4 ms·

Why do you want to be a tenant, with a maximum-rent-seeking landlord in the federal government? The BLM was set up to avoid tradgedy-of-the-commons resource ex

Why do you want to be a tenant, with a maximum-rent-seeking landlord in the federal government? The BLM was set up to avoid tradgedy-of-the-commons resource extraction. That's it. The land doesn't belong to the government — it belongs to the people. The goal is not a business trying to fleece "consumers" as much as it can get away with. To the extent that those agencies charge fees, it's to make sure people are efficiently using their permits, which is a healthy dynamic. You're trying to invert this relationship into making people subservient to a corporate government, which is gross.

mywittyname 5y ago
For "tenants" who make money off federal lands, rent-seeking seems a-okay. For "tenants" who are enjoying the view, then subsidization is great. There are too many business exploiting the federal government for the best of both worlds. They will "lease" land, usually at a step discount to market rate, then still stiff the government. This turns out to be so much cheaper than owning the land, because if they don't pay property taxes, the government will auction off their land to someone who will make sure they get paid. See: people like Ammon Bundy.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  The Ammon Bundy example is a good one — the BLM-managed lands have * always * been open for grazing for almost nothing, because — like I said — the only point is avoiding the tragedy of the commons. The federal government never gave people the option of buying that land for themselves! Now, people see people using federal land the way it was intended, and complain that the BLM isn't being a cost-effective landlord. And that's true... because that's a terrible thing for the BLM to become.
  - specialist 5y ago
    What's your Ammon Bundy takeaway? That federal lands should be a free-for-all? I don't know about cost-effectiveness, or what that even means. In the case of BLM, they're just expediting the plunder of our natural resources for the benefit of a select few. (To say nothing of betraying their charter.) I don't expect BLM to be revenue positive. But I do expect them to charge fair prices in the open market. Because fair is fair.
    - bpodgursky 5y ago
      My take-away is that the BLM should charge a nominal fee and prevent overgrazing. > To say nothing of betraying their charter Their charter is absolutely to enable the extraction of resources from federal lands. It's a wild reinterpretation of history to claim otherwise. > But I do expect them to charge fair prices in the open market There is no "open market" for land; the BLM owns, for example 65% of Nevada, and huge amounts of Utah, Montana etc. If the US government was a telecom company, everyone here would be up in arms about monopoly price gouging if they tried to charge "market" rates, because consumers have no alternative!
specialist 5y ago
> The BLM was set up to avoid tradgedy-of-the-commons resource extraction. If BLM actually ever did that, I'd be completely onboard. Also, we the people are the government, are the state. As we see every day, bad things happen when that tether is severed.
posterboy 5y ago
Overall it's saying, if I may deduce as much, that overfishing by fisheries is endangering wildlife and that taxes are invested to slow this process. It's not arguing that commercial revenue should be deducted from the fisheries as if they were working for the government (and I'm not sure if the 1$ figure is ammortized by taxes payed from this industry or if the taxes are already included in it). One consequence would be to eat less fish and go get one if you really want it. Of course this would again create a market and it's a slippery sloap with regards to small scale commercial fishers. So, in a sense that's a gross calculation, if that's what you mean.

mywittyname 5y ago

For "tenants" who make money off federal lands, rent-seeking seems a-okay. For "tenants" who are enjoying the view, then subsidization is great. There are too many business exploiting the federal government for the best of both worlds. They will "lease" land, usually at a step discount to market rate, then still stiff the government. This turns out to be so much cheaper than owning the land, because if they don't pay property taxes, the government will auction off their land to someone who will make sure they get paid. See: people like Ammon Bundy.

bpodgursky 5y ago
The Ammon Bundy example is a good one — the BLM-managed lands have * always * been open for grazing for almost nothing, because — like I said — the only point is avoiding the tragedy of the commons. The federal government never gave people the option of buying that land for themselves! Now, people see people using federal land the way it was intended, and complain that the BLM isn't being a cost-effective landlord. And that's true... because that's a terrible thing for the BLM to become.
- specialist 5y ago
  What's your Ammon Bundy takeaway? That federal lands should be a free-for-all? I don't know about cost-effectiveness, or what that even means. In the case of BLM, they're just expediting the plunder of our natural resources for the benefit of a select few. (To say nothing of betraying their charter.) I don't expect BLM to be revenue positive. But I do expect them to charge fair prices in the open market. Because fair is fair.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    My take-away is that the BLM should charge a nominal fee and prevent overgrazing. > To say nothing of betraying their charter Their charter is absolutely to enable the extraction of resources from federal lands. It's a wild reinterpretation of history to claim otherwise. > But I do expect them to charge fair prices in the open market There is no "open market" for land; the BLM owns, for example 65% of Nevada, and huge amounts of Utah, Montana etc. If the US government was a telecom company, everyone here would be up in arms about monopoly price gouging if they tried to charge "market" rates, because consumers have no alternative!

specialist 5y ago

> The BLM was set up to avoid tradgedy-of-the-commons resource extraction. If BLM actually ever did that, I'd be completely onboard. Also, we the people are the government, are the state. As we see every day, bad things happen when that tether is severed.

posterboy 5y ago

Overall it's saying, if I may deduce as much, that overfishing by fisheries is endangering wildlife and that taxes are invested to slow this process. It's not arguing that commercial revenue should be deducted from the fisheries as if they were working for the government (and I'm not sure if the 1$ figure is ammortized by taxes payed from this industry or if the taxes are already included in it). One consequence would be to eat less fish and go get one if you really want it. Of course this would again create a market and it's a slippery sloap with regards to small scale commercial fishers. So, in a sense that's a gross calculation, if that's what you mean.