Talk:Economic rent (political economy)

This needs a proper (short, clear) introductory paragraph. Ben Finn 17:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Done...

--The Trucker 23:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

POV
Statements that the oil in Iraq or ANWR should not be privatized constitute the most obvious violation of NPOV I have seen in my four months editing Wikipedia. Only the obscurity of this article has kept it from being changed. I will not make the changes now—instead I will wait and give the person who created this (or someone else who cares about this topic) a chance to make it NPOV. Unschool 06:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well.... I suppose you are entitled to your POV.

Please make the changes ASAP. Who knows? I might agree with what you do. ECONOMIC THEORY IS A POV. See economic rent for a different POV. That article simply assumes that all things are rightfully and morally privatised. Yet you seem to have no trouble with THAT POV. I can't even prove there IS such a thing as 'good'.

--The Trucker 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In the USA, offshore oil and oil in the ANWR are very good examples of land that is about to be privatised that most certainly should not be. The oil in Iraq is a similar situation in that all of the oil belongs to all of the voters of the sovereignty EQUALLY, and if distributed equally to all voters (no matter their location or their religion) then much of the seeming political strife in that new democracy would be averted. Economic and political well being can be maximized when Land is NOT privatized.

--The Trucker 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A couple of things: First of all, you are making assumptions about me that are without foundation.  You don't know my POV on anything; I have more than once objected to what I perceived as POV in articles, even as I personally agree with that particular POV.  I just happen to be mature enought to recognize and respect the mission of Wikipedia and don't have to have my personal ox to be gored for me to claim POV.


 * Secondly, some questions: Iraq, of course, is a bastard state, having been artificially created under the auspices of British imperialism after WW I.  No historical entity such as Iraq existed before then (which is the biggest reason that they are having trouble getting united today).  So what if the sovereign peoples of Iraq decide to break up?  What if the Kurds go their own way?  Do they have the right to form a Kurdistan, and, if so, do they have the right to the oil on their land?  Can the Sunnis stop them from going?  If so, why?


 * Another question: to whom do these resources belong equally?  You say, understandably enough, to "the voters of the sovereignty".  Well, what if the voters of that sovereignty vote to sell the resource to a private entity?  Do they have the right to do that?

Unschool 22:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This reads more like an op-ed than an encyclopedia article.

A.Z. 14:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sovereignty Based Natural Resources
It is my understanding that the Kurds and the Shia inhabit those areas of Iraq that sit atop pools of oil while the Sunni do not. If the Kurds go their own way then they will not need to share oil revenue with the Shia or the Sunni. A gain for the Kurds and a loss for the Shia and the Sunni. The same can be said for a Shia secession. This is not true for the Sunni who would have nothing should they secede. One would ask therefore why the Sunni are against a united democratic Iraq. The answer is that they will be disenfranchised by the Kurd and Shia majority just as they would if they seceded. Their only hope is a secular or Sunni head of state with NO democratic allocation of oil. This is only a "religious" problem on the surface. The REAL problem is the combination of democracy and current day capitalism (in that current day capitalism subsumes land into the definition of capital).

'IF'

Iraq is to exist as a sovereignty then the Sunni must be assured that they will not be economically disenfranchised. If Iraq is to be broken up or if the Sunni are economically disenfranchised you will have war. And the war will continue until all of the Sunni are dead or in chains. The difference between "economics" (as currently practiced) and "political economy" is that the latter realizes the need for proper government (justice and equal rights).

As to the "rights" of the majority to sell "their" natural resources to a private entity the answer is, strangely enough, no. The sovereign (and in a Constitutional democracy that will be the duly elected government) must allocate natural resources for the equal benefit of all and that will include ‘’future’’ members of the sovereignty. Such a constraint on the sovereign cannot be imposed by anything other than a binding Constitution that requires almost unanimous consent for amendment, e.g. the reason behind a constitution is the control of the sovereign or the majority in respect of the minority. Current living persons have no more right to disenfranchise future persons of the sovereignty than one religious group has to disenfranchise another. This means that depleting non renewable resources without creating CAPITAL (includes education) would probably be politically and economically wrong.

But I repeat: That is my opinion and the opinion of others such as John Locke and Henry George and many more. Of course Frederic Hayek, and Murray Rothbard would disagree and it is difficult to say what Ludwig von Mises would recommend. I do not “drop” these names to seem learned or knowledgeable but only to say that my ideas certainly are not only my own.

--The Trucker 05:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm. So I'm confused. I do think that, to some extent, you accurately describe what might well result from Kurdish succession.  But I'm not sure what your answer was to this question:  Do the Kurds have the right to succeed and take their oil with them, within the economic morality that you espouse? Unschool 06:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course each geographic/religious group has the right to succede. I thought I had covered that. The Kurds have the "right" to succede and the Sunni have the right to make war on them and vice versu. But there is a big difference in having a "right" and doing what is "right". That these groups form a federation as opposed to a union such that each group is reasonably autonomus is probably right. But my point was that it will not work unless the oil revenue is redistributed as a citizen's dividend.

--208.54.14.17 01:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So the Kurds "right" to secede exists, but then the Sunnis can make war on them? Are you saying that the Sunnis right to make war on the Kurds is morally equivalent to the right of the Kurds to secede?

The Sunni's right to make war on the Kurds (should the Kurds seccede) is just as moral as the right of Pinocchio Bush to make war on Iraq. Prior to that invasion the Sunni were well off.


 * Another question: This "federation" that exists between Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias—does it have the same legitimacy as the union of states in the United States?

Yes and no. It depends on the final constitution. But ordinarily federations are more losely coupled than unions.


 * In other words, are the Kurds just as bound to stay in the Federation of Iraq as Wisconsin is bound to stay in the United States of America?

That will depend on the constitution as updated during the early part of this year.


 * How about Scotland? When oil was discovered off the Scottish coast in the 1960s, was it the property of the Scottish people or the people of the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

The oil in the North Sea and the oil on the Scottish coast belongs to all the voters of the UK.


 * Do the Scots have the right to secede and keep the oil for themselves?  What if they had seceded from the UK the year before oil was discovered?  Would that make any difference?

No. The Scotts and the Irish do not have the rights of seccession any more than Texas or Alaska.

note: The Alaskan "citizen's didivend" is not correct IMHO. That CD should be paid to every voting American. And the same can be said of the ANWR. But, in the case of the ANWR the CD can be expanded as the private sector take is lessened.


 * I really do want to get to the heart of this issue, which is whether or not these oil revenues can be ethically privatized, but first I think we need to come to an understanding of some underlying points. And when I ask you if "Q" has a right to do "Z", I know of course that they can do Z.  What I am asking is, within the context of what you regard as morally correct behaviour (and, like most of us, you do believe that some behaviour is more moral than other behaviour, hence your statements about privatizing ANWR), what do you believe is ethical? Unschool 03:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The only ethical course I can see at this point is a federation that allows religious autonomy and legal autonomy (each state can have distinct laws about marraige and enheritance and the like), but oil revenue is to be divided equally among all voters of the federation. I would see a Constitution that forbade seccession and we may actually get such a thing. But I have already said as much.

I would like to add, however, that this is less a question of ethics or morality than a question of what is politically possible AND most efficeint. By efficient I mean that which is the least destructive of individual effort and the least oppressive. Markets devoid of economic rent more closely resemble "free markets".

--208.54.14.25 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)