4 ms·

Seems like a fair policy for all sides though I wonder how does that work in practice? This painting made waves of course but are they constantly monitoring auc

Seems like a fair policy for all sides though I wonder how does that work in practice? This painting made waves of course but are they constantly monitoring auctions to see if anything of national interest turns up?

snapplebobapple 3y ago
Its not really fair because the french government doesnt have to participate in the auction, increasing the price to keep it. They wait for private market to set price and then take it at that price. This deprives the private auction winner of price expression, as they may have been willing to pay more and it deprives the owner of price discovery. Its not really a good thing for anyone except the French government, who is abusing market power here to get a better price, which guarantees dead weight loss to society as a whole.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  But it also increases the chances that significant art pieces are purchased by museums and that the public is given access to them, which is a net good that I consider far more valuable than auction fairness.
- Loic 3y ago
  I am very happy to support this incredible burden to our society to get these arts in a museum instead of stored in a freeport[0]. [0]: https://curiousaboutart.com/business-of-art/list-of-freeport-art-storage-centers-around-the-world/ https://curiousaboutart.com/business-of-art/list-of-freeport...
- cipheredStones 3y ago
  It's quite a rhetorical move to look at two people involved in a transaction and say "it's not a good thing for anyone", by implicitly excluding the entire public.
- kergonath 3y ago
  > Its not really a good thing for anyone except the French government It’s a good thing for the people who will be able to see it, either now or in the future, and for the people who will be able to study it. It’s not great when works of art end up buried in archives, but it’s a disgrace when they end up in private collections, never to be seen again. The buyer don’t lose anything. They can throw a tantrum because they don’t get their nice picture and it’s really too sad. It’s a bad thing for the people who built a business exfiltrating artistic pieces out of their country, but fuck them. It’s difficult to feel bad for the guy who got only €24M instead of €26M, honestly.
  - snapplebobapple 3y ago
    translation: I'm ok with deadweight loss to society because it benefits me and screws people I don't know who are getting paid a number (and who are willing to pay a number) that I perceive to be a lot of money anyway. If you think it's a good thing that government can swoop in and take something they didn't earn via bidding for. You need to get your head on straight because there are many things you or your friends might possess that may look mighty fine to some government guy in the future and you want strong property rights to protect you. Also, it's intensely weird to say a government should be able to export ban and right of first refusal anything as foolish as art. What's next? Export ban and right of first refusal on all tinder dates about to be consumated? It's utterly bizarre. If you want something and it's for sale, pay for it at the auction where you have the chance to get it, just like everyone else.
    - gwervc 3y ago
      > deadweight loss to society On the contrary, the final price being (a bit) lowered (theoretically) is a good thing for society, and by society I mean the taxpayers. The Louvre is partially funded using public money.
      - snapplebobapple 3y ago
        It's shocking how often people fail to comprehend second and third order consequences to claim deadweight loss is good. Tax payers are almost certainly not better off because one tax payer got screwed out of a more correct and higher market clearing price. Tax payers are not better off because this policy encourages smuggling to different locales to sell paintings, which results in some loss of artwork to damage, loss of income tax on the transaction, etc, making every one of them poorer (indeed making the world poorer in the case of loss of art to damage). Tax payers are not better off because they have all had their property rights infringed by this policy.

snapplebobapple 3y ago

Its not really fair because the french government doesnt have to participate in the auction, increasing the price to keep it. They wait for private market to set price and then take it at that price. This deprives the private auction winner of price expression, as they may have been willing to pay more and it deprives the owner of price discovery. Its not really a good thing for anyone except the French government, who is abusing market power here to get a better price, which guarantees dead weight loss to society as a whole.

BobaFloutist 3y ago
But it also increases the chances that significant art pieces are purchased by museums and that the public is given access to them, which is a net good that I consider far more valuable than auction fairness.
Loic 3y ago
I am very happy to support this incredible burden to our society to get these arts in a museum instead of stored in a freeport[0]. [0]: https://curiousaboutart.com/business-of-art/list-of-freeport-art-storage-centers-around-the-world/ https://curiousaboutart.com/business-of-art/list-of-freeport...
cipheredStones 3y ago
It's quite a rhetorical move to look at two people involved in a transaction and say "it's not a good thing for anyone", by implicitly excluding the entire public.
kergonath 3y ago
> Its not really a good thing for anyone except the French government It’s a good thing for the people who will be able to see it, either now or in the future, and for the people who will be able to study it. It’s not great when works of art end up buried in archives, but it’s a disgrace when they end up in private collections, never to be seen again. The buyer don’t lose anything. They can throw a tantrum because they don’t get their nice picture and it’s really too sad. It’s a bad thing for the people who built a business exfiltrating artistic pieces out of their country, but fuck them. It’s difficult to feel bad for the guy who got only €24M instead of €26M, honestly.
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  translation: I'm ok with deadweight loss to society because it benefits me and screws people I don't know who are getting paid a number (and who are willing to pay a number) that I perceive to be a lot of money anyway. If you think it's a good thing that government can swoop in and take something they didn't earn via bidding for. You need to get your head on straight because there are many things you or your friends might possess that may look mighty fine to some government guy in the future and you want strong property rights to protect you. Also, it's intensely weird to say a government should be able to export ban and right of first refusal anything as foolish as art. What's next? Export ban and right of first refusal on all tinder dates about to be consumated? It's utterly bizarre. If you want something and it's for sale, pay for it at the auction where you have the chance to get it, just like everyone else.
  - gwervc 3y ago
    > deadweight loss to society On the contrary, the final price being (a bit) lowered (theoretically) is a good thing for society, and by society I mean the taxpayers. The Louvre is partially funded using public money.
    - snapplebobapple 3y ago
      It's shocking how often people fail to comprehend second and third order consequences to claim deadweight loss is good. Tax payers are almost certainly not better off because one tax payer got screwed out of a more correct and higher market clearing price. Tax payers are not better off because this policy encourages smuggling to different locales to sell paintings, which results in some loss of artwork to damage, loss of income tax on the transaction, etc, making every one of them poorer (indeed making the world poorer in the case of loss of art to damage). Tax payers are not better off because they have all had their property rights infringed by this policy.