost by definition. If there were no profits in such trades, we would call them swaps no? And capitalism being explicitly about making property tradable is by implication about rent seeking.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
"Trading of private property rights" is redundant, because it's literally just trade. That's not rent-seeking.
- CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
  Yes and no. Trading services does not involve property, so no. But yes goods and capital can be bundled up as property when talking about trade. I do think there is a distinction somewhere, not exactly sure where yet. Such that even trade in goods is excluded from the kind of property rights I'm thinking of. I guess the line goes somewhere between scarse and abundant. But even then I guess we have to separate scarse as in unique talents, and scarse as in accumulated resources.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Trading services does not involve property, so no. It does. Everyone has self-ownership, and as such services can only be sold in the units contracted. A contract for a single indefinite unit service (slavery) would be logically consistent, but a property rights violation and therefore invalid.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Start at the beginning. Here's a tin mine. But it wasn't always there; it's there because a prospector found a tin deposit, presumably as the result of a large amount of effort. It's there because somebody invested in equipment to make it economically viable to extract the tin. So viewing that as "rent" seems a bit off. Same thing with farmland. There's a farm there because somebody made a farm there; it wasn't always farmland. Somebody cut down the trees, cleared the brush, broke the ground, and started planting. It wasn't easy. Later, somebody (a series of somebodies) bought the equipment for the farm to be economically viable in the current environment. Real rent is when the king or somebody gives you a monopoly on selling boot blacking (or whatever), so you can charge whatever you decide, and everybody has to pay it or go without boot blacking. I don't see a farm or a mine in the same category. (I do see a house for rent in an area with zoning restrictions in the category of economic rent, though.) I guess I also didn't give a concrete place to draw the line, though...
    - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
      I guess I'd like the prospector to get reasonably compensated for the services, but think indefinite exclusive rights to be passed on for untold generations is excessive, and thus rent. In the case of he farmer the cost/value calculation is probably such that a 10-20 year contract would be enough for the investment to pay off. So it seems I'm arguing that perpetua, inheritable, property rights can be excessive, and thus create rent
    - wycx 11y ago
      At least in Australia, the tin mine scenario would go like this: an exploration company would peg an exploration lease-the monopoly right to explore for minerals on that land. They pay the (state) government for the privilege. when an economic deposit is discovered, the company can apply for a mining lease-the monopoly right to exploit the tin deposit. The pay the government for the lease, and also a royalty on the minerals. Whilst you can say that the mine was not there, and someone had to invest capital to exploit the deposit, the minerals themselves were always there, and once extracted are gone forever. Perhaps the price at which the government sells monopoly mineral rights relative to the profits sets the boundary between rent seeking and not?
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
How is making property tradable "about rent seeking"? It's about pursuit of profit, sure. But rent seeking? How so? Or are you defining pursuit of profit to be "rent seeking"? If so, your definition is in error; that's not what is meant by the term.
- CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
  Property as in traded for its speculative value (buy some land, wait for demand to raise, sell it). As opposed to traded as part of a service (buy plastic, turn it into a toy, sell it) Capitalism promotes the former type of trade. For example inventing patents and copyrights as tradable property. these types of propert have no intrinsic value besides the rent extraction.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    I can buy a piece of land, wait for the price to go up, and sell it. Or I can buy a piece of land, improve it, and eventually sell it. So I'm not sure why you single out the former as the defining thing that private property rights causes.
    - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
      Because you don't need private property for the latter. You can just skip the buy and sell part and jump directly to improve and get paid
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        I can improve land I don't own? I don't see how I'm going to manage to get paid in that scenario...
        CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
        I'm not sure I follow. If someone sees value in getting the improvement done and are willing to pay you to do it. you can offer your services and accept payment.
zo1 11y ago
If you assume a completely non-coercive scenario: Each side values what they're getting more than they do what they're giving out. So I wouldn't go so far as saying that it is a straight swap. Furthermore, in order to define/measure it as such we'd have to have some sort of objective measurement of the values exchanged.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

"Trading of private property rights" is redundant, because it's literally just trade. That's not rent-seeking.

CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
Yes and no. Trading services does not involve property, so no. But yes goods and capital can be bundled up as property when talking about trade. I do think there is a distinction somewhere, not exactly sure where yet. Such that even trade in goods is excluded from the kind of property rights I'm thinking of. I guess the line goes somewhere between scarse and abundant. But even then I guess we have to separate scarse as in unique talents, and scarse as in accumulated resources.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Trading services does not involve property, so no. It does. Everyone has self-ownership, and as such services can only be sold in the units contracted. A contract for a single indefinite unit service (slavery) would be logically consistent, but a property rights violation and therefore invalid.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Start at the beginning. Here's a tin mine. But it wasn't always there; it's there because a prospector found a tin deposit, presumably as the result of a large amount of effort. It's there because somebody invested in equipment to make it economically viable to extract the tin. So viewing that as "rent" seems a bit off. Same thing with farmland. There's a farm there because somebody made a farm there; it wasn't always farmland. Somebody cut down the trees, cleared the brush, broke the ground, and started planting. It wasn't easy. Later, somebody (a series of somebodies) bought the equipment for the farm to be economically viable in the current environment. Real rent is when the king or somebody gives you a monopoly on selling boot blacking (or whatever), so you can charge whatever you decide, and everybody has to pay it or go without boot blacking. I don't see a farm or a mine in the same category. (I do see a house for rent in an area with zoning restrictions in the category of economic rent, though.) I guess I also didn't give a concrete place to draw the line, though...
  - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
    I guess I'd like the prospector to get reasonably compensated for the services, but think indefinite exclusive rights to be passed on for untold generations is excessive, and thus rent. In the case of he farmer the cost/value calculation is probably such that a 10-20 year contract would be enough for the investment to pay off. So it seems I'm arguing that perpetua, inheritable, property rights can be excessive, and thus create rent
  - wycx 11y ago
    At least in Australia, the tin mine scenario would go like this: an exploration company would peg an exploration lease-the monopoly right to explore for minerals on that land. They pay the (state) government for the privilege. when an economic deposit is discovered, the company can apply for a mining lease-the monopoly right to exploit the tin deposit. The pay the government for the lease, and also a royalty on the minerals. Whilst you can say that the mine was not there, and someone had to invest capital to exploit the deposit, the minerals themselves were always there, and once extracted are gone forever. Perhaps the price at which the government sells monopoly mineral rights relative to the profits sets the boundary between rent seeking and not?

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

How is making property tradable "about rent seeking"? It's about pursuit of profit, sure. But rent seeking? How so? Or are you defining pursuit of profit to be "rent seeking"? If so, your definition is in error; that's not what is meant by the term.

CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
Property as in traded for its speculative value (buy some land, wait for demand to raise, sell it). As opposed to traded as part of a service (buy plastic, turn it into a toy, sell it) Capitalism promotes the former type of trade. For example inventing patents and copyrights as tradable property. these types of propert have no intrinsic value besides the rent extraction.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  I can buy a piece of land, wait for the price to go up, and sell it. Or I can buy a piece of land, improve it, and eventually sell it. So I'm not sure why you single out the former as the defining thing that private property rights causes.
  - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
    Because you don't need private property for the latter. You can just skip the buy and sell part and jump directly to improve and get paid
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      I can improve land I don't own? I don't see how I'm going to manage to get paid in that scenario...
      - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
        I'm not sure I follow. If someone sees value in getting the improvement done and are willing to pay you to do it. you can offer your services and accept payment.

zo1 11y ago

If you assume a completely non-coercive scenario: Each side values what they're getting more than they do what they're giving out. So I wouldn't go so far as saying that it is a straight swap. Furthermore, in order to define/measure it as such we'd have to have some sort of objective measurement of the values exchanged.