3 ms·

Those are ten thousand paintings which the public cannot experience or enjoy! In many ways, the paintings are more precious, as they could go on worldwide tours

by nickff 5y ago

Those are ten thousand paintings which the public cannot experience or enjoy! In many ways, the paintings are more precious, as they could go on worldwide tours, and be experienced by millions of people; most land has virtually no uniqueness, and cannot be shared.

derekjdanserl 5y ago
See: Owning huge amounts of land is uniquely antisocial. The point here is to maintain a society and some things must come first, namely material things which paintings are not. Of course, art history shows us time and time again the vital importance of material sustenance in creating and preserving works of art. If you really care about art, you have to care about the material foundations that make rich and meaningful social livelihoods possible.
- nickff 5y ago
  You emphasize "antisocial", and I am not sure why. I looked it up to double-check, and the main definition is "contrary to the laws and customs of society; devoid of or antagonistic to sociable instincts or practices." Could you please explain what you mean by "uniquely antisocial"? >"If you really care about art, you have to care about the material foundations that make rich and meaningful social livelihoods possible." I care about all the tiers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and I think that many paintings are worth a lot more than most 10k acres. The paintings also have the benefits of being able to contribute to shared experiences all over the world, and fulfilling more challenging needs.
  - i_haz_rabies 5y ago
    I'll take the 10k acres, wherever it may be: meadow, forest, desert, wherever, and enjoy not only the ability to sustain myself, but the beauty and meaning that one can only find in nature. The same beauty and meaning that every artist from the first ape to feel artistry to now has tried, and failed, to fully capture.
lmm 5y ago
Most paintings sit in museum storage and are hardly ever seen by anyone (maybe the occasional grad student specialising in that particular artist). Obviously I'm assuming an equal monetary value of paintings vs land; my point is not about how many acres equal how many paintings but about the impact on other people that taking $1M of paintings vs $1M of land out of circulation has.
- nickff 5y ago
  I completely agree with you regarding museums holding large collections which they do not exhibit; in fact, I think it highlights how a sort of 'George-ish' tax on paintings might be helpful! With respect to your second point, I think that taking each out of circulation has different effects. I would guess that most assets have a value of about what they're worth (i.e. the price mechanism works). I think Georgism is at least a valuable paradigm, and would be in favour of at least some pseudo-Georgist measures, such as only taxing land, to encourage higher-value uses rather than land+structures, and taxing all sorts of land at the same rate.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > I completely agree with you regarding museums holding large collections which they do not exhibit; in fact, I think it highlights how a sort of 'George-ish' tax on paintings might be helpful! I'm not convinced; after all these collections are often already in public ownership. If there was something more beneficial to the public to be done with them, one would hope that would already be happening.
zzzzzzzza 5y ago
the thing that is scarce is, depending on the country, not even really land itself but really proximity, connectedness in the graph of resources. price of land goes very high where there are lots of jobs and good schools....

by nickff 5y ago

derekjdanserl 5y ago

See: Owning huge amounts of land is uniquely antisocial. The point here is to maintain a society and some things must come first, namely material things which paintings are not. Of course, art history shows us time and time again the vital importance of material sustenance in creating and preserving works of art. If you really care about art, you have to care about the material foundations that make rich and meaningful social livelihoods possible.

nickff 5y ago
You emphasize "antisocial", and I am not sure why. I looked it up to double-check, and the main definition is "contrary to the laws and customs of society; devoid of or antagonistic to sociable instincts or practices." Could you please explain what you mean by "uniquely antisocial"? >"If you really care about art, you have to care about the material foundations that make rich and meaningful social livelihoods possible." I care about all the tiers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and I think that many paintings are worth a lot more than most 10k acres. The paintings also have the benefits of being able to contribute to shared experiences all over the world, and fulfilling more challenging needs.
- i_haz_rabies 5y ago
  I'll take the 10k acres, wherever it may be: meadow, forest, desert, wherever, and enjoy not only the ability to sustain myself, but the beauty and meaning that one can only find in nature. The same beauty and meaning that every artist from the first ape to feel artistry to now has tried, and failed, to fully capture.

lmm 5y ago

Most paintings sit in museum storage and are hardly ever seen by anyone (maybe the occasional grad student specialising in that particular artist). Obviously I'm assuming an equal monetary value of paintings vs land; my point is not about how many acres equal how many paintings but about the impact on other people that taking $1M of paintings vs $1M of land out of circulation has.

nickff 5y ago
I completely agree with you regarding museums holding large collections which they do not exhibit; in fact, I think it highlights how a sort of 'George-ish' tax on paintings might be helpful! With respect to your second point, I think that taking each out of circulation has different effects. I would guess that most assets have a value of about what they're worth (i.e. the price mechanism works). I think Georgism is at least a valuable paradigm, and would be in favour of at least some pseudo-Georgist measures, such as only taxing land, to encourage higher-value uses rather than land+structures, and taxing all sorts of land at the same rate.
- lmm 5y ago
  > I completely agree with you regarding museums holding large collections which they do not exhibit; in fact, I think it highlights how a sort of 'George-ish' tax on paintings might be helpful! I'm not convinced; after all these collections are often already in public ownership. If there was something more beneficial to the public to be done with them, one would hope that would already be happening.

zzzzzzzza 5y ago

the thing that is scarce is, depending on the country, not even really land itself but really proximity, connectedness in the graph of resources. price of land goes very high where there are lots of jobs and good schools....