Anecdotal evidence from China

In Shanghai I talked to a chemical engineer, who had moved back from the states. He said salaries for people like him were slightly higher in Shanghai than in Philly. He bought a 135 sq foot place for 200,000 US dollars in 2003 (in central Shanghai, the most desirable area.) It’s now worth a million.

[Ouch:  I meant 135 sq meters–it makes a big difference!]

Talked to a taxi driver in Anhui today. He was a tea farmer who moved to the city with little money. His wife sold fruits and nuts, and he peddled a rickshaw. They saved money like crazy, worked constantly. Even the two year old was often home alone. He says urban Chinese no longer undertake these hardships. Eventually got money for a taxi, and license (which costs more than the taxi.) They both take turns driving it. By 2006 he was able to scrap up enough money to buy an apartment. Paid 150 US dollars per sq meter in 2006, now it’s worth 900 per sq meter. No wonder there is so much new construction, there’s no way construction costs have risen that fast. I asked the average size of an apartment bought by people like him, and he thought about 100 sq meters. That’s actually fairly big. He said a three bedroom unit is typical. One for the parents, one for the children, and one for the grandparents who then move to the city from the countryside and live with their children.

China is a huge country, so it’s hard to generalize, but Anhui is not all that atypical. Perhaps a bit poorer than average, but growing fast. And this taxi driver was better off than the masses of Chinese still stuck in inland China villages, but worse off than many urban Chinese. He was in the middle group involved in the rural to urban transition. Take it for what it’s worth.

Everywhere I go in China it looks richer than the income data shows. Shanghai has the income of a middle income country but looks like a high income East Asian country. Maybe the suburbs are poorer. Rural eastern China has the income of a third world country, but much of it looks like a middle income country. Especially in the Yangtze River delta area, where the rural areas are full of three and four story houses with turrets, like a castle. And I’m not just talking about a handful, but millions of such dwellings, in the supposedly poor countryside. And yet I have no reason to assume there aren’t lots of places in China that look third world, especially rural western China. It’s hard for a tourist to ever see a completely random cross section of the place.

Tomorrow I climb Yellow Mountain, or die trying.


Tags:

 
 
 

83 Responses to “Anecdotal evidence from China”

  1. Gravatar of foosion foosion
    22. August 2012 at 03:32

    >>Tomorrow I climb Yellow Mountain, or die trying.>>

    The Yellow Mountain is spectacular. We took the cable car to the top, stayed overnight and explored at dawn. Low lying clouds amid craggy mountains are really beautiful. There were very few westerners.

    >>a 135 sq foot place for 200,000 US dollars in 2003>>

    135 sq meters?

  2. Gravatar of Master of None Master of None
    22. August 2012 at 03:50

    “now it’s worth 900 per sq meter”

    What kind of ROA could you get by renting it out? Less than 5%, I am guessing.

    Market prices are funny things.

  3. Gravatar of Benny Lava Benny Lava
    22. August 2012 at 05:05

    The comparison to Chicago 100 years ago is apt, but the immigrants from a third world are internal immigrants in China. But then again China is a big country. And in a big country, dreams stay with you…

  4. Gravatar of Mattias Mattias
    22. August 2012 at 06:07

    http://www.alsosprachanalyst.com/ has a lot of interesting stories on China. Just a tip…

  5. Gravatar of Bob Bob
    22. August 2012 at 07:05

    Have fun! The climb is not bad at all, it does get crowded at parts. The mountain has become EXTREMELY touristy. If you can stay overnight, the dawn is definitely magical.

  6. Gravatar of Adam Adam
    22. August 2012 at 07:41

    I’ve traveled less in Asia, so maybe it’s just a difference in frame of reference, but Shanghai to me looked in many ways like a European city (and not just the Bund). But obviously a poorer one. Maybe Lisbon or Budapest (when I was last in either city in the early 1990s).

    But I assumed that look and feel was a in part a result of the long European influence on the place.

    Shenzhen away from the newest and shiniest parts, definitely felt and looked a lot poorer. Even Hong Kong, but maybe that’s because I was walking through some of the remoter neighborhoods instead of driving. Although in Shanghai I did go for one walk in a residential neighborhood in the vicinity of my hotel (significantly to the east of downtown) and was surprised by the relative prosperity in an area that did not seem to get many foreign visitors.

  7. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    22. August 2012 at 07:51

    If anyone hasn’t seen it yet, these impressive photos of Shanghai were taken just 20 years apart. The above photo is from 1990. The bottom photo is from 2010.

  8. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    22. August 2012 at 07:52

    We’ll go again sometime Major. Clearly the blog owner has had enough of us and I figure a kind of moratorium may be in order. I’m sure I’ll get into it with you again. I will note that I left some quotes of Hoppe over on the Central Planner post.

    If you didn’t notice them you could respond to those if you have an interst in doing so. Do you stand by Hoppe in those or do you disagree?

    For me he sounds like he’s saying that there won’t be private “security forces” in poor neighorhoods. That they will basically lack a police force that protects them

    It kind of seems to confirm my worst fears that a libertarain society would basically be a plutocratic society on steroids. As all services ar private-and so conditioned on an ability to pay-if you have little or no money you’re SOL.

    There’s another passage of his that Naked Capitalis printed that makes it sound as if doesn’t have much use for the common definition of civil liberties.

    This is someting else that I notice about libertarians-most of them at least that I’ve heard/read seem to have a low opinion of civil liberties at least as say the ACLU defines them or the Bill of Rights suggests.

    I will admit that Bob Murphy sounds a lot more reasonable at least in the one hour video-not to say that he’s right, just sounds more reasonable; i”d have to read more of him to really come up with a conclusive opinion of him.

  9. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    22. August 2012 at 07:55

    Meanwhile, back at Rancho Berkeley;

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/21/niall-ferguson-defends-newsweek-cover-correct-this-bloggers.html

    ‘First prize goes to Berkeley professor Brad DeLong, whose blog opened with the headline “Fire-His-Ass-Now.” “He lied,” rants DeLong. “Convene a committee at Harvard to examine whether he has the moral character to teach at a university.” My own counter-suggestion would be to convene a committee at Berkeley to examine whether or not Professor DeLong is spending too much of his time blogging when he really should be conducting serious research or teaching his students. For example, why hasn’t Professor DeLong published that economic history of the 20th century he’s been promising for the past six years? It can’t be writer’s block, that’s for sure.’

  10. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    22. August 2012 at 08:00

    Major this part I found very intersting. Are you with Hoppe and Rothbard on the idea of “nodal” or “left” libertarains?

    CNC: Those people are clearly uncomfortable with free individuals making decisions that they think are mutually beneficial. Maybe they would prefer living in the United States of today, where [d]iscrimination is outlawed… [t]eachers cannot get rid of lousy or ill-behaved students, employers are stuck with poor or destructive employees… banks and insurance companies are not allowed to avoid bad risks… and private clubs and covenants are compelled to accept members… in violation of their very own rules and restrictions. [210]

    ANDREW: Presumably, some people will not mind living with people of other races.

    CNC: Of course, every territory GLO would be free to discriminate in whatever way it wishes. But we need to be realistic. Notwithstanding the variety of discriminatory policies pursued by different proprietary communities… no proprietary community can be as “tolerant” and “non-discriminatory” as left-libertarians wish every place to be. [212]

    ANDREW: What do you mean by “left-libertarians”?

    CNC: Murray Rothbard likes to call them “modal-libertarians” (MLs). As Rothbard says, “the ML is an adolescent rebel against everyone around him,” who only hates government because it is something else to disrespect. MLs think that profanity, drug use… homosexuality… pedophilia… or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality… are perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles [206]. What these countercultural libertarians fail to realize… is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic rise in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the… life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. [208]

    Left-libertarians and multi- or countercultural lifestyle experimentalists, even if they were not engaged in any crime, would once again have to pay a price for their behavior. If they continued with their behavior or lifestyle [in public], they would be barred from civilized society and live physically separate from it, in ghettos or on the fringes of society, and many positions or professions would be unattainable to them. [212]

    Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-iii-%E2%80%93-regulation.html#wSPmxVaoTk2Vy3ch.99

  11. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    22. August 2012 at 08:02

    I find this sentence partiucarly to the point:

    “the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic rise in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the… life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians”

    Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-iii-%E2%80%93-regulation.html#wSPmxVaoTk2Vy3ch.99

  12. Gravatar of brit brit
    22. August 2012 at 08:06

    Hi Scott! I know this doesn’t belong on this post, but thought you’d find it interesting. Cochrane recently said:

    “Tight monetary policy is not the source of our problems. Monetary policy is loose by any measure.”

    [http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/08/21/should-the-fed-risk-inflation-to-spur-growth/inflation-should-be-feared]

    Which made me think of you. If I recall, monetary policy is particularly tight by your preferred metric. Hope you’re enjoying China!

    Best,
    A loyal reader

  13. Gravatar of James in London James in London
    22. August 2012 at 08:23

    A short article on China by an expert, Patrick Chovanec, and really helps put the huge’ness of the country in context. His blogsite is pretty impressive too, with an update on this original piece. Strangely he is really very reasonable yet still thinks China will be a burst bubble. But then reasonable people can disagree, often strongly. (Apologies if already been posted before, but I have only just read it.)

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/the-nine-nations-of-china/307769/

  14. Gravatar of Doug M Doug M
    22. August 2012 at 09:07

    I think you mean meters in the first anecdote.

    $900 / M^2 sounds cheap to me. Maybe it is my experience living in an expensive housing market in the US where I see prices approach 10x that level.

