From a letter written by an enlightened citizen to explain what's what to -- a university economics professor.
While not generally a fan of Mises, I rather agree with the professor's central tenet that rent control is theft. However, he does himself no favors by actually saying "theft". When trying to be persuasive, calling people thieves -- particularly when they don't realize they are -- does nothing to win them over. I've met far too many Libertarians who don't seem to have the basic social skills to understand that they are doing themselves no favors. They merits of an argument can be useless when the other party is offended.
Re:Rent Control is Theft?
jdavidb on 2008-05-29T15:57:30
I've met far too many Libertarians who don't seem to have the basic social skills to understand that they are doing themselves no favors.Kinda like being a geek, huh?
:D I rather agree with the professor's central tenet that rent control is theft.You know, when I saw the subject of your reply, that was actually the last thing I expected you to say.
:) But actually I was mainly focusing on the ban money thing, as I've heard this for years, and it's always amazed me how people can take Star Trek as a model for potential economic reality.
Re:Rent Control is Theft?
Ovid on 2008-05-29T17:47:48
You know, when I saw the subject of your reply, that was actually the last thing I expected you to say.:) That was my attempt to show how one can be provocative enough to catch one's audience without offending them, though I wonder if my "basic social skills" comment negated all of that
:) Re:Rent Control is Theft?
pudge on 2008-06-04T21:06:16
While not generally a fan of Mises, I rather agree with the professor's central tenet that rent control is theft. However, he does himself no favors by actually saying "theft".It's a loaded word. Strictly speaking, it is true, depending on context and definitions. In criminal law terms, it is not true, as it is only theft if the gov't says it is theft according to the law. In economic terms, it probably is theft. But the word is loaded and unuseful.
A better thing to say is that the property owner, by virtue of owning the property, has the right to charge whatever he wishes. And the government by enforcing rent control therefore takes away some of his property rights. Laws regarding properties, about pests, utilities, safety, health, notice before eviction, etc. are all theft of proprerty rights in a similar way.
The question is whether that "theft" of property rights is justified.
This quote from the piece is just odd to me:No, rent control would only NOT be "theft" in the economic / property rights sense if the landlord did NOT have the right to charge whatever he wished. He does have that right, as it is his property. But in some areas, the government, mostly through the people, have decided the government has the right -- even obligation -- to limit that right. I do not agree. But that is the debate.Rent control would be theft only if landlords had a right to a specific amount of rental income.
The question is not theft or not-theft. It is about rights, and when it is justified to take those rights away. Most strong Libertarians say it is only allowed when your right would harm someone else without their consent, which means I can use asbestos in my building, as long as you know about it. Most of the rest of us think that is a bit too far. But rent control is a far less clear area, in finding where government has a right to step in and take away property rights.Re:Rent Control is Theft?
jdavidb on 2008-06-05T11:46:58
It's a loaded word. Strictly speaking, it is true, depending on context and definitions. In criminal law terms, it is not true, as it is only theft if the gov't says it is theft according to the law. In economic terms, it probably is theft. But the word is loaded and unuseful.I agree it's loaded and often particularly unuseful. It has been useful for me in religious discussions, however, as I attempt to persuade people who share my religious convictions that supporting such actions means they are supporting theft and therefore engaging in something they believe to be a sin.
But that's not generally useful in intra-geek discussions.
:) The question is whether that "theft" of property rights is justified.Since the ends never justify the means, then if you prove something is theft or infringement of rights, then I'd have to say the answer to that question is "never." But then, I'm one of those "strong libertarians" you mentioned.
:) [But please don't apply it to me with a capital L, as that implies Party membership, which does not apply to me. You can call me "strong" all you want, though. Or "loony."]
Re:Theft would require...
jarich on 2008-05-30T12:57:04
Wikipedia suggests that rent control was imposed a long time ago, but seems to suggest that it's not being imposed on new constructions. I would presume that buyers today would know their rent control status. So by this information, I agree that rent control doesn't seem like theft.
On the other hand, Wikipedia also says that in some areas of rent control landlords are restricted in their rent raises even with respect to CPI. "The frequency and degree of rent increases are limited, usually to the rate of inflation defined by the Consumer Price Index or to a fraction thereof. (San Francisco, for example, allows annual rent increases of 60% of the CPI, up to a maximum 7%." Again, it sounds like a case of buyer-beware, but it certainly doesn't make a sound investment to buy a place which will lose value in real terms every year. (Some places allow you to jump the rental rate up to market rate during a vacancy, which will help offset these losses, but of course first you need the vacancy).
The arguments for and against in the Wikipedia article are well written. I'm inclined to prefer the against point of view even though I feel that Gary M. Galles failed to write a convincing case at all (such is partially due to the limits of newspaper letter word limits I imagine). Still, I imagine that Australia's solution to the same problem would probably seem weird to people comfortable with rental controls and unfamiliar with negative gearing.
;) On the topic of the original post, I have to agree with your next point. Society works on the idea that things have value. Time for example. Even in a money-less world I'm not going to build you a house, grow all your food for you and otherwise spend my time and effort on your basic needs unless I get something out of it. Perhaps it's a fair exchange of work, and that's okay. But money's just a way of allowing me to exchange my work with someone else, and then use that past transaction to pay you to do work for me now. Having governmental control over money means that we have a fixed (in the moment) value for each unit. Thus I can determine how many hours I need to work at the rate my employer will pay me in order to afford to pay you to do something for me.
It's credit we need to reign back in. I'm not saying businesses shouldn't get loans, that people shouldn't be able to get mortgages on houses etc. But credit cards, store cards, personal loans, car loans are so easy to get, and it's this availability of credit that is causing so much trouble. If people honestly had to save for things, rather than just putting it on credit and worrying about it later; there would be a lot less financial stress.
Of course it'd also be bad for the economy.
Re:Theft would require...
pudge on 2008-06-04T20:51:55
To truly be theft, it would require the seizure of value in a way that was unexpected.Well, it is true that you can make that part of the contract terms, but that is different from expectations. If you own a building and you tell me that if I live there, you will take my bike from me at your whim, and it is in the contract, fine, that's not theft. Otherwise, however, it would be.
So building a property knowing that it will be rent controlled is not theft, it's a deal between the developer and the city to knowingly keep an area cheap and underdeveloper.
So I agree with your point, I would just word it more strictly: it is beyond expectations, it must be part of a specific agreement. If I agree to let you rent-control my building, fine, it is obviously not theft because I agreed to it.
Re:Money is not bad...
jdavidb on 2008-05-30T14:06:49
Even Star Trek has _something_ related to money. The small glimpses we get into the lives of the non-government sector in Star Trek suggests that the ordinary populace doesn't get to just travel around anywhere they want. I have vague memories of energy limits being mentioned once or twice.To be fair, I think that's a bit of a retcon that originated around the time DS9 started, possibly a little bit earlier. The early TNG episodes are pretty clear that "scarcity has been eliminated" and "there is no such thing as money," both of which are pretty much economically ridiculous. As you said, money is invented over and over again. If whatever we use for money now were eliminated (or, equivalently, all held by one person), something else would emerge as money.
Re:Money is not bad...
Aristotle on 2008-05-30T19:08:05
Eliminating scarcity is not just ridiculous but in fact impossible. In a finite universe, creating an abundance of some resource inevitably creates a dearth of complementary other resources.
Re:Money is not bad...
chromatic on 2008-06-05T17:20:42
That's certainly true even in the Star Trek universe: creating an abundance of perfect, godlike humans created a dearth of interesting stories.
