3 ms·

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

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.

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.