ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, what I'm hearing is a sound critique of *rentier* capital,
I don't know what you mean by "rentier capital," and prefer to define terms clearly and accurately.
Privilege is a legal entitlement to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation. If that is what you are talking about, please do not call it "rentier capital."
because of the automatically-wealth-increasing *privilege* of such private property ownership (of various forms) (of necessarily / by-definition *non-productive* capital -- assets and resources).
The defining characteristic of privilege is that unlike, say, a factory, whose owner can only increase his wealth by producing value, relieving scarcity, and making others richer, the owner of a privilege increases his wealth by the abrogation of others' rights, making them poorer. So the problem with privilege is not that it makes its owners richer -- we all want to be richer -- but that it makes others poorer. And to correct your misstatement, natural resources like land are not unproductive, only their owners are.
Okay, good to hear. So you're *pro* digital-commons, basically.
I'd go further, and abolish all patent and copyright monopolies.
You're saying that brands and trademarks hold some kind of *social* / mindshare / reputational value -- can you expand on this part at all -- ?
They certify the source of a product, preventing fraudulent pretenses of quality. Note that a person's name is also a brand. So for example, in the absence of copyright one could rewrite and republish the Harry Potter novels, or even just photocopy and sell them, but one could not claim they were JK Rowling's work without her permission to use her name.
Should the same government administration that you're critical of
I don't criticize government per se, mainly just its subservience to the narrow financial interests of the privileged super-duper uber-rich.
be the social institution to regulate over brands and trademarks -- like perhaps the 'recycle' (triple-arrow) logo, since that's been corporate and controversial.
I'm not familiar with the controversy. Nothing is perfect, and greedy people will always concoct schemes to take advantage of any system, but I have no
a priori objection to government regulating use of brands and trademarks.
What if some company's brand or reputation has been aggressively *attacked*, resulting in *devaluation*, or an individual has been socially *harmed*, through unwarranted malicious discourse -- how would the government handle these kinds of 'justice' situations, if people are seeking 'compensation' or 'public acknowledgement' -- ?
There are libel laws, etc. Admittedly, the age of the Internet makes enforcement problematical, as so much can be done anonymously.
In other words -- if I may -- the market will inherently provide a *market* valuation for any-given parcel of land, as a function of sheer emergence.
Right.
In all of these cases / examples it's the *state* (bureaucracy) that enjoys the quantification / financialization of whatever natural and social resources / natural-monopolies exist.
The idea is that the state (i.e., its government) is democratically accountable to its citizens. How that is managed in practice is a different issue, but I'm not talking about historical situations of monarchy, or contemporary dictatorships.
And how *would* such a bureaucracy / administration / government *valuate* those state assets if they happened to go unclaimed by the private sector, like an abandoned building that's financially 'under-water' -- ?
As it was privately produced, the building would be privately owned; only the land under it would be public until such time as some private person paid for secure, exclusive tenure.
There's no 'rental value' available as a measurement if there's no *renting*, or purchasing / auctioning going on due to lack of economic activity.
There is always economic activity. If no more than one person was willing to pay for secure, exclusive tenure to a given location, they would get it for free. If more than one person was willing to pay, the person who was willing to pay the most would get it for a bit more than the person who wanted it second most was willing to pay. Some people advocate "Vickrey auctions" where the high bidder would get it for the second highest bidder's bid.
How is the (presumably national) government *funded* -- ?
IMO national governments are best funded by seigniorage on money issuance and Pigovian taxes. Location subsidy repayment (LSR) is better suited to junior governments. Of course, revenue sources and responsibility for expenditures have to go together. As most land value is locally created, the local community should recover it.
Why does the local 'community' get to benefit from 'land creation',
There is no land creation, obviously. The local community is largely responsible for providing the desirable public services and infrastructure -- and enabling the private activities that create the opportunities and amenities -- that make the land more advantageous, so it rightly recovers the value it creates.
and why would the national government be so *generous* in not-claiming control and administration *itself*, instead magnanimously devolving such economic activity to 'the community' in all cases,
People have generally found that devolving some responsibilities to junior governments is more efficient and accountable, especially if the nation is large and geographically diverse.
while still having to spend on (aforementioned) 'desirable public services and infrastucture' -- ?
Most of that spending is local. Of course it depends on the country. In a place like Singapore, the national government IS local. In big, diverse countries like Russia, Canada, China, Brazil or the USA, there are states or provinces as well as city governments that handle a lot of the spending on services and infrastructure. The various levels of government come to a modus vivendi.
Don't you ever get tired of making those claims, and then seeing me prove you wrong?
- By FiveofSwords
- By Pants-of-dog
- By litwin