4 ms·

"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?

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?