    But, if your hairuct cost $4, and my haircut cost $40, then an apartment in Shangai is about as expensive as affordable as an appartment in Manhattan.

  15. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    22. August 2012 at 09:08

    Mike Sax:

    Major this part I found very intersting. Are you with Hoppe and Rothbard on the idea of “nodal” or “left” libertarains?

    CNC is not accurately describing Rothbard’s views. CNC is stated as saying:

    “Murray Rothbard likes to call them “modal-libertarians” (MLs). As Rothbard says, “the ML is an adolescent rebel against everyone around him,” who only hates government because it is something else to disrespect. MLs think that profanity, drug use… homosexuality… pedophilia… or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality… are perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles [206]. What these countercultural libertarians fail to realize… is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic rise in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the… life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians.”

    When CNC talks about how MLs are described, when he says “As Rothbard says”, he quotes Rothbard as saying “the ML is an adolescent rebel against everyone around him”.

    This is what Rothbard said:

    “It strikes me too that since Modal libertarianism is lifelong adolescent rebellion against one’s parents, one’s neighbors, and the bourgeoisie generally; that this revolt against good manners, and its displacement into bleating about the “philosophy of tolerance,” is characteristic Modal behavior. The Modal rebels against what used to be standard parental teaching about manners, and challenges such teachings with pseudo-profound blatherings about tolerance, metaphysics, and the theory of knowledge.” – Murray Rothbard, The Irrepressible Rothbard, pg 261.

    OK, a little exaggerated on CNC’s part, but nothing that I would consider misrepresentation.

    But then CNC goes on and says MLs are those “who only hates government because it is something else to disrespect. MLs think that profanity, drug use… homosexuality… pedophilia… or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality… are perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles”.

    Rothbard did not say that part. Those are CNC’s words. The way CNC wrote it can potentially lead to misunderstanding that Rothbard also disdained modal libertarians for the listed behaviors of “profanity, drug use, homosexuality and pedophilia”.

    Rothbard was not against profanity, as long as it was on one’s own property, and/or one has the permission of the owner. Rothbard was not against drug use or homosexuality. Rothbard was against pedophilia because he held that children cannot consent to contracts since they don’t have their reason developed yet.

    So to be clear, Rothbard disliked modal libertarians, but not to the extent they supported drug use and homosexuality. He disliked them because they were rude to everyone who even hinted at not wanting to do with others because of their “intolerance”, for example yelling profanities at anyone who did not want to interact with gays or minorities, and because they believed “your house is their house and your possessions their possessions”.

    These are the types of libertarians who are against EVERYTHING, including respect for individuals who want to disassociate voluntarily for whatever reason. A modal libertarian will believe that an individual home owner or shopkeeper who prefers not to interact with another for “intolerance” reasons, deserves to be mocked, yelled at, profanities spewed their way, and all the rest, solely because the homeowner or shopkeeper dares exercising their freedom to associate and disassociate that is based on “intolerance” for certain people.

    Rothbard decried “the ill-mannered” who “wish to ride roughshod over the rest of us, and then howl about “intolerance” whenever we decide to resist.” For example, your behavior of being incredibly ill mannered towards me, insinuating that I am a racist bigot for daring to suggest that an individual should be free to decide whether or not he wants to deal with another, even if for “intolerance” reasons, which is a completely intolerant behavior on your part, is the type of behavior Rothbard disliked. Yelling out “Stop being intolerant!”, but then being intolerant yourself.

    ———————

    As for Hoppe, he is against homosexuality for personal reasons, which he is entitled to as far as it goes, but Hoppe not advocate for violating the rights of homosexuals, nor physically removing them from their own property. Hoppe writes:

    “In my book Democracy, The God That Failed I not only defend the right to discrimination as implied in the right to private property, but I also emphasize the necessity of discrimination in maintaining a free society and explain its importance as a civilizing factor. In particular, the book also contains a few sentences about the importance, under clearly stated circumstances, of discriminating against communists, democrats, and habitual advocates of alternative, non-family centered lifestyles, including homosexuals.”

    “For instance, on p. 218, I wrote “in a covenant concluded among proprietors and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, …no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant … such as democracy and communism.” “Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. … (violators) will have to be physically removed from society.”

    “In its proper context these statements are hardly more offensive than saying that the Catholic Church should excommunicate those violating its fundamental precepts or that a nudist colony should expel those insisting on wearing bathing suits. However, if you take the statements out of context and omit the condition: in a covenant… then they appear to advocate a rights violation.”

    ————–

    It’s the “in a covenant” that should be emphasized. I am not a thought policeman. I cannot engage in aggression against you for simply holding certain thoughts. But if individuals agree to a covenant, regarding their own private property, and such covenants include for example “no KKK allowed”, or “no homosexuals allowed” or “no redheads allowed”, or if two people make a vow of marriage, and their covenant includes “no extra-marital sexual endeavoring”, then it would be perfectly legitimate exercises of individual rights for these individuals to choose NOT to interact with or allow such people into their lives or on their land.

    The context is a covenant. For Hoppe, he wants to live in a certain kind of community that has certain values shared among the inhabitants, protected by property rights. His ideal is a community whose inhabitants value heterosexual relationships and families, long time preferences, non-democrats, non-drug users, etc. Well, if he wants to live in a commune with others who share those values, then as a libertarian myself, I know he is not advocating for aggression against those he does not want to interact with. He is just another individual who has his own values of who he wants to deal with and who he does not want to deal with, and he is claiming the right to expel certain people from his property if he so desires. Well, you and most others share that principle of “a man’s home is his castle”. You just don’t like his choices. Well, his choices are not your choices. You don’t have to interact with him. You don’t have to copy his actions. He isn’t going to advocate for thugs to come to your own home and take you away because you’re practising behaviors that he doesn’t like. He’ll say “What is the covenant you agreed to before moving in? Does your covenant contain an agreement that such behavior is accepted? If so, then do what you want.”

    ————————–

    Now that I have shown the actual positions of Rothbard and Hoppe, I can answer your question of what I think about their ideas of modal libertarians. Well, I will say what I always say to questions like these. Do what you want with whoever you want, as long as it is voluntarily agreed, and as long as you don’t impose your values on other people’s persons and material property by force. If you hate redheads, then you have a right to never let them onto your land. If you hate the KKK, then you have a right to never let them onto your land. If you hate X, then you have a right to never let them onto your land. If X = model libertarians, then you have a right to never let them on your land. My personal beliefs concerning what people do and not do is constantly changing over time, but what isn’t changing is that I am absolutely against initiations of force against other people’s persons and property. In this context, today I may be OK with redheads entering my home. Tomorrow, I might want to let only blondes into my home because I no longer like redheads for now. Or, I might be OK with my house guests being intimate with each other in a certain way today, but then I might not be OK with it tomorrow, because maybe it is resulting in something I didn’t know was destructive or harmful to my happiness until later on when I learn more. Who knows. I have no rigid list of what behaviors I like and what I don’t like, other than the issue of initiations of violence.

  16. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    22. August 2012 at 09:25

    Mike Sax:

    We’ll go again sometime Major. Clearly the blog owner has had enough of us and I figure a kind of moratorium may be in order. I’m sure I’ll get into it with you again. I will note that I left some quotes of Hoppe over on the Central Planner post.

    Hopefully next time you’ll raise the quality of your arguments.

    If you didn’t notice them you could respond to those if you have an interst in doing so. Do you stand by Hoppe in those or do you disagree?

    Stand by him how? What exactly am I to do in order for me to be with him or against him?

    For me he sounds like he’s saying that there won’t be private “security forces” in poor neighorhoods. That they will basically lack a police force that protects them

    Today, poor neighboorhoods that are taxed still have security forces. With less taxes, I see no reason why they can’t beef up their security the way they want, i.e. without cops planting evidence on them, or extorting them, or beating them up because they’re a monopoly and have no competition.

    It kind of seems to confirm my worst fears that a libertarain society would basically be a plutocratic society on steroids.

    Plutocracy is based on violations of property rights. A private property order cannot possibly be plutocratic.

    As all services ar private-and so conditioned on an ability to pay-if you have little or no money you’re SOL.

    So you’re saying I should be forced by violence to protect people who don’t pay me? Is that not a blatant contradiction? If you’re against violence, then you cannot possibly advocate for violence.

    Protections aren’t monopolized in libertarianism. You don’t even have to pay anyone to protect you. If you have no money but want protection that requires money, then find a community that offers protection for free. Offer your labor. If you can’t find any community that offers free protection, or if you don’t want to or can’t work, then you would be at a higher risk of being robbed or killed. Well, why should I robbed or threatened with death so that you have protection?

    If you want to give me a reason why I should welcome threats of violence, and why I should welcome being robbed, so that you can be protected from violence, then I’m all ears. Please, explain to me why your life is so much more important than mine that in order for you to avoid violence against you, you are OK with violence being waged against me if I refuse to protect you for free. Do that, and you’ll convert me to statism.

    There’s another passage of his that Naked Capitalis printed that makes it sound as if doesn’t have much use for the common definition of civil liberties.

    Hoppe holds the common libertarian definition of non-aggression and private property rights.

    This is someting else that I notice about libertarians-most of them at least that I’ve heard/read seem to have a low opinion of civil liberties at least as say the ACLU defines them or the Bill of Rights suggests.

    That’s because they contain presumptions that violations of property rights are justified.

