Why the world should adopt a basic income

This is chilidish grunt. Why not try to actually refer to property rights economic analysis?

 

liberal fool still imagining he's scoring points by pretending to know something

 

I love the false challenge. Tell us about the property rights economics analysis from the right?

 

and its a great strategy for him as long as he imagines he is scoring points in some game some where by pretending to know more than you. I'll bet he has several imaginary friends too.

 

why not tell us what you know or admit you and your libcommie imaginary friends got nothing.

 

This amused me. What info are you after ?

 

Perhaps you can explain the relationship between property rights and economics. I don't see the connection, but perhaps you can enlighten us.

 

Are you serious? Wowsers. You at least realise you're on an economics forum don't you?

Start with the Coase Theorem. That gives a clue about the Institutionalist analysis into the key aspects of property rights for our understanding of economic efficiency.

 

Great. Now we're getting somewhere. So how does that explain the relationship between property rights and economics?

 

We're not getting anywhere. I've already described how property rights analysis is used to underpin economic efficiency.

What we do know is that your original comment was completely based on ignorance of property rights

 

You seem to be saying that there's a relationship between property rights and economics. What is this relationship?

 

I've told you twice. The very notion of economic efficiency according to institutionalist economics is based on property rights. I've even given you the means to start your study, given the Coase Theorem is an easy introduction to the literature (which of course also destroys your original comment, given transaction costs gives a natural argument in favour of interventionism)

 

So you are unable to explain this relationship you say exists between property rights and economics. Got it.

 

Fourth time! You cant understand economic efficiency without property rights. You can illustrate that via the Coase Theorem. Its also transaction costs, spawned by that analysis into property rights, which provides a justification for the economic interventionism you whinge about.

 

So I said: "With regards to wealth distribution, social justice requires the violation of property rights, and is therefore unjust."

You jumped in with an objection, but I'm not exactly sure what your objection is. Can you be more clear about why you object to my statement?

 

I couldn't be clearer: as proved by your recent comments, you start with a ridiculous ignorance of property rights.

Let's help you along. You would need to show that the Coase Theorem holds (such that any attack on property rights, by definition, harms economic efficiency). If it doesn't (and it won't with transaction costs), we shift our economic understanding to one where interventionism (including redistribution) can both increase efficiency and improve on equity. By ignoring that reality, your fake libertarianism is authoritarian by definition. You insist on an inequitable outcome that harms economic activity.

 

Why exactly?

 

Already told you. If it doesn't hold then we have imperfect property rights. Your position is then coercive, as you'd be demanding the protection of imperfection (harming both efficiency and equity)

 

Imperfect in what way?

 

Do I have to point out in real world numbers the number of desperate poor globally h gone down due to Capitalism. I loan funds through KIVA ,yes me a dirt poor America asking gift money be in their gift cards on-line, and loan money to the poor to help with business plans or to go to school. One I'm proud of is a woman who just needed money for two sewing machines so she and her daughter could improve their clothing business and then later they paid that off and ask people for another loan to move into a bigger shop and add a jewelry area of the shop her son operated making jewelry to sell. Seriously would hand-outs be better than the pride of people able to work to support themselves and I wish I was fit enough to work. But I feel such lending is important access to credit and various educational and support programs makes peoples lives better.

I'm on SSI and wish the government would require me to do some kind of work for it and assign me such work, based on my abilities and aptitude even a couple hours a week. It's better than hand-outs even though I know I need them.

I get it this is different but say you gave this family money what if they didn't want it thinking its charity, or the religion wise being Muslims think its holy to work and earn their keep or they already get help that gives them pride as in access to credit and that's what matters maybe the world should focus on that for the poor first as a practical alternative.

 

Yet always alone in the game.

Apparently the possibility that others are applauding one's impressive erudition and dexterous prose, is sufficient.

 

Transaction costs. The obvious example is pollution (where the Coase Theorem fails because of moral hazard). But this reflects all aspects of the economy, ensuring that pareto optimality is a textbook curiosity. Without the first best on offer, there is no reason that interventionism cannot improve both efficiency and equity. You therefore are the authoritarian as you're demanding both inefficiency and an inequitable outcome

 

Can you explain how my right to maintain ownership of something has anything to do with transaction costs? How does transaction costs make my property rights imperfect?

 

Sorry, but its like talking to a cretin. Please read my last comment and work out a worthwhile question.

 

You said we have imperfect property rights. You further said they are imperfect because of transaction costs. Okay, so how do transaction costs make our property rights imperfect?