tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8133337349608142588.post331653820719783997..comments2024-02-28T03:43:57.586-08:00Comments on FET (old posts): What equality-efficiency trade-off?Cameron Murrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08737859133901303110noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8133337349608142588.post-77341584331026245622016-07-14T00:17:31.035-07:002016-07-14T00:17:31.035-07:00Cameron,
I'm a bit surprised that you didn...Cameron,<br /> I'm a bit surprised that you didn't tackle the biggest obvious fallacy here in "the efficiency/equity trade-off" meme - efficiency AT what. "Economic efficiency" is a tautology with "free markets", but bears little relation to any meaningful "efficiency". It is clear that at any point of time you could increase social welfare by redistributing consumption from the rich (who get low marginal utility from each additional dollar to poor who get high marginal utility from each dollar). The cost will be in terms of incentives to work and incentives to invest in the future. I sort of hate the word "efficiency".reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8133337349608142588.post-12813365684272883682013-12-10T04:15:56.162-08:002013-12-10T04:15:56.162-08:00Greetings ~ a brief thought:
Any model or discus...Greetings ~ a brief thought: <br /><br />Any model or discussion (article, blog post) about economic policy is bound to over-simplify and generalise enough that its conclusions are false if taken literally to apply to all (note paradox of this statement). Another truism is that every economic model must be considered ceteris paribus, for any validity--empirical or theoretical--to be discerned or accepted. Yet, you seem to consider the "equity-efficiency tradeoff" both as a binary that must be uniformly-true or not at all AND you fail to account for conditions affecting ceteris paribus, based at least on my reading of this paragraph (my ** added for emphasis):<br /><br />"To be more concrete, if there really is an equality-efficiency trade-off at a broad level, then there should be *no single regulatory change* that can increase both equality and efficiency, since if there exists such a reform, or set of reforms, it *negates the entire aggregation* to a macro level trade-off. Nor should you be able to simultaneous decrease efficiency and equality, as this leaves the door open for reversals of such policies."<br /><br />(of course, equity and efficiency must be defined and the policy universe in question identified, before the query can even be undertaken...)<br /><br />But: Really? The equity-efficiency tradeoff cannot (1) be a tendency rather than an absolute (see complex systems models, models of various heterodox schools, etc which allow for such things), nor (2) be affected by other factors, such that a regulatory change produces this effect (simultaneous increase or decrease) for reasons other than the truth or falsity of the equity-efficiency tradeoff....? <br /><br />Now, I agree that the equity-efficiency tradeoff should not be taught as if it were valid in any and all cases -- that is the point I make above, nothing should -- but this does not mean that it has no validity in any of the forms in which it has been defended. Many scholars have found such a tradeoff under certain conditions, within certain bounds, keeping certain things constant, and though I agree that it is far from universal it should not be dismissed outright so simply as you do.<br /><br />Note that I say all this despite agreeing with your policy prescriptions.glibertyhttp://economicliberty.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8133337349608142588.post-6477706937245210582013-12-09T16:57:16.945-08:002013-12-09T16:57:16.945-08:00It is important not confuse the size of land and i...It is important not confuse the size of land and its value. The type of conservation land you refer to would be valued very low, since it is unable to produce income. In fact, if such land had protection from future development via zoning regulations or some such thing, and there is no way to make a significant income from the land, its value will be very low, and the tax will be some small proportion of that low value. <br /><br />There is also wide scope for exemptions for land used for community purposes. An example of a current exemption is of residential land up to a certain value (in QLD). <br /><br />Other cases, such as agricultural land, would need some further consideration due to the variability of income from the seasonal and extreme weather dependent nature of the business. Such things as reduced rate of tax and carry-over provisions for payment of taxes etc. <br /><br />Most of the land value in the country is residential. Have a look at the breakdowns in this report http://www.prosper.org.au/2013/12/03/total-resource-rents-of-australia-2/Cameron Murrayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08737859133901303110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8133337349608142588.post-80726688880358084812013-12-09T04:56:08.869-08:002013-12-09T04:56:08.869-08:00I'm starting to struggle to understand your po...I'm starting to struggle to understand your posts. Perhaps you're pitching to a more savvy audience, or just to economics people. Probably a hard communications road to tread. Anyway when you say:<br /><br />"while at the same time the tax will fall on those entities with the largest ownership claims to the natural wealth of a country."<br /><br />I wonder about this, for what about people who own land which is not "wealthy" but important for non-productive (in economic human valued terms). Perhaps that land is only significant because it forms the home to a biodiversity group that is valued but can't afford to pay?<br /><br />Or would this land be exempt from such taxes?<br />obakesanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13743339737847465926noreply@blogger.com