    I will admit that Bob Murphy sounds a lot more reasonable at least in the one hour video-not to say that he’s right, just sounds more reasonable; i”d have to read more of him to really come up with a conclusive opinion of him.

    What makes him more reasonable, and what makes Hoppe less reasonable? Be specific.

  17. Gravatar of Doug M Doug M
    22. August 2012 at 09:28

    Mike Sax…

    Interesting reading behind that link. “CNC” describes a different brand of libertarianism modled after Neil Stephenson’s “Snow Crash.” His model replaces the state with burbclaves, and franculates, which will provide the legal / regulatory / securty framework of the state. The ‘clave may also find it in its interest to enforce a moral order.

    The difference between this model and a traditional state would be that people have the right to leave one clave and join annother without neccessarily moving. The social-expiriemters would possibly be excommincated from the “respectable” claves would likely form their own.

    I think that this is the first time I have seen that model of a libertarian society discussed outside of science-fiction.

  18. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    22. August 2012 at 09:38

    Mike Sax:

    I find this sentence partiucarly to the point:

    “the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic rise in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the… life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians”

    I find that no different than you not wanting to allow KKK members, or Christian fundamentalist homophobes, or me, or anyone else you don’t want to interact with, to discriminate against those people, or me, to not allow them or me into your home or place of business.

    If you and others voluntarily formed a community with your own covenant, then there would be no KKK, and no Christian fundamentalist homophobes, etc, allowed. Well, that would minimize or eliminate such people in your community.

    That’s all Hoppe is saying, except he has somewhat different values concerning who he wants to deal with and not deal with. So what if he doesn’t like redheads and you do? So what if he doesn’t like homosexuality and you do? So what if you like drug use and he doesn’t? So what if you have DIFFERENT likes for yourselves? Are you really so intolerant that you believe violence is justified against others for simply having different social values than you and they exercise their freedom to live in communities that have those values that exclude those who do not have those values?

  19. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    22. August 2012 at 09:40

    Doug M:

    I think that this is the first time I have seen that model of a libertarian society discussed outside of science-fiction.

    Where do you think Stephenson got the idea? He reads political philosophy.

  20. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    22. August 2012 at 09:43

    Mike Sax:

    “Libertarianism is compatible with any cultural behavior, provided only that the culture is not incompatible with the libertarian axiom on non-aggression.”

    http://reasonpapers.com/pdf/29/rp_29_10.pdf

  21. Gravatar of W. Peden W. Peden
    22. August 2012 at 09:47

    My reaction when I read anything by Hoppe is less to worry about “normal” libertarians and more to think back to this Fry & Laurie sketch-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSDC1ieZsSs

  22. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    22. August 2012 at 10:11

    “My reaction when I read anything by Hoppe is less to worry about “normal” libertarians and more to think back to this Fry & Laurie sketch-“

    The funny thing about that sketch is figuring out how a private security firm can remain in business and remain profitable enough to pay the clerk, by not providing any services to customers.

    The even funnier thing is to realize that the sketch is inadvertently describing “public” security. A public policeman has far less incentive to helping people, than a policeman whose salary is contingent upon the voluntary payments of consumers, who can stop paying in an instant the moment they find out the firm is performing like the one in this sketch.

    But hey, let’s pretend that the makers of that sketch are pointing out a truism in private security through comedy, since after all, comedy writers always always always fully understand the nuances of political philosophy and historical events, right?

  23. Gravatar of W. Peden W. Peden
    22. August 2012 at 10:15

    Major Freedom,

    Of course the firm provides services; three kinds, in fact, just for stolen cars: the super, the lovely, and the gorgeous. All you need is an account or shares.

  24. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    22. August 2012 at 10:28

    Of course the firm provides services; three kinds, in fact, just for stolen cars: the super, the lovely, and the gorgeous. All you need is an account or shares.

    I’m still laughing at the fact Laurie was never educated in how the security and protection industry worked.

    The sketch makes it seem like he was teleported from a statist society, and he didn’t know he lived in a society where you can no longer depend on protection from violence through the initiations against others. That’s hilarious.

    It would also have been funny if Laurie was teleported from a private security world and thrust into a statist world, and he ringed up a police station, and asked the station what kinds of programs they are offering and at what prices. Then the police say to him “Oh don’t worry, you don’t even have to incur the burden of choosing for yourself. We have already set up an agreement with your employer to offer you the super, lovely, and gorgeous, at 35% of your wage. Oh, and because we just assumed you would be fine with it, we have also taken the liberty of ensuring that should you have a bout of dementia, and be unwilling to pay us what we want, then our station has an exclusive offer just for folks like you: A complimentary stay of 5 years in one of our luxury cages, 24/7. All the suites come in grey with a dirty toilet. Also, in the public shower that you will be sharing with our other VIP guests, you’ll also receive free mandatory sexual services from one of our hulky orderlies. We’re working on improving the beatings, so try not to complain too much.”

    That would have been even more funny.

  25. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    22. August 2012 at 10:42

    It’s funny how statist ideology is manifested in comedy almost always by people being made out to be completely uninformed and helpless.

    We can be so sophisticated to result in highly advanced, and still advancing, personal computers and cars, but when it comes to protection, we’re all idiots.

  26. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    22. August 2012 at 10:59

    What Hoppe shows though is that a libertarian society is going to end up with much more social discrimination.

    “As all services ar private-and so conditioned on an ability to pay-if you have little or no money you’re SOL.”

    “So you’re saying I should be forced by violence to protect people who don’t pay me? Is that not a blatant contradiction? If you’re against violence, then you cannot possibly advocate for violence.”

    “Protections aren’t monopolized in libertarianism. You don’t even have to pay anyone to protect you. If you have no money but want protection that requires money, then find a community that offers protection for free. Offer your labor. If you can’t find any community that offers free protection, or if you don’t want to or can’t work, then you would be at a higher risk of being robbed or killed. Well, why should I robbed or threatened with death so that you have protection?”

    They’re monopolized by those with the financial resources to be able to afford them.

    My whole point is that the poor in libertarian society will be at a greater risk of being robbed or killed-glad to see it the same way so here we’re on the same page.

    For me that consittues an objection. I’m not sure how plutocracy violates private property, it seesm that a society where if you don’t have the money-how ever your able to raise them-you are at a greater risk of being robbed or killed is the definition of plutocracy. A plutocracy is simply a system where unlike deomcracy where everyone is supposed to have rihgts only those with adequate money resources have any rights.

    You seem to confrim this with no little indignation taht anyone could think anything else.

    Yet on a human level some may well think that forcing everyone to pay taxes so that those without money resources have some safety net is perferrable to where only those with money are safe from violence.

    What we are getting here is that libertarianism gets us much higher rates of social discrimination-that will unlikely to be against redheads but certain not so favored groups like blacks, gays, and Muslims, at least in this country-and a system where if you don’t have the money-regardless of how you can raise it-you are at greater risk of being robbed or killed.

    Evidently this kind of violence is not a concern for libertarians. So roberty and murder are only objectional to the extent that they are perpetuated against those that are property owners or at least those with the material means to pay for protection.

  27. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    22. August 2012 at 11:12

    “For example, your behavior of being incredibly ill mannered towards me, insinuating that I am a racist bigot for daring to suggest that an individual should be free to decide whether or not he wants to deal with another, even if for “intolerance” reasons, which is a completely intolerant behavior on your part, is the type of behavior Rothbard disliked. Yelling out “Stop being intolerant!”, but then being intolerant yourself.”

    Sounds like a sophistical argument for having your cake and eating it to. It’s ok if someone wants to be intolerant but I have to be tolerant of their intolerance.

  28. Gravatar of Shaun Shaun
    22. August 2012 at 11:20

    Why do all Austrian leaning thinkers always have to be such a$$holes? You can make your point without puking all over the place, you know.

    On another point, why do Austrian’s always toss the word statist and freedom so liberally?

  29. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    22. August 2012 at 12:33

    Mike Sax:

    What Hoppe shows though is that a libertarian society is going to end up with much more social discrimination.

    It actually shows the opposite. Discrimination can only take place when those who don’t otherwise choose to interact, come to interact for whatever reason (typically forced by the state). Forced integration increases discrimination, it doesn’t decrease it. I have no reason to be discriminatory to Malawians for example, because I am not forced to integrate with any in the place that I live. If I were prejudiced against Malawians, then should the state force me to deal with them, then there would be an increase in conflict.

    If a Malawian asks me whether I want to deal with them, and I decline, then there is no source of social conflict, because he goes to his property and I go to mine. We all make choices. I can’t deal with everyone in the world. I can only deal with a number that is relatively tiny compared to 7 billion. Well, when I make choices on who to deal with, that entails discrimination. Such discrimination cannot possibly INCREASE in a libertarian society. It would only change the content of discrimination, to be more in line with individual preferences, rather than the preferences of a few in Washington.

    There is less conflict when individuals are not forced to integrate, but rather integrate by choice.

    “As all services ar private-and so conditioned on an ability to pay-if you have little or no money you’re SOL.”

    “So you’re saying I should be forced by violence to protect people who don’t pay me? Is that not a blatant contradiction? If you’re against violence, then you cannot possibly advocate for violence.”

    “Protections aren’t monopolized in libertarianism. You don’t even have to pay anyone to protect you. If you have no money but want protection that requires money, then find a community that offers protection for free. Offer your labor. If you can’t find any community that offers free protection, or if you don’t want to or can’t work, then you would be at a higher risk of being robbed or killed. Well, why should I robbed or threatened with death so that you have protection?”

