11 ms·
> 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 taxp
by 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 agoIt'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.