Subject:
|
Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:17:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
437 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> >
> > > Again it would be patently unfair to change the rules.
> >
> > If the rules are currently patently unfair, is it not patently unfair to • leave
> > them as is?
>
> If they are, then yes, but if the losing side suddenly decides it doesn't like
> the rules and wants to change in mid-game, you can bet it won't sit well with
> the side that's ahead. And no one will take the new rules seriously if they
> are subject to change with no warning.
That's true to some extent. But isn't it changing the rules mid-game every
time new laws are passed? Obviously we're discussing a much larger change than
just adjusting our property tax rate up .25% to pay for school renovation or
somesuch, but the nature of the thing seems the same.
And didn't black people in the 60s want to change the rules mid-game because
they were the "losing side?" Surely you don't think the civil rights movement
was a bad idea..?
> > > Moreover, there would be no economic incentive to build new housing
> > > units, so there will be no housing for growing populations.
> >
> > That's silly. People will do whatever kind of work is needed as determined • by
> > the market. If housing is needed the market will provide it.
>
> That's right, by gradually moving back to the system currently in place!
This is not the only possible system. If it were illegal to borrow against
property -- if for instance all property were state "owned," then it wouldn't
go back to just the way it is now. I'm not even asserting that it would be
better, just that it would be different and _maybe_ better if the difficulties
couldd be worked out.
> > I would reword your statement as: "There would be no opportunity to gather
> > wealth in wild disproportion to the work performed through investment in real
> > estate." And frankly, I don't see the down side.
>
> Actually I'd say, "There would be no opportunity to make the money you've
> worked hard to accumulate do some work for you." A disincentive for savings
> and investment, which we all know is necessary to keep the capitalist economy
> going!
I don't. I've heard that before, but I am as yet unconvinced. And anyway, I
think you're wrong. It would not eliminate all investment. Just real estate
investment. I still don't see the down side.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
| (...) If they are, then yes, but if the losing side suddenly decides it doesn't like the rules and wants to change in mid-game, you can bet it won't sit well with the side that's ahead. And no one will take the new rules seriously if they are (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