    They’re monopolized by those with the financial resources to be able to afford them.

    You didn’t answer my questions.

    I asked:

    Why should I be forced by violence to help protect people from violence?

    Why should I robbed or threatened with death so that you have protection from robbery and death?

    My whole point is that the poor in libertarian society will be at a greater risk of being robbed or killed-glad to see it the same way so here we’re on the same page.

    But your “solution” positively increases robbery by forced payments to finance such protections against robbery.

    How can you be against robbery, when your “solution” calls for robbery? Suppose we lived in a libertarian society, and 5% of the population cannot afford protection from others, and have to protect themselves. If you believe the violence, that you claim is more likely to occur, is wrong, then doesn’t it stand to reason that if you’re going to propose a solution, it makes no sense to positively call for violence against others, to rob from them, to finance protection for the 5% so that the 5% won’t get robbed?

    If you are in favor of robbery against the 95% in order to help stop robbery from the 5%, then you’re not proposing a solution to robbery at all, but merely legalizing it.

    For me that consittues an objection. I’m not sure how plutocracy violates private property, it seesm that a society where if you don’t have the money-how ever your able to raise them-you are at a greater risk of being robbed or killed is the definition of plutocracy.

    But you’re not against robbery or death, for your “solution” to robbery is itself a call for robbery and threats of death. For how else can the 5% be protected, if they can’t afford protection? The resources have to come from somewhere, and somehow.

    A plutocracy is simply a system where unlike deomcracy where everyone is supposed to have rihgts only those with adequate money resources have any rights.

    But a private law society is not a plutocracy. There is no state. Plutocracies are statist societies.

    You seem to confrim this with no little indignation taht anyone could think anything else.

    You are not answering my questions. You seem to confirm my thesis that you are in favor of people being robbed and threatened with death, as the means to solve the problem of people being robbed and killed.

    Yet on a human level some may well think that forcing everyone to pay taxes so that those without money resources have some safety net is perferrable to where only those with money are safe from violence.

    But you just said that the poor cannot afford to pay. The context YOU set up was the situation that poor people do not have money to pay for security. Now you’re saying everyone can pay money to enable the poor to get security.

    What we are getting here is that libertarianism gets us much higher rates of social discrimination-that will unlikely to be against redheads but certain not so favored groups like blacks, gays, and Muslims, at least in this country-and a system where if you don’t have the money-regardless of how you can raise it-you are at greater risk of being robbed or killed.

    Except you’re against neither robbery nor killings. Your “solution” calls for robbery as a means to eliminate robbery.

    In a private law society, we’d have fewer conflicts arising due to forced integration. I consider fewer conflicts as a good thing, not a bad thing. I don’t care if in a libertarian order I am told I am not welcome in a particular set of shops, or a particular set of homes, on the basis of my skin color. I do not have a right to the wealth produced by others, even racists.

    Evidently this kind of violence is not a concern for libertarians.

    It’s not violence to refuse to marry a person because they’re white, or refuse to give someone your goods because they’re black. That is an exercise of an individual’s liberty. It only seems violent to you because heretofore you were like the master and they were the slave, and finally the slave can make their own choices, and it appears as an aggressive act to you, because beforehand you got your way with them, but then after they had their way with themselves.

    Yes, the world will SEEM more harsh to you, but that is only because you are going to receive less on the basis of harm being levied against individuals by the state. That is, you are going to experience a reduction in what you are able to receive due to the exploitation of others. You are going to learn that a lot of what you took for granted, you were never entitled to in the first place, and like a lazy twenty or thirty something who refuses to leave home, you’re going to learn more responsibility is needed after others stop giving you a free ride at their expense.

    So roberty and murder are only objectional to the extent that they are perpetuated against those that are property owners or at least those with the material means to pay for protection.

    Robbery presupposes property. By saying you are OK with robbery, as long as only those with property are robbed, you are simply stating a tautological expression that you are OK with robbery as such.

    Why should I be robbed so that others can be protected against robbery?

    “For example, your behavior of being incredibly ill mannered towards me, insinuating that I am a racist bigot for daring to suggest that an individual should be free to decide whether or not he wants to deal with another, even if for “intolerance” reasons, which is a completely intolerant behavior on your part, is the type of behavior Rothbard disliked. Yelling out “Stop being intolerant!”, but then being intolerant yourself.”

    Sounds like a sophistical argument for having your cake and eating it to. It’s ok if someone wants to be intolerant but I have to be tolerant of their intolerance.

    Why should they be tolerant of your intolerance?

    Seems like no amicable solution is possible here, doesn’t it? They are intolerant, of X say. You are intolerant, of Y say. You demand that they be tolerant of your intolerance towards Y, and they demand that you be tolerant of their intolerance towards X.

    The only reason why such potential conflicts arise at all is because we live in a world of scarcity. If resources were infinite, then such conflicts would never arise. If a black person is denied entry into a store, then who cares, there is an infinite number of stores with an infinite number of goods.

    But we live in a world of scarcity. So, given that reality, the only way to avoid conflicts over scarce resources is to practise rules of property. There is no way around this. In a world of scarcity and human evolution infancy, there will be people without property. The only way to solve this is to increase the production of property so that even those who can only offer their labor, can acquire the means to purchase produced property.

  30. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    22. August 2012 at 14:33

    Morgan Warstler, if you’re out there, Unlearning Econ seems to agree with you on one thing-the preferrability of a land tax.

    “I have always thought a Land Value Tax would help solve many problems at once. A land tax is highly progressive, it increases production by stopping people from sitting on land, it’s unavoidable and is supported by people with diverse political viewpoints”

    http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/13715/knowledge-bank-/qa-unlearning-economics.html

    You’d probably disagree with him on most other things but you I seem to remember wrote something about a land tax recently. I like the way he puts it-land taxes could substittue for labor taxes.

    It also incetivized doing more than just sitting on land.

  31. Gravatar of Jim Glass Jim Glass
    22. August 2012 at 14:39

    He bought a 135 sq foot place for 200,000 US dollars in 2003 (in central Shanghai, the most desirable area.) It’s now worth a million

    Foot?

    Either way, all this is the second most impressive price run-up I’ve ever seen, after only NYC taxi medallions.

  32. Gravatar of LC LC
    22. August 2012 at 16:37

    Scott:

    Any observations on health care system and health conditions of the people in China?

  33. Gravatar of Doug M Doug M
    22. August 2012 at 17:17

    Land Value Tax…

    There a 1000 acre parcel of land in my vicinity that is undeveloped open space. Until recently was privately owned, but was sold to the park system. However, while it was prively owned, it was nonetheless looked upon as a public good. Had there been a land value tax, there is no way the parcel of wilderness would exist.

    Little old ladies would be abused by the land value tax. They live in the same modest houses that they have lived in since they were raising thier children. If we tax thier property based on the value of what could be done with it, do we force these lols to sell their houses and move into an appartment?

    There are very few of these around in my area anymore, but in my childhood there were a large number of suburban farmers. They were country farmers, but the suburbs grew out to meet them. Many people looked fondly toward these old timers. Do you adovate taxing them off their land to build more track housing because it is a more efficient use of the real estate? I suppose history shows, they were going to sell out eventually, the land value tax just accellerates the process.

    Usually, I stick to cold rationality in economic arguements, today I am thinking emotionally about the ‘victims’ of your tax proposal.

  34. Gravatar of SG SG
    22. August 2012 at 18:25

    Scott,

    I hope you’re having a great time in China.

    Too bad you’re taking a break from blogging. Maybe you’ve seen the latest from John Cochrane in the NYT? Here are some choice bits of the UChicago monetary economics in the 21st century:

    The fact is, the Fed is basically powerless to create more inflation right now — or to do anything about growth. Interest rates can’t go below zero, and buying one kind of bond while selling another has minuscule effects. Which is just as well. While preventing deflation in the recession was vital — and the Fed did it — the idea that a deliberate inflation is the key out of our policy-induced doldrums makes no sense.

    Tight monetary policy is not the source of our problems. Monetary policy is loose by any measure.

    But if [inflation] happens, it will happen with little warning, the Fed will be powerless to stop it, and it will bring stagnation rather than prosperity.

  35. Gravatar of Jim Glass Jim Glass
    22. August 2012 at 18:45

    Am I living in a spam trap? I’ve been unable to post any comment here for hours. How about this one?….

  36. Gravatar of Jim Glass Jim Glass
    22. August 2012 at 19:06

    Nothing … nope … zip … nothing again.

    What an interesting filter, the only thing it lets me post about is how it won’t let me can’t post anything.

  37. Gravatar of Jim Glass Jim Glass
    22. August 2012 at 19:14

    Though it doesn’t correct my grammar.

    If you can read this, then what the filter apparently is doing is blocking links to comments on … theMoneyIllusion blog.

  38. Gravatar of Jim Glass Jim Glass
    22. August 2012 at 19:36

    OK, back to substance…
    ~~~~

    “I have always thought a Land Value Tax would help solve many problems at once….

    Land value tax is impossible, and has been a disaster when tried (say: “Pittsburgh”) for reasons detailed here previously — but as the filter won’t let me refer to that, also at…

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/problems_with_h.html#187989

    If one wants to see the difference that “the devil in the details” makes between the dreams of idealized economic reforms and the unhappy results they so often produce in reality, the first thing to look at is tax policy.

    Also, there is a very reliable rule of thumb about tax policy: If the politicians *could* tax something, they would have long ago. Which means there is no new tax to impose to make any dream come true.

