Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Saurabh

Regulars
  • Posts

    162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Saurabh

  1. Randroid, Thanks for the post. You are right. However, I thought your response was in context of my first statement: that scarcity rents are a fact of life. I used the reference to Economists in this context - not for the full argument. Any reactions? Thanks for using the example. Now, if land is scarce and can only be given to one person, what should be appropriate action for the second person? I was only trying (in the para selected by you in your post) to show how scarcity rents arise - and I belive you were debating that scarcity rents do not arise by demand exceeding suppy.
  2. I find it difficult to believe. How do you know this? Do others on the forum believe this?
  3. Actually it is not clear. These seem to be definitions of two different concepts. Can you demonstrate the connection betwen the two? Also, if you are quoting a definition, please provide a source. Thx!
  4. Zip and Eiuol, I am sorry for using complex words like 'value' earlier in the debate. Now, I am continuously refining my terminology so that we can argue over the basic issue only. If I entertain debate on Price vs. Value then the debate will spill over. Thats is why I replaced 'inherent value' with 'scarcity rent'. And I did that explicitly and asked if anyone has any objections. So, I think I am debating fairly. Also, can you support your statement about scarcity rent? Why do you think it does not exist in a free maket?
  5. Randroid, Just becuase I am appealing to authority does not imply that my argument is necessarily wrong. Show me where it is wrong. Can you put this statement on first objection in the context of the debate? I could not connect it to our argument. On the second, do you know who those heirs are? I think the discovery of land's basic fertile properties has become so old now that it would be appropriate to assume that now there is no claimant for the reward of that discovery. I can't understand your objection clearly. Also, your first statement is incorrect - price rise and economic rent are not mutually exclusive. Please elicit your point of disagreement again and elaborate.
  6. Let us not get into Value and Price debate. All I am saying is that scarcity creates scarcity rent. Do you have any disagreement here?
  7. Why do say that land is not scarce? Can you elaborate? In my country atleast, land is becoming very scarce.
  8. Well, can you be specific about where you disagree?
  9. Hi guys, Below are the questions/objections that were raised by Zip, Freestyle, Jake and Randriod: Here are my responses: On 1) That scarcity creates scarcity rents has been documented enough by Economists. Land is such a scarce source. Randriod's point does not apply to my debate becuase it is common knowledge that land is useful (has fertile properties), and the Pioneer who discovered these properties thousands years back is no more. On 2) Let me replace the term inherent value by the term scarcity rent (let me know if anyone has objections). Scarcity rent are a fact of life for land. This is becuase, the demand is growing by population, and supply in inelastic. Please see attached ppt slide that shows how scarcity rents arise. On 3) This could be complex but I believe it is estimatable - and needs to be done by Economists. so, my refined argument, based on 1-3, is: - That Land has scarcity rent - That this rent arises not due to any individual's creative action, but due to Demand exceeding a fixed Supply - Hence, this rent needs to be taken back from the landlord Now, let me know your reactions before I answer other questions. mine.ppt
  10. Sure. Give me a day or so and I will try to concretize things. Thanks for your comments though.
  11. Randriod, I would say that is sharing - not looting. This specific value that I am talking about is created due to scarcity (due to population growth). Hence, we need to share this value - since no one has earned it. On your Columbus example, it would be proper to allow him to reap the approapriate benefits of his discovery. However, he should not be allowed to own the entire continent cause someone else may discover it later on. Feel free to challenge me here. Jake, I will elaborate and clarify my position more once I respond later to Zip's questions.
  12. Thanks for the detailed post. So, basically they made a wrong choice of Socialism and Nationalisation due to the losses suffered during Great Depression. I wonder if their earlier prosperity was due to 'hot money' pouring in to exploit their natural resources. This hot money evaporated during the depression and hence they got dis-illusioned (albeit wrongly), and decided to close.
  13. Hi, Would you want to elaborate on some of the key reasons why Argentina could not sustain its success? I would be very keen to know. Thx!
  14. Dear Jake, I agree with you. I did not use the right words in this post - though I meant what you are saying. So, what is your point (in the context of the debate)?
  15. Zip, The devil is indeed in details. I wanted us to agree on broader moral issues before diving deeper into implementational aspects of the idea. But I will, for now, focus on the implementational aspects. I will try to answer the following questions raised by you: 1) Inherent value will be passed on to consumers, and this will make poor even poorer 2) How to calculate inherent value? 3) How to collect it and distribute it? 4) How to ensure that it is paid? Actually, I will first respond to 1 and 2, as these are more basic issues. Will respond to 3 and 4 later. Also, I will not react to your personal comments about me as it is irrelevant for the debate. Now, please bear with me for 1/2 days. I need to read what Henry George and Ricardo have already said about 1 and 2. Thx!
