tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post9118614722653259271..comments2024-02-27T15:47:47.923-05:00Comments on Principled Perspectives: The Tax System and Income Inequality are Two Separate Issuesprincipled perspectiveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-32373787300186734602016-09-20T20:01:41.023-04:002016-09-20T20:01:41.023-04:00Don Watkins, of the ARI, chimed in today, 9/20/16,...Don Watkins, of the ARI, chimed in today, 9/20/16, on Voices For Reason, on what he called 'rent seeking'. He said about the same that we said, here. But, I think he should have said something more specific about epistemology, mainly the issue of the concepts involved, and their role in correct understanding.Mike Kevitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09725778137382703642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-87190389320292767142016-09-12T10:53:28.728-04:002016-09-12T10:53:28.728-04:00I see your point about "rent-seeking." I...I see your point about "rent-seeking." I don't know where that term came from. I know it's an economic term. But it definitely confuses the issue. "Rent-seeking" implies validity, when in fact it is more appropriately called exploitation, I think.principled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-43800405152796307642016-09-11T21:01:11.523-04:002016-09-11T21:01:11.523-04:00I must add this to my comment of 9/10/16, 4:28PM, ...I must add this to my comment of 9/10/16, 4:28PM, here.<br /><br />I said the consumer "buys with the money he worked for,... ."<br /><br />If he buys with money he inherited or was given to him by someone who was alive when that somebody gave it to him, he's a legitimate consumer as per the market. He's not a crook.<br /><br />"Otherwise, the buyer is a crook."Mike Kevitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09725778137382703642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-87863784501557731912016-09-10T16:28:33.025-04:002016-09-10T16:28:33.025-04:00We want the inequality that's determined by th...We want the inequality that's determined by the market. So, we want some inequality. That's all that's important. Do we want more or less of it than we have? Neither, unless the market says so. The market determines, actually dictates, that there be some inequality, in whatever amount it determines, which will probably vary over time.<br /><br />As Walton says, the consumer is boss. But 'consumer' means the buyer is market based. He buys with the money he worked for, thus made and earned. Otherwise, the buyer is a crook. He initiated force, and now buys with the loot. in both cases, he initiated force. He makes goons out of hires, and true victims out of those who are fired. But we don't like to talk about it in these terms. It rocks boats (pirate ships).<br /><br />In recent years, I've become aware of my confusion when I hear or read the word, rent. I used to think it just meant the relationship between a property owner and somebody he gives use of his property to, by contract. I've found it might refer to other things. I guess it can refer to a relationship between 'government' and people, with no reference to any market, nor to the proper function of actual government, such as the sort of relationship you describe in this posting.<br /><br />If the word, rent, can apply to this as well as, say, the relationship of landlord and tenant, do the two fall under the same concept? If so, what's the essential distinguishing characteristic held in common by these two relationships.<br /><br />I think I see a characteristic in one which is mutually exclusive of a characteristic in the other, so they can't be in the same concept, so maybe the word, rent, shouldn't be applied to both. Sorry, but whether I'm right about this instance or not, such an issue is crucial to accurate, proper communication in human relations, for understanding, which is prerequisite for agreement or for disagreement.Mike Kevitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09725778137382703642noreply@blogger.com