  39. Gravatar of James in London James in London
    22. August 2012 at 22:20

    MF. It seems to me you are a hypocrite. You write long and had about the sanctity of property rights, yet here you are egregiously squatting on someone else’s blogsite. This misbehaviour in which you seem to revel is a truly appalling sight. You should be ashamed of yourself. It undermine all your arguments. Practice what you preach!

  40. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    23. August 2012 at 03:52

    James in London:

    MF. It seems to me you are a hypocrite. You write long and had about the sanctity of property rights, yet here you are egregiously squatting on someone else’s blogsite.

    James, I know you want so badly so paint me as wrong, hypocritical, and whatever other pejorative would serve the day, but if you’re going to consider yourself to have shown me to be hypocritical, then your attempt was just horrible. Squatting? Egregiously? Seriously? This is like accusing a frequent shopper of Wal-Mart that he is “squatting” and taking over Wal-Mart’s property.

    Don’t be a fool. Sumner has communicated that he is OK with comments, and he reserves the right to delete any comments he wishes.

    Squatting would be if I broke into his home while he is on vacation in China, and declaring that because he is not there, he has no right to claim ownership of it. THAT would be “squatting”.

    To say that someone is “squatting” by posting comments on a blog only shows that you are not only ignorant of the term itself, but it also shows your true motives, which is merely to antagonize, not find truth and fact and debating those.

  41. Gravatar of W. Peden W. Peden
    23. August 2012 at 04:07

    Major Freedom,

    Actually, yes it would.

  42. Gravatar of Tom Tom
    23. August 2012 at 04:58

    Sorry M_F, I agree you give your own arguments a bad name by excessive posting — which I know when I see it.

    I see Scott is allowing it — but it probably drives away other, more diverse commenters who are turned off by you and your critics squatting here. Were there the ability to “ignore” certain posters, I would ignore you — even tho I mostly agree with a lot of your arguments and like most of Libertarianism (as well as the Single Tax of H. George — less bad than other taxes, in theory).

    Scott:Everywhere I go in China it looks richer than the income data shows.
    That seems, racistly, to be becomes careful, considerate poor Chinese people are more clean and property-respectful of others than most of the world’s “equally poor” people.

    My sister-in-law came back from vacation in Morocco, where non-tourist Parks are a field area with trees and full of garbage. It’s not a coincidence that “Godliness is next to Cleanliness” was a saying that helped create surplus value, fast. [Dem garbage at Obama events, as compared to Tea Party cleanliness also comes to mind.]

    Low income poor people with jobs, and good culture, can have a nicer life than similarly low income people with less good culture. Especially if the second group of low income folk get entitlement cash rather than thru low wages.

  43. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    23. August 2012 at 05:32

    In thinking of this whole debat over libertariansim at least in the extreme Rothbardian-Hoppe-Major incanataion, Voltaire has a great quote:

    All men are guilty of the good they do not do.

    It’s a better conept of ethics than simply declaring100% propety rights.

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/voltaire132939.html

  44. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    23. August 2012 at 05:44

    “Squatting would be if I broke into his home while he is on vacation in China, and declaring that because he is not there, he has no right to claim ownership of it. THAT would be “squatting”.

    In realtiy it makes no difference whether it’s his home or his blog-both are his property.

    At best you can say that he hasn’t complained. The analogous situation is someone who overstays their welecom visitng someone’s house but the owner doesn’t explictly complain.

    The question is consent then. Sumner hasn’t complained. But the fact that tis is a blog rather than his home makes no difference.

  45. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    23. August 2012 at 06:49

    “Do you adovate taxing them off their land to build more track housing because it is a more efficient use of the real estate? I suppose history shows, they were going to sell out eventually, the land value tax just accellerates the process.”

    Doug assuming someone will be taxed why are they more important than others?

    If we could eliminate the steep, regressive payroll taxes that all workers pay today in exchange for a land tax even if some old ladies who sit on land have to move that doesnt mean that on net it wouldn’t been an improvement.

    Or we can have no taxes and then some of the poor end up on the street-someone’s going to come out on the short end no matter what.

    By the way it’s not my land tax necessarily. Just looking at it. Morgan Warstler had said something about it and then I saw that Unlearning Econ had written about it.

  46. Gravatar of James in London James in London
    23. August 2012 at 07:01

    You are still a squatter. It is both pejorative and a fact. Ethics isn’t only about the law. Squatter.

  47. Gravatar of Razer Razer
    23. August 2012 at 07:34

    Mike, you claim individuals don’t have property rights, yet you now make an argument against MF based on property rights? Hypocrite much?

  48. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    23. August 2012 at 08:19

    How long did it take the taxi driver to save that money?

    “One for the parents, one for the children, and one for the grandparents…”

    Children plural?

    Regarding income, what about the forms of consumption that aren’t so easy to observe? Non-fixed assets? How good are the cars, even?

    And please don’t die trying, Scott. You’ll lose your reputation for pragmatism.

  49. Gravatar of FormerSwingVoter FormerSwingVoter
    23. August 2012 at 08:49

    Oh, for the love of… Has there ever been a comment thread here which wasn’t horrendously derailed by Mike and Major and their supporters/detractors? Can the libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers just get their own thread or something? This is insane.

    Back on topic, while China is far from my area of expertise… is it possible that some of their exchange-rate shenanigans (or other policy choices) are making the country appear poorer on paper than it really is? A handful of anecdotes is hardly a data set, but it might be worth thinking about.

    Anyway, enjoy Yellow Mountain, Scott!

  50. Gravatar of Daniel Harris Daniel Harris
    23. August 2012 at 09:54

    I saved up for 6 years to buy my condo in downtown Ottawa, and all my friends think my place is remarkably huge. It’s 70 square metres.

  51. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    23. August 2012 at 11:18

    Tom and Mike Sax and James in London:

    Learn the definition of squatting. Offering a blog to the public, for open posting, does not attract squattors. It attracts customers. Sumner is setting the rule, not me.

    It would be like calling frequent visitors to the mall “squattors” because they are there more often than [your made up subjective standard of what constitutes squatting].

    You can call me “squatter” as much as you want. I know I am not one, and you only show your own ignorance every time you say it.

  52. Gravatar of Doug M Doug M
    23. August 2012 at 12:00

    Squatting…I don’t think squatting is quite the right term.

    The comments section is a commons that Professor Sumner has created and alows the readers of his bolg to use to add dicussion to his chosen topic points.

    Generally the the use of this commons enhances the overall value of the blog. But, like all commons, it will eventuall be abused. When it becomes overwhelmed with sinping between the participants it is a turn-off to the rest of the users of this space.

    The Major Freedom – Mike Sax spat earlier this week was a despoiling of the commons. Please, be responsible and do not leave your trash for the rest of us.

  53. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    23. August 2012 at 13:43

    Razer I never said individuals don’t have property rights. I said they aren’t absolute. As far as Major is concerned my only point was that his argument that this website is not Scott’s house is besides the point.

    I wasn’t necessarily saying he’s squatting-others have and I haven’t agreed or disagreed with it- just that an internet blog is just as much a website as a house.

  54. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    23. August 2012 at 13:44

    just as much property as a house

  55. Gravatar of W. Peden W. Peden
    23. August 2012 at 13:49

    On a happy note, here’s Milton Friedman’s screentest for “Free to Choose” –

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agCUgSixj6c

  56. Gravatar of Tom Tom
    23. August 2012 at 15:43

    Yichan Wang has relevant chinese experience in buying a house:
    http://synthenomics.blogspot.sk/2012/08/chinese-house-buying-negotiations.html

    The Chinese construction bubble is about to pop — but did they massively overbuild or will there be a plateau?

  57. Gravatar of falcon falcon
    23. August 2012 at 23:22

    I had a takeout delivery lady carrying an iPhone in Harbin.

  58. Gravatar of RebelEconomist RebelEconomist
    24. August 2012 at 01:58

    My suggestion to Scott would be, if technically possible, to set a maximum number of characters on each comment. From occasional accidental glances at what MF writes, I suspect that I would often agree with him, but I am just not going to read such long comments and so many unless they tend to be especially enlightening. As I have mentioned to MF before, for me at least, his efforts are totally wasted, because when I see the name, I simply scroll down to get past them, as I know by now that it is not worth taking the trouble to engage. Even if it can be ignored though, such verbiage does make the blog comments more tedious to read, and I am less inclined to comment sometimes because I doubt that many readers will get past the first few exchanges. While I am against deleting genuine comments, I would urge everyone to be more selective about what they write on blogs (including the authors themselves), if only out of respect for readers’ time.

    On the subject of a land tax, I believe that the UK economy is so housing dominated that a land tax would be the most helpful economic reform that we would make (and NGDP targeting beginning with any level much above present NGDP would be poison, because it would bail out the UK housing market and renew the domination). But when I have mentioned this previously, someone – possibly Jim Glass – raised the difficulties of Philadelphia, such as a backlog of appeals against valuations. I have a feeling though, that some of the problems in Philadelphia arose because the tax was on property, not land. Land is more homogenous than structures. And since the land value depends on the permitted land use, a land value tax should make allowance for land users like farmers. Where I live in the UK, land with planning consent for building is worth about a hundred times as much per unit area as agricultural land.

  59. Gravatar of Andrew Andrew
    24. August 2012 at 06:35

    Since Scott isn’t back yet, do we assume he perished on Yellow mountain?

  60. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    24. August 2012 at 07:12

    Tom,

    “The Chinese construction bubble is about to pop “” but did they massively overbuild or will there be a plateau?”