  16. Freestyle , I read AR's article, and below I copy the paragraphs essential to her argument. 1 is her argument. 2 is an opposite argument. 3 is her refutation to 2. 4 provide more support to her position. My argument is same as 2. So, I will respond to 3 and 4. On 3: AR refutes 2 by claiming that: A "wish" to use a certain "facility" is the not the criterion of the right to use it. In fact I am also saying the same - the right of usage belongs to he who can bid the highest for the use. My difference of opinion is over the right to 'own'- which she does not address directly (or am I missing anything?). On 4: This statement argues against govt. allocation. And, I have no argument here. My proposition does not imply govt. allocation. It implies the following: Free market decides who may 'use' the natural resources. Free market decides what is paid for the use. The part of this payment (scarcity rent) that did not arise from an individual's action, is now collected from all available land, and is re-distributed equally (or put to a social use, e.g. defence).
  17. Freestyle , The article indeed addresses my issue and also counters the kind of claim (from Justice Frankfurter) that I am making. Thanks. I will read the article, and will get back if I have disagreement/confusion. Softwarenerd, Thanks for your responses. Is it ok if I don't respond to your moon example, and instead focus on AR's argument in that article? I assume you are in agreement with the article as well.
  18. I take you point. Let us first discuss the issue of morality. My understanding of morality says: one can only claim/deserve what one has earned. I am also claiming that appropriation of a thing is not the same as earning it. You guys are saying it is. right? I guess this is where I am having dificulty. If I appropriate a thing which I did not produce and which is scarce, then it precludes others from appropriating it (albeit in future). Is that fair?
  19. Thanks. Now, taking a step back, the question I pose (to myself as well): how best we can conduct this debate so that we use simple/basic concepts (and not derived ones) to make the argument? e.g. If I make the claim that: It is unfair to allow pvt. appropriation on scarcity rent on original-state land. And if now someone refutes my claim saying that by definition of 'fair', we must allow such approapriation. Then this argument is invalid. Hence, both debating need to agree on a common-minimum-definition of fair, and then do the debate. To me this common-minimum-definition of fair is: sth is fair for a person to do, if that can be done by others as well. I am more than willing to refine this definition, based on the responses. Cheers.
  20. Thanks. The problem now is that we need to define what is moral and what is justice. And we need to define these terms in such a way that does not support either yours or mine position. Because a definition itself can't be used to refute or support an argument. This is the point I was making earlier. So, I fully agree with you that such as definition of 'fair' will have to be rather abstract. Which is why this debate is causing so much friction. Because quite often we are focussing on words, rather than the spirit of the argument. I hope you will understand. Let me know your reaction, and then we will proceed. Thanks!
  21. I see what you are saying. Please help me understand how can I define fair without supporting yours or mine claim. May I request you to give me your definition of 'fair'?
  22. Zip, Here is my defence: Jake's definition already refuted my argument. I hope you will agree that a man-made definition can't refute an argument. Hence, I asked him to only keep 'fair claims' in mind. I favor using as simple as possible concepts in a debate. This prevents the debate from getting derailed due to disagreement over complex concepts that convey multiple meanings. Words like Rights (or Value) may mean different things to different people. So I use the word Claim. Because that was as basic as I could get. Now, I want your reaction to the above, before I spend my time replying to your other objections.
  23. Zip, Thanks for your participation so far. I also grateful that you are taking time to read my past posts, as it can be quite tedious. I urge everyone to please continue on the debate only if it serves your own self-interest. I respect this forum and the effort people have been making (assuming they are doing it for their own self-interest). And I think the confusion may be happening because I may have communicated in my posts that my position on the issue is already concluded in my mind. Actually, it is not. If it were then why would I debate? My position is still open, and I am debating so that mutual intellectual challenge can refine my thinking, and help me take a position. This is my self-interest. Now, in my mind, defining and practising morality are two separate sequential acts. And I am, initially, searching for the right morality (w.r.t to individual rights on land).
  24. The issue involved in the posts above is not 'whether I am practising my morality'. The issue now becomes: 'whether you have any claim on that' I asked you to convince me on this issue. You see my point? Also, let us not use this thread to debate two issues. We can start a new thread for the second issue.
  25. Freestyle, Thanks for agreeing to debate on the approach first. Your structure above is not the same as mine - or you have not worded it properly. Would you like to make another attempt? All, Let us first conclude on my debating approach, before I can respond to any posts pertianing to my original debate. I am in no unneccesary hurry to conclude the original debate.
×
×
  • Create New...