5 ms·

>> choose to continue paying rent shows it is valuable to you. > It is valuable to me. That is the very definition of economic value. https://www.investopedi

>> choose to continue paying rent shows it is valuable to you. > It is valuable to me. That is the very definition of economic value. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic-value.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic-value.asp

neonological 6y ago
Does air have economic value? Yes it does. Does that fact help your point in any way? No. If I make a law to allow people to own air, then people start renting out the air and living off of the income of renting air. That's where your archaic Adam Smith model of the economy completely fails. Under your idealistic model there's no concept of an unfair transaction because all parties benefited from the transaction. One person can breath so he's happy, another person got money from renting air so he's happy. Everyone is happy, so the concept of getting ripped off doesn't exist.
- kbutler 6y ago
  Markets for air already exist where scarcity prevails: - scuba - medical oxygen - submarines - space - polluted areas (search for "beijing canned air") The law privatizing air that you suggest would match rental housing only if you're renting a vacant lot w/o buildings in a place without land scarcity. It's actually most similar to copyright - inducing artificial scarcity to create a market. I already described some criteria for unfair transactions: compulsion or deception. You could also make arguments that if one side captures nearly all the economic surplus, the transaction is unfair (generally maintained via government-enforced monopolies limiting competition). Rather than trying to assert Adam Smith's obsolescence, you should probably try googling "Adam Smith landlord". I expect you'll like the quotes. (I'd recommend learning more about the context more than just the quotes, but hey, it's the internet).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - neonological 6y ago
    > Markets for air already exist where scarcity prevails: Scarcity is not the issue here. Energy is the issue. This is where you lack intense knowledge. In every scenario you describe energy was used to compress the air and place it into the canister. That it productive work. For air and land in your typical scenario, there is zero productive work. This is what I'm referring too. Your scarcity argument is off topic. Nobody is talking about that scarcity in your sense. What we are talking about is artificially induced scarcity. By owning air, and owning more land that I need, I artificially induce scarcity and force people to pay me rent to live off of land I don't need and contributed nothing to the economy in exchange for economic gain. The important factor here is that each instance of artificially induced scarcity sets up a scenario where the person who owns capital does not have to contribute to the GDP in order to benefit from the profits coming out of the asset. I'm not going to be paying a dime for the house I currently will own or sell. I am simply using a complex financial tool, to redirect wealth towards me. >I already described some criteria for unfair transactions: compulsion or deception. You could also make arguments that if one side captures nearly all the economic surplus, the transaction is unfair (generally maintained via government-enforced monopolies limiting competition). What do you think is going on when "one side" owns property that can house 400 people and just rents it all out? Also who do you think actually allows one person to own more property than they need or to even own air if such a concept existed? The Government. >Rather than trying to assert Adam Smith's obsolescence, you should probably try googling "Adam Smith landlord". I expect you'll like the quotes. (I'd recommend learning more about the context more than just the quotes, but hey, it's the internet). What do you mean trying to assert? You're the one talking about an invisible hand in a world that is clearly not auto-magically heading towards equilibrium. Nobody and I mean basically nobody deciding economic policy and nobody in academia thinks this stuff is relevant in the discussion of a modern economy. If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize that I'm not asserting anything. I'm just restating the assertions of the rest of the world. https://hbr.org/2012/04/there-is-no-invisible-hand https://hbr.org/2012/04/there-is-no-invisible-hand Heck, why do you think the Fed exists if Adam Smith had any relevancy today? Why do you think bubbles and market crashes exist? Adam Smith is basically famous for being like Sigmund Freud. The Father of a modern academic field of study but still mostly wrong in the face of scientific evidence. By referencing him in a conversation about the modern economy makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. As for the quotes, it's not that I don't understand the context of "quotes" it's just that you're not quick enough to grasp the context of why I used the "quotes." See? I did again, let's see if you can kick that brain into gear and "grasp" why I chose to put the quotes around this "word."

neonological 6y ago

Does air have economic value? Yes it does. Does that fact help your point in any way? No. If I make a law to allow people to own air, then people start renting out the air and living off of the income of renting air. That's where your archaic Adam Smith model of the economy completely fails. Under your idealistic model there's no concept of an unfair transaction because all parties benefited from the transaction. One person can breath so he's happy, another person got money from renting air so he's happy. Everyone is happy, so the concept of getting ripped off doesn't exist.

kbutler 6y ago
Markets for air already exist where scarcity prevails: - scuba - medical oxygen - submarines - space - polluted areas (search for "beijing canned air") The law privatizing air that you suggest would match rental housing only if you're renting a vacant lot w/o buildings in a place without land scarcity. It's actually most similar to copyright - inducing artificial scarcity to create a market. I already described some criteria for unfair transactions: compulsion or deception. You could also make arguments that if one side captures nearly all the economic surplus, the transaction is unfair (generally maintained via government-enforced monopolies limiting competition). Rather than trying to assert Adam Smith's obsolescence, you should probably try googling "Adam Smith landlord". I expect you'll like the quotes. (I'd recommend learning more about the context more than just the quotes, but hey, it's the internet).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- neonological 6y ago
  > Markets for air already exist where scarcity prevails: Scarcity is not the issue here. Energy is the issue. This is where you lack intense knowledge. In every scenario you describe energy was used to compress the air and place it into the canister. That it productive work. For air and land in your typical scenario, there is zero productive work. This is what I'm referring too. Your scarcity argument is off topic. Nobody is talking about that scarcity in your sense. What we are talking about is artificially induced scarcity. By owning air, and owning more land that I need, I artificially induce scarcity and force people to pay me rent to live off of land I don't need and contributed nothing to the economy in exchange for economic gain. The important factor here is that each instance of artificially induced scarcity sets up a scenario where the person who owns capital does not have to contribute to the GDP in order to benefit from the profits coming out of the asset. I'm not going to be paying a dime for the house I currently will own or sell. I am simply using a complex financial tool, to redirect wealth towards me. >I already described some criteria for unfair transactions: compulsion or deception. You could also make arguments that if one side captures nearly all the economic surplus, the transaction is unfair (generally maintained via government-enforced monopolies limiting competition). What do you think is going on when "one side" owns property that can house 400 people and just rents it all out? Also who do you think actually allows one person to own more property than they need or to even own air if such a concept existed? The Government. >Rather than trying to assert Adam Smith's obsolescence, you should probably try googling "Adam Smith landlord". I expect you'll like the quotes. (I'd recommend learning more about the context more than just the quotes, but hey, it's the internet). What do you mean trying to assert? You're the one talking about an invisible hand in a world that is clearly not auto-magically heading towards equilibrium. Nobody and I mean basically nobody deciding economic policy and nobody in academia thinks this stuff is relevant in the discussion of a modern economy. If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize that I'm not asserting anything. I'm just restating the assertions of the rest of the world. https://hbr.org/2012/04/there-is-no-invisible-hand https://hbr.org/2012/04/there-is-no-invisible-hand Heck, why do you think the Fed exists if Adam Smith had any relevancy today? Why do you think bubbles and market crashes exist? Adam Smith is basically famous for being like Sigmund Freud. The Father of a modern academic field of study but still mostly wrong in the face of scientific evidence. By referencing him in a conversation about the modern economy makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. As for the quotes, it's not that I don't understand the context of "quotes" it's just that you're not quick enough to grasp the context of why I used the "quotes." See? I did again, let's see if you can kick that brain into gear and "grasp" why I chose to put the quotes around this "word."