    Thats a good question…But is the bubble about to pop ? Maybe they still need to keep building.

    Just a few years ago the Chinese said that they needed to knockdown about half their housing because it will fall down on its own or it is unsafe in other ways. All the housing built during Mao’s time and much of the housing built before 1990 fit in to this category. They still have a lot of housing to knock down.

    I know they have built many thousands of new homes that are unoccupied. Yet they still have shortages of homes in many metro areas. Maybe the bubble will burst in some areas and keep inflating in others.

    I think the only thing safe to say about China’s housing market is that it is too. chaotic to say what is happening.

  61. Gravatar of 123 123
    24. August 2012 at 08:08

    China bubble debate is getting boring. These questions are more interesting:
    1. What features of Chinese monetary policy are responsible for the stable growth?
    2. What is Shanghai Composite Index telling us about the future NGDP in China?
    3. Capital controls. Do they really work in China?

  62. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    24. August 2012 at 09:04

    Doing my morning surfing, I came upon this quote from an interesting article…

    ” A Chinese colleague told me recently, ‘ Had a Chinese CEO led any bank to what all of your banks did in concert, his bonus package would have been a bullet to the temple.’…”

    Tales from the sociopathic society…Eric Garland
    http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/08/16/tales-from-the-sociopathic-society/

  63. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    24. August 2012 at 10:06

    Mike Sax:

    Razer I never said individuals don’t have property rights. I said they aren’t absolute.”

    According to what premises? You can’t just declare people don’t have absolute property rights.

    How is someone saying to you, and enforcing:

    “Even if you are going to die from starvation, and the only option you have to live is to steal bread from me, then I am justified in using force against you to stop you from stealing my bread, after which you would have to face the consequences of not eating stolen bread”

    Or

    “Even if you have money to spend on my goods, I still don’t want to trade with you because I don’t want to sell to people of your skin tone”

    How are these premises for why property rights are not absolute? What does your inability to live at the expense of others, have to do with why property rights should not be absolute? That you may die earlier?

    Why should your desire to live or acquire goods from other people be an absolute claim on the lives of others and those who produce and sell goods?

    You’re claiming to be against absolute property rights, and yet you are making YOURSELF out to hold an absolute claim on the wealth and lives of others. Your absolutism is that if you want to live and theft is the only option, then you have an absolute right to steal. That if you want to acquire goods from someone, then you have an absolute right to force them to give you those goods if you offer them a price they are offering to others not you.

    You’re not against absolute rights. You’re in favor of “Absolute Mike Sax Rights”.

  64. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    24. August 2012 at 10:07

    RebelEconomist:

    Be advised that my being scrolled over by you, is in no way a loss to me.

  65. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    24. August 2012 at 10:31

    1. scott runs a for profit blog – please click the links.

    2. real libertarians will support land taxes that equally reduce other kinds of non-consumption taxes (this is REQUIRED), make owning / passing land down through generations cost prohibitive, increases re-gentrification. this is in line with reducing land use regulations as well.

    3. rights come from guns. / force, govt’s PRIME DIRECTIVE is protecting property rights. if it doesn’t do this – it is basically worthless and will be toppled by the very people who created it – the competent people.

  66. Gravatar of Becky Hargrove Becky Hargrove
    24. August 2012 at 11:08

    Scott, I thought you might like to know that Arnold Kling just penned his last post today – he is really going to be missed. It was short so I don’t know about any other potential changes at Econlog.

  67. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    24. August 2012 at 14:25

    Morgan:

    real libertarians will support land taxes that equally reduce other kinds of non-consumption taxes (this is REQUIRED), make owning / passing land down through generations cost prohibitive, increases re-gentrification. this is in line with reducing land use regulations as well.

    Real libertarians are against initiations of force against the individual.

    FAKE libertarians are in favor of taxes.

  68. Gravatar of John John
    24. August 2012 at 17:19

    Major,

    Morgan is in favor of smaller government. While like yourself I don’t believe in any government, I’d make common cause with anyone who wants smaller government until we actually get there. I don’t see any good reason to attack people who broadly want what you want. When we get a tiny government then we can argue about making it smaller, until then libertarians have to direct their energy against real statists and there’s no shortage of targets.

  69. Gravatar of Negation of Ideology Negation of Ideology
    24. August 2012 at 21:49

    Morgan –

    “3. rights come from guns. / force, govt’s PRIME DIRECTIVE is protecting property rights. if it doesn’t do this – it is basically worthless and will be toppled by the very people who created it – the competent people.”

    Amen! True libertarians understand all rights and all freedoms come from the ability to defend them. People who oppose government and the rule of law are not libertarians, they are anarchists.

    A government that defends people against violent attack, fraud, and theft, issues a stable currency, and has low, simple taxes is an unqualified blessing.

  70. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    24. August 2012 at 23:24

    Foosion, Yes meters, Silly mistake on my part.

    Bob, I did stay at the top, but it was too foggy to see the sunrise. Great views during the midday, however.

    James, Very interesting piece form the Atlantic. Mostly accurate, but the Northeast is no longer a “rustbelt.” Three years is enough to make a China article almost obsolete.

    LC. Life expectancy is Shanghai is higher than in Western countries, if my memory is correct. Health in the poorer areas is much worse. Health care is supposed to be very uneven, but I’m no expert.

    I’d expect their life expectancy to eventually surpass ours, even if health care remains poor.

    Saturos. In rural areas families often have more than one kid. The one child policy is mostly directed at the cities.

    Becky, That’s too bad.

  71. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    25. August 2012 at 04:06

    Scott! Glad you’re alive.
    Now, we need you to respond to this: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/08/lee_ohanian_on.html

    Terrible news about Kling. I don’t see why he has to give up the EconLog post – pithiness is one of his fortes. He could still come back whenever he had something short to say.

  72. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    25. August 2012 at 06:49

    MF,

    Libertarians support a govt. that is as small as possible to be effective.

    As such, they support some tax.

    My point which is not refutable is that that very first tax, should not only be a consumption tax – it should specifically a land tax.

    Govt. is created by competent libertarians to get that first rule of law necessary to codify property rights… land taxes are the best kind of consumption taxes.

    Negation, no government shouldn’t be in charge of currency.

  73. Gravatar of Evan Soltas Evan Soltas
    25. August 2012 at 10:03

    Scott,

    While you were out hiking mountains in China, the Fed released its minutes. There was a discussion of “simple rules for monetary policy” in there which was apparently overlooked amid the indication that another easing is coming. I think SF Bank president Williams, at least, can be counted as an NGDP level target supporter. (http://esoltas.blogspot.com/2012/08/ngdp-is-simple-rule.html)

  74. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    25. August 2012 at 10:17

    Morgan:

    Libertarians support a govt. that is as small as possible to be effective.

    As such, they support some tax.

    Consistent libertarians consistently critique all actions that are initiations of force, even if the offenders who act in this way are wearing gov’t badges.

    As such, they do not support any taxes.

    My point which is not refutable is that that very first tax, should not only be a consumption tax – it should specifically a land tax.

    Of course such a point is refutable. It is refutable on the grounds that initiating force is wrong. If you start with a self-contradictory position, such as statism, then saying your position is not refutable is like saying an ideological system that denies logic and accepts contradictions is not refutable by logic.

    Govt. is created by competent libertarians to get that first rule of law necessary to codify property rights… land taxes are the best kind of consumption taxes.

    No, government is created by non-libertarians who violate other people’s property rights. You cannot “codify” property rights by legalizing the systematic violation of them by a monopoly gang.

    Negation, no government shouldn’t be in charge of currency.

    “Monopolies of currency issuance are created by competent libertarians to get that first rule of currency law necessary to codify medium of exchange…fiat notes are the best kind of monopoly currencies.”

  75. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    25. August 2012 at 11:17

    MF,

    that’s just plain illogical.

    To create title, as in this piece of land is owned by John, you need a government…. which needn’t have any actual “force” as in guns, police etc. itself.

    Otherwise, John can stand on the untitled land and insist it is his, and may indeed use force (his or some private one) to keep people off of it. but the concept of “ownership” in that case, versus the titled one, I named above is ACTUALLY WEAKER.

    This is why I say the first formation of government is a system put in place by guys who want to “own” land.

    They want to put an official title on it. And have established contract law which says it is theirs.

    And the easiest way to do that is to establish a government for titling office.

    And EASY is the operable thing here, because in its creation – in its founding are a handful of folks who are trying to make their life easier, so they can get on with their real interests.

    They are generally forming govt. so they can imitate force and go take land from someone say some Indians who haven’t created titled land, etc. (the whole flag invasion thing is another discussion) or said another way… they are just showing up on what appears to be unused land want to see it titled as theirs so it is worth their time to build on it.

    The personal imitation of force, to ensure this land is yours, is going to happen with or without title.

    And MF, you aren’t allowed to argue slippery slope, here.

    The question is since we GAIN so very much from having TITLE, what it is least amount of taxation, and what should be taxed??

    And the correct answer is TAX THE THING that is being TITLED.

    And then step away from it, don’t add in any more government.

    You can have private cops and private judges and private for-profit everything.

    But the land and the resources under it, and the sky above it, needs some agreed on method of the competent all kind of nodding to one another in a pact that says “that Land is yours”

    Ultimately, this is a lesser evil, it is the competent kind of enforcing their will on the rest of incompetent.

    And I think you have to have th estrength to look in the mirror and admit this is what happens.

    From there you can say:

    1. well at least we tax this land thing, so it falls on those who actually set up this first little sin.

