Reputational economies are inefficient and are obstacles to things like globalization and large firms. The market soution is ratings agencies and reputational monitors, but both of these are subject to capture by those they are monitoring (hello, Moody’s).[quote=“stupendousman, post:84, topic:15348”]
No, increases in productivity was mirrored by an increase in the value of labor. More widgets per person per time period means less hours worked.
[/quote]Why less hours worked? Why wouldn’t the employer want to maximize the hours each employee works, and reduce the size of the workforce? You are assuming that employers want to employ more people working shorter hours even though they could employ fewer people working longer hours. Even if the employees are paid hourly, having fewer employees would still be cheaper since there are fixed costs associated with each employee (e.g., benefits, office space, administration costs, etc.). It is in the employers interests to have fewer employees working longer hours.
So you’re just ignoring the evidence which shows corporate taxes form about 3% of state & local revenue? Are you going to seriously try and argue that businesses account for a large proportion of property taxes? If so, I’d like a citation.
Huh? You’re saying that state imprisonment for copyright infringement isn’t coercion? If it’s not coercion, then what incentive is there to follow the law? And when something that was legal suddenly becomes illegal, how does an infringing activity (like playing Stravinsky) suddenly change from legal and non-forceful to illegal and forceful infringement? It is the same activity, and the only change is the law. The same analysis applies to squatting. And trespassing, as trespassing laws haven’t always existed. And there are societies where common property was the law, such as Aboriginies—but when the UK imposed private property laws on them legally borrowing something became illegal theft even though the physical act of taking something hadn’t changed and there was no use of force.
The only reason I appear to have the cart before the horse is because you’ve internalized the prevailing legal property regime.
If you are going to take a Lockian, labour view of property, then presumably you agree that capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate, 100% inheritance and gift taxes are appropriate, non-productive uses of property should not be protected (e.g., squatter rights should be expanded), and all forms of inter-generational wealth transfers (including money spent on education) are appropriate targets of regulation.
And there is no enslavement involved in trying to take someone’s property. When you are a slave, you don’t have a choice. Those who have property are always free to either bargain with those who have the means to take property from them or to take measures to ensure that others do not have the means to take property from them. This would see to be a true market solution to the issue.
