|
posted by dennisn on July 15th, 2023 at 7:10PM
Give us the tl;dr
|
Ancap Economies Don't Bootstrap Pricesposted by sleepy-sniper on July 15th, 2023 at 9:41PM
> Give us the tl;dr
This is the best summary I can give you (5 paragraphs, instead of 22), but you should make your comments on BG's blog instead, in case he has anything to respond with.
Markets are an excellent mechanism for organizing production and distribution, but they aren’t magic. They don’t generate prices ex nihilo. Market prices are circular. The price of a product depends on the prices of the inputs to its production. The price also depends on the supply and demand for the product, given the prices of other products.
A market is a mechanism for continuously optimizing a collection of prices relative to one another. The price of any product depends on the prices of the inputs to its production, as well as the prices of competing products, and the current supply and demand. So, prices depend on prices. This circularity must be bootstrapped for markets to work.
In modern societies, prices are bootstrapped in an ad hoc way, without any design or plan. This makes market prices somewhat random. They depend on external conditions in ways that are unclear and unchosen.
The best way to bootstrap market prices is to appraise the physical inputs to the economy, AKA "natural resources", based on their utility, scarcity and downstream effects (such as pollution). Natural resource taxation should be applied at the point of use, extraction or degradation. All prices ultimately depend on the prices of natural resources, and the prices of natural resources are not entirely determined by the market.
Libertarians might complain that natural resource taxation would require price-setting by government bureaucrats, which is an opportunity for corruption. That is true, but prices have to be bootstrapped somehow. Markets aren’t magic. Implicit, ad hoc pricing creates more opportunities for corruption and evasion. If we don’t price natural resources, then markets are not bootstrapped, and we have a tragedy of the commons. Currently, we have a mixture of ad hoc pricing and no pricing.
|
Shorter, Better Summary of Natural Resource Taxationposted by sleepy-sniper on July 16th, 2023 at 2:19AM
I made a shorter, better summary (4 paragraphs instead of 5):
Markets are an excellent mechanism for organizing production and distribution, but they don't generate prices *ex nihilo*. Market prices are circular. The price of a product depends on three factors:
1. The prices of the inputs to its production.
2. The prices of competing products.
3. The supply and demand for the product, given the prices of other products.
So, prices depend on prices. Markets are a way to continuously optimize a collection of prices relative to one another, but this circularity must be bootstrapped for markets to work. In modern societies, prices are bootstrapped in an ad hoc way, using a combination of resource extraction fees, regulations, licenses, taxes, government fiat, etc. This causes market prices to depend on external conditions in ways that are random and unclear, without any design or plan.
The best way to bootstrap market prices is to appraise the physical inputs to the economy, natural resources, based on their utility, scarcity and downstream effects (such as pollution). Natural resource taxation should be applied at the point of use, extraction or degradation. All prices ultimately depend on the prices of natural resources, and the prices of natural resources are not entirely determined by the market.
Libertarians might complain that natural resource taxation would require price-setting by government bureaucrats, which is an opportunity for corruption. That is true, but prices have to be bootstrapped somehow. Markets aren’t magic. Implicit, ad hoc pricing creates more opportunities for corruption and evasion. If we don’t price natural resources, then markets are not bootstrapped, and we have a tragedy of the commons. Currently, we have a mixture of ad hoc pricing and no pricing.
|
posted by dennisn on July 16th, 2023 at 11:44AM
> Markets are an excellent mechanism for organizing production and distribution
So why don't you let them manage land and breeding, and other shit?
> Natural resource taxation should be applied at [bla bla bla commie shit]
Loool. So immediately after explaining basic "economics", you do a 180 and become a commie rent seeker :))). Dumbass.
> the prices of natural resources are not entirely determined by the market.
Tf does that even mean. King George isn't part of the market? ;) ;). Dumbass. King George ought to unilaterally determine prices?
> prices have to be bootstrapped somehow
Cringe. 1 Pizza cost TEN THOUSAND bitcoins in the early days. You're right, this wasn't magic. Where exactly does King George fit into the pricing of pizza? Dumbass.
> a tragedy of the commons
This commie phrasing of a commie problem, lol. "The commons" is a mostly commie concept, the inevitable fuckery that happens when property isn't properly owned. Commie dumbasses.
|
|
|
|
|
posted by dennisn on July 15th, 2023 at 7:17PM
Okay don't tell us. If you don't care enough about your ideas to give a brief summary, or the main difference, I don't care either. Property taxes ARE the same as land value taxes, I have no idea what difference you see.
|
Property Taxes != LVTposted by sleepy-sniper on July 15th, 2023 at 9:26PM
Since LVT would make landlords pay the same amount of tax no matter how much or how little housing they build on the same plot of land, LVT would encourage landlords to build more housing. This would make housing more affordable everywhere, whereas property taxes make housing more expensive by punishing landlords who choose to build more housing.
LVT cannot get passed onto the tenants, whereas property taxes can. Since LVT would increase competition in the housing market by incentivizing landlords to build more housing, housing prices would decrease, while the tax rates stay the same (unless the value of the land changes).
|
|
|
|