    2. and this property rights thing only counts for the atomic, until we get so good at moving atoms around that alchemy is realized, we’ll protect the atomic as property and the digital, well that’s not able to be owned.

    it isn’t perfectly clean, but it is the least dirty.

  76. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    25. August 2012 at 11:59

    Morgan:

    To create title, as in this piece of land is owned by John, you need a government…. which needn’t have any actual “force” as in guns, police etc. itself.

    False. You need protection. Protection is not the same thing as coercive territorial monopoly of security and protection.

    I can hire a protector, or I can protect myself, and thereby exercise my property rights. Neither my hired protector, nor myself, need be a territorial monopoly (state) that initiates force against others, forcing them to pay the same security and protection provider.

    Otherwise, John can stand on the untitled land and insist it is his, and may indeed use force (his or some private one) to keep people off of it. but the concept of “ownership” in that case, versus the titled one, I named above is ACTUALLY WEAKER.

    If John is an original homesteader of that land, or if he traded for that land, then it IS his land.

    This is why I say the first formation of government is a system put in place by guys who want to “own” land.

    Wanting to own land in general is not the same thing as initiating aggression against existing property owners and claiming to be final authority over security matters such that all property owners have to pay and obey you.

    They want to put an official title on it. And have established contract law which says it is theirs.

    A state is an introduction of a person or group of people who systematically violate such contracts.

    And the easiest way to do that is to establish a government for titling office.

    The easiest way for me to cure AIDS is to kill every AIDS patient. But being “easy” does not serve as a valid premise for it being ethically justified.

    And EASY is the operable thing here, because in its creation – in its founding are a handful of folks who are trying to make their life easier, so they can get on with their real interests.

    Protection of oneself IS a “real interest.” It isn’t a fake interest.

    If you want to sign away your life to a state, if you agree to have someone tax you and force laws on you without your input, then be my guest. Just keep that ridiculousness to yourself and don’t presume that I want the same thing.

    They are generally forming govt. so they can imitate force and go take land from someone say some Indians who haven’t created titled land, etc.

    You are merely defining titled land as land that has government sanction of ownership to a particular party. Of COURSE if you define land ownership in that way, then you will believe property rights can only be exercised with a state. But those of us who know that protections can exist without states, we don’t define property rights by the presence of a state whose members decide for everyone. We define it by the presence of actions that establish valid property rights, namely homesteading and trade. To to the extent that anyone disrespects this, then the right to use force is justified. No state implied here.

    The personal imitation of force, to ensure this land is yours, is going to happen with or without title.

    It is going to happen with or without a state.

    And MF, you aren’t allowed to argue slippery slope, here.

    What slippery slope? You are the one introducing a slippery slope, which is that if force is justified to protect property, then social institutions that initiate force are somehow justified as well, and that we should all obey these people and give up our right to self-determination.

    The question is since we GAIN so very much from having TITLE, what it is least amount of taxation, and what should be taxed??

    This is a non-sequitur. Having land title does not imply a state is required! I can have land title by homesteading land, or trading for land, and protecting my land property rights against aggression.

    And the correct answer is TAX THE THING that is being TITLED.

    Since the previous statement is a non sequitur, this statement is superfluous.

    And then step away from it, don’t add in any more government.

    Too late. You already sanctioned violations of property rights. You already sanctioned initiations of force of some special group of people, against all others. Once you do that, you have no argument against them increasing the extent of such violence. Ergo, the small, tiny state that began in 1776 in the US, turned into the largest state the world has ever seen, where you and other pragmatic minarchists are wondering how in the hell the state got so big, and you’re now asking the state to shrink, when those in the state, the very people who are considered by people like you to have a legal authority to initiate violence, have no incentive to shrink. They are self-interested.

    You can have private cops and private judges and private for-profit everything.

    Can those private cops and private judges abolish the coercive monopoly that enforces land taxes on others against their will? If not, then the “private” cops and judges are mere fans at a baseball game who boo the opposition. If they can, then say good-bye to your coercive land tax advocacy.

    But the land and the resources under it, and the sky above it, needs some agreed on method of the competent all kind of nodding to one another in a pact that says “that Land is yours”

    No state is required for this.

    Ultimately, this is a lesser evil, it is the competent kind of enforcing their will on the rest of incompetent.

    The competent do not have a right to rob from the incompetent.

    And I think you have to have th estrength to look in the mirror and admit this is what happens.

    What happens is different from what ought to happen. What happens is what people believe ought to happen. We change what happens if we change people’s views on what ought to happen.

    You cannot argue against what I am saying by saying what I think ought to happen, isn’t happening right now. If that were a valid criticism, then everything you say ought to happen (land tax, auction of low priced labor, NGDP targeting, etc) would be invalidated as well.

    From there you can say:

    1. well at least we tax this land thing, so it falls on those who actually set up this first little sin.

    Would you tax me at gunpoint if I refused to pay you, a non-owner of my land? Would you be willing to harm me or my family if I refuse to buy into your land tax scheme, and I protect myself from every initiation of force you make against me?

    it isn’t perfectly clean, but it is the least dirty.

    No, it can get cleaner than you robbing me at gunpoint so that you can collect what you consider to be justified land taxes.

    Who decides how much you can steal from me? Why them and not me?

  77. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    25. August 2012 at 12:15

    MF,

    You danced around it, but you didn’t actually respond to my point…

    “I can hire a protector, or I can protect myself, and thereby exercise my property rights. Neither my hired protector, nor myself, need be a territorial monopoly (state) that initiates force against others, forcing them to pay the same security and protection provider.”

    This is where you skew funny.

    The formation of government occurs BECAUSE the guys who have hired a bunch of “protectors” to have their stuff protected…

    THEY WANT TO PAY LESS for protection. They want to collude to drive down the cost of protection.

    They want to reduce the effects of the organized protection market.

    Titled property with lightest weight tax – taxing enough to run title office, draw up boundaries and record who are the owners….

    What you are really doing is getting all the initial land owners together – and they are agreeing to a system:

    1. meant to reduce the hordes of folks who want to move in and claim that you can’t “homestead” on only sized piece of land that you can’t “protect”

    2. a system of property “rights” that lay down the basic rules of the game, and tell you who is “cheating”

    And dude, they do that BECAUSE it is easier, it costs them less, and increases their power against the bigger guys.

    And that’s REALLY where the very first Land Title comes from, it is the smart guys enforcing s world paradigm that rewards them over the BIG guys.

    It is an act of violence, a Darwinist aggression of the mind over the body.

    MF, it is the dominant meme.

    —–

    Ought (philosophical question)means nothing to me.

    Should (policy question) means everything.

    I like it when the the ought matches up with the should, but that’s just gravy.

    —–

    This is why I talk about these discussions as an evolution from where we are now, to where we want to be.

    The lesser of two evils is the right choice. Keep making them, and them you’ll get better and better.

  78. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    25. August 2012 at 13:03

    Morgan:

    “I can hire a protector, or I can protect myself, and thereby exercise my property rights. Neither my hired protector, nor myself, need be a territorial monopoly (state) that initiates force against others, forcing them to pay the same security and protection provider.”

    This is where you skew funny.

    The formation of government occurs BECAUSE the guys who have hired a bunch of “protectors” to have their stuff protected…

    The problem here is that you and I are defining government differently. I do not define a government as merely a person or group of people who defend themselves and their material property against aggression, or a person or group of people who are hired for that purpose.

    I define a government as a territorial monopoly on such protections, where even if I do not want to hire group A to protect me, then group A will threaten me with force if I don’t pay them and obey their rules, and they will threaten everyone else who owns land over an arbitrary geographical territory as well.

    You probably define this as a state. Well, if you want to define a government as a private security firm that has voluntary customers, then sure, I support such “government”.

    THEY WANT TO PAY LESS for protection. They want to collude to drive down the cost of protection.

    LET THEM. As long as they don’t initiate force against me, then they can do whatever the heck they want.

    They want to reduce the effects of the organized protection market.

    Just because they WANT to do it, it doesn’t mean they can succeed. Microsoft WANTS to have 100% market share. Microsoft WANTS to reduce the quality of their competitor’s software. But that doesn’t mean that they CAN do it.

    Titled property with lightest weight tax – taxing enough to run title office, draw up boundaries and record who are the owners….

    That draws up institutions that initiate force against others. No dice.

    What you are really doing is getting all the initial land owners together – and they are agreeing to a system:

    1. meant to reduce the hordes of folks who want to move in and claim that you can’t “homestead” on only sized piece of land that you can’t “protect”

    2. a system of property “rights” that lay down the basic rules of the game, and tell you who is “cheating”

    As long as such people “get together” and agree to rules regarding their own property, and they do not impose any land tax scheme on those land owners who want other protectors, then I am for it.

    And dude, they do that BECAUSE it is easier, it costs them less, and increases their power against the bigger guys.

    Sure, but if it is voluntary, I would not define this as a government, whereas you would. I would define this as a private property order.

    And that’s REALLY where the very first Land Title comes from, it is the smart guys enforcing s world paradigm that rewards them over the BIG guys.

    Enforcing a world paradigm…against others even if they do not consent? Then that is aggression, unjustified, and the victims have a right to use defensive force against the aggressors.

    It is an act of violence, a Darwinist aggression of the mind over the body.

    Why do you advocate for aggressive violence?

    MF, it is the dominant meme.

    Slavery and monarchy were the dominant “memes” 400 years ago. Since when were we chained to the status quo?

    Ought (philosophical question)means nothing to me.

    Should (policy question) means everything.

    You hold ought to mean quite a lot, since the whole time you have been trying to convince me that I ought to accept the truth as you believe it to be, and that I ought to accept that I am wrong about something.

    If you didn’t think the philosophical ought meant anything, then why are you constantly trying to change my mind from where it is now, to something else?

    I like it when the the ought matches up with the should, but that’s just gravy.

    I think shoulds cannot exist without oughts.

    This is why I talk about these discussions as an evolution from where we are now, to where we want to be.

    Your philosophy can’t get us there, because what you are advocating, can only ever be a one step improvement, but retaining everything I am against. Whereas you only consider 1 mile down the road, and insisting that we only go one mile further, I on the other hand have the goal in mind, and I reject any claim that the goal is only one mile further, and I really reject any claim that I be prevented by force from going further than the one mile, on the basis of moral and intellectual capitulation, skepticism, and apathy of others.

    The lesser of two evils is the right choice. Keep making them, and them you’ll get better and better.

    False. Rejecting both evils, and accepting the good, is the right choice. Keep insisting on the good, and there is no need for any lesser of two evils. We can live the good while we’re still alive, instead of leaving the good for future generations.

  79. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    25. August 2012 at 13:18

    Choosing the lesser of two evils does not result in progress. It results in retrogression. The worse of the two evils is but a mere placeholder to act as a reference point in your descent, making you believe you’re progressing when you’re really not.

    There is always a third way, and it is this third way that you are ignoring and pretending does not exist, or cannot exist.

  80. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    25. August 2012 at 15:02

    MF,

    you aren’t really fighting with me…

    “I define a government as a territorial monopoly on such protections, where even if I do not want to hire group A to protect me, then group A will threaten me with force if I don’t pay them and obey their rules, and they will threaten everyone else who owns land over an arbitrary geographical territory as well.

    You probably define this as a state. Well, if you want to define a government as a private security firm that has voluntary customers, then sure, I support such “government””

    I define government as a territorial monopoly.

    That’s it.

    After that you can buy your own protection, but an agreement is in place that ALL the other guys in town will respect that piece of paper that says you own this here 40 acres.

    So if another guy comes and kills you, none of the other guys will agree that the killer is allowed to sell them your 40 acres.

    Period. The end.

    I am not saying you can’t have a privatized police force, I’m saying that they ARE NOT an army, they canot be hired to invade your 40 acres.

    The TITLE is the legal representation of your ownership, bit is the thing you sell, if someone is on your land and the title isn’t in their name legally, then anyone and everyone knows that helping you go back your TITLED LAND – you have something to PAY THEM OFF WITH.

    The invader, not so much.

    That’s it.

    I say

    “Titled property with lightest weight tax – taxing enough to run title office, draw up boundaries and record who are the owners….”

    I never go so far as to say…

    “That draws up institutions that initiate force against others. No dice.”

    —-

    Which means dear boy that IF you cannot pay the tax agreed by all the other land owners that set the title system up…

    Then you lose title on your land. And when someone else has title,
    the guys he rounds up to protect the land, they know he has ownership of it.

    The point here is that there is a small thing, a growing tax bill, that can take ANY human and say outloud, “you no longer own this land”

    AND that is a good thing, because it untangles the luck of birth just enough – so I can say there is no luck of birth.

    If you are a big enough idiot, that you can’t keep supporting your slice of the taxes that keep the land title system going for you the land owner, then you are destined to lose your land.

    This lets me have property rights, reduce the amount paid for protection, ends man on man invasion as a method of claiming ownership…

    And still doesn’t have me establishing police forces, it just create s a RULE that all police “protectors” must follow… this weakens the protectors in negotiations with property owners – a good thing.

    —–

    Note: MF I’m also willing to have taxes for defensive wars, based entirely on how much of the land / property you have being protected.

  81. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    25. August 2012 at 20:51

    Morgan:

    you aren’t really fighting with me…

    You’re right. So why are you picking a fight with me by threatening me with violence and actually calling for violence against me if I don’t agree to pay you a land tax?

    “I define a government as a territorial monopoly on such protections, where even if I do not want to hire group A to protect me, then group A will threaten me with force if I don’t pay them and obey their rules, and they will threaten everyone else who owns land over an arbitrary geographical territory as well.

    You probably define this as a state. Well, if you want to define a government as a private security firm that has voluntary customers, then sure, I support such “government””

    I define government as a territorial monopoly.

    That’s it.

    Then everyone is a government agent, because everyone monopolizes the space and stand room by virtue of existing, and everyone monopolizes the scarce resources that they use up in order to live and be happy.

    After that you can buy your own protection, but an agreement is in place that ALL the other guys in town will respect that piece of paper that says you own this here 40 acres.

    After what exactly? Do I or do I not have to pay the person or group you consider to be your “government”, by force if I resist, rather than the person or group of people I consider to be my “government”?

    So if another guy comes and kills you, none of the other guys will agree that the killer is allowed to sell them your 40 acres.

    A territorial monopoly is not needed for such an agreement.

    Period. The end.

    Not the end. You’re missing steps.

    I am not saying you can’t have a privatized police force, I’m saying that they ARE NOT an army, they canot be hired to invade your 40 acres.

    OK, but if I hire group X voluntarily, to protect me, where the heck is it justified to rob me at gunpoint (tax)?

    The TITLE is the legal representation of your ownership, bit is the thing you sell, if someone is on your land and the title isn’t in their name legally, then anyone and everyone knows that helping you go back your TITLED LAND – you have something to PAY THEM OFF WITH.

    Why can’t a private protector do this? Again, where is it justified for you to tax me?

    “Titled property with lightest weight tax – taxing enough to run title office, draw up boundaries and record who are the owners….”

    I never go so far as to say…

    “That draws up institutions that initiate force against others. No dice.”

    If you don’t go that far, then you cannot be advocating for taxation, because that is exactly what taxation is.

    Which means dear boy that IF you cannot pay the tax agreed by all the other land owners that set the title system up…

    Then you lose title on your land.

    On whose authority? Suppose my private protector successfully protects me from anyone who tries to rob me and call it a “land tax.” Suppose my title is NOT lost, because my protector is effective? Then what? Are you going to pretend I don’t have title to my land?

    The point here is that there is a small thing, a growing tax bill, that can take ANY human and say outloud, “you no longer own this land”

    Suppose I don’t pay any taxes. Suppose I only pay my private protector, and other land owners know I have a protector. Are you saying they will not respect my property rights period, because I am not paying any of THEM?

    So does that mean if anyone doesn’t pay me, I should go in and take their land?

    If you are a big enough idiot, that you can’t keep supporting your slice of the taxes that keep the land title system going for you the land owner, then you are destined to lose your land.

    Says who? You’re just presuming that the absence of forced payments somehow means I can never keep my land. That’s ridiculous.

    This lets me have property rights, reduce the amount paid for protection, ends man on man invasion as a method of claiming ownership…

    Sure, but no state is needed for this. Indeed, a state would be an invasion as a method of claiming ownership over my money.

    Note: MF I’m also willing to have taxes for defensive wars, based entirely on how much of the land / property you have being protected.

    I am not willing to condone theft. If there is a threat of war, then it is STILL not justified for you to steal from me.

  82. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    25. August 2012 at 22:35

    “On whose authority? Suppose my private protector successfully protects me from anyone who tries to rob me and call it a “land tax.” Suppose my title is NOT lost, because my protector is effective? Then what? Are you going to pretend I don’t have title to my land?”

    Nope.

    I’m just constructing a system that allows the hegemony to create the dominant rules of the game.

    The title doesn’t guarantee you won’t present a valiant defense of the land…

    But the title owners are also the competent business owners, there is a HUGE swath of them (upwards near 1/3) and they under their own free will by accepting the minimum protection of Titles Property rights, all choose disallow anyone from doing business with you, less they also be cut off.

    They are fined, etc.

    The point here is that the Hegemony is in charge. It is a large bulky wealthy beast… thats is far more united than divided on major questions of the day.

    And we certainly can have a smaller govt. you can even minimize it, but looking at the world, it is hard for me to see there not being an official register where we record who owns what – selected and enforced by the Hegemony.

    Otherwise I have competing corporate chieftains each pointing at the same swath of land and insisting their private registry actually says their own unique customer(s) own their “title.”

    It doesn’t wash.

    To properly seek to shrink the govt. you have to figure out what the Hegemony will AGREE to shrink.

    That’s a big universe, they can get to a lot of places -but you have to make some very careful studied arguments – to move society culturally isn’t the question, the question is how to move them as fast as possible.

    For you that is a crisis epiphany.

    I think that’s unlikely.

    Over time we get better, smarter – so EVENTUALLY we get there. More freedom, less regulation, etc. see a govt. topple here and there sure… but forgetting about titled ownership?

    I want to see a digital privately owned currency sooner than later… but the very people who can be convinced to make the jump, are the Hegemony.

    That’s a big leap.

    Yet getting them to topple legal proof they are the owners of property – and not socially enforce that rule (shun the guy who wont recognize title besides paying some taxes) no matter what kind of private security issue – is as crazy as getting them to not support military defense of the “their country” (which by the way is their titled land).

    Nothing I see logically gets you there.

  83. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    27. August 2012 at 18:48

    Saturos, Lee and Ohanian are partly right. There were serious supply-side problems during the New Deal, but they underrate the role of demand shocks.

    Thanks Evan, Unfortuantely your blog isn’t accessible in China.

Leave a Reply