Re: Periodic redistribution
Ed Dodson responding... Bryan Caplan wrote: > Robin Hanson wrote: > > An obvious candidate is social insurance. And the obvious question about > > that is how well this mechanism compares to other social insurance > > mechanisms. This one at least is simple and clear, and difficult to > > corrupt. > > I think it far more likely that this was a tremendously costly way of > satisfying envy. My suspicion is that practices like that in primitive > societies were the main reason economic growth was so slow to take root. > > The social insurance rationale is quite weak - weather shocks hit > everyone in the village about the same. So you'd have to focus on > personal shocks to health and the like. > > And since the redistribution happens only every ten years, a person > would need a bunch of bad personal shocks year after year to fall well > below average land holdings. People who gained a lot of land were > probably just low in ability and effort, not unlucky. Ed here: Land distribution programs have been accepted by democratic socialists, primarily, as a remedy to absentee landlordism, to landlordism generally and to imperialist monopoly of land and natural resources. Yet, Marx and Engels understood that what was important was to socialize rent rather than land (their great mistake was that they also advocated socialization of wealth actually produced by labor and by capital). This has only been possible under centrally-controlled and highly represssive police states. Two cases of land redistribution worthy of discussion both occurred following the Second World War. The first is MacArthur's land redistribution program imposed on Japanese landlords. The second is that implemented on Taiwan following the take-over by the Kuomintang under Chiang-kai-shek. The former simply tripled the number of landowners and protected agrarian use of land even in the central districts of Japanese cities. The Taiwanese version placed caps on how much rent private landowners could charge to tenant farmers and eventually socialized a portion of the rent fund. The evidence suggests the Taiwanese model has contributed over time to rather stable economic growth (despite a less than democratic and honest governmental structure). begin:vcard n:Dodson;Edward tel;fax:215-575-1718 tel;home:856-428-3472 tel;work:215-575-1819 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Fannie Mae;Housing and Community Development, Northeast Regional Office (NERO) version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Senior Affordable Housing Business Manager note:If you need to reach me during non-business hours, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] adr;quoted-printable:;;1900 Market Street=0D=0ASuite 800;Philadelphia;PA;19103;U.S.A. fn:Edward J. Dodson end:vcard
Re: Periodic redistribution
Bryan Caplan wrote: > > An obvious candidate is social insurance. And the obvious question about > > that is how well this mechanism compares to other social insurance > > mechanisms. This one at least is simple and clear, and difficult to > > corrupt. > >... since the redistribution happens only every ten years, a person >would need a bunch of bad personal shocks year after year to fall well >below average land holdings. People who gained a lot of land were >probably just low in ability and effort, not unlucky. I agree that the ten year period seems short for this purpose. I think the ancient Jewish tradition of "Julilee" redistributed every 50 years, which makes more sense. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Periodic redistribution
Robin Hanson wrote: > > Daljit Dhadwal wrote: > >Before the Communist revolution in Russia, around every 10 years(I think) > >land was equally divided up and distributed to the peasents. Also, under > >some religions debts have to be foregiven every so often. What's the > >rationale for this type of periodic redistribution? > > An obvious candidate is social insurance. And the obvious question about > that is how well this mechanism compares to other social insurance > mechanisms. This one at least is simple and clear, and difficult to > corrupt. I think it far more likely that this was a tremendously costly way of satisfying envy. My suspicion is that practices like that in primitive societies were the main reason economic growth was so slow to take root. The social insurance rationale is quite weak - weather shocks hit everyone in the village about the same. So you'd have to focus on personal shocks to health and the like. And since the redistribution happens only every ten years, a person would need a bunch of bad personal shocks year after year to fall well below average land holdings. People who gained a lot of land were probably just low in ability and effort, not unlucky. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan "We may be dissatisfied with television for two quite different reasons: because our set does not work, or because we dislike the program we are receiving. Similarly, we may be dissatisfied with ourselves for two quite different reasons: because our body does not work (bodily illness), or because we dislike our conduct (mental illness)." --Thomas Szasz, *The Untamed Tongue*
Re: Periodic redistribution
Ed Dodson responding... Daljit Dhadwal wrote: > Before the Communist revolution in Russia, around every 10 years(I think) > land was equally divided up and distributed to the peasents. Also, under > some religions debts have to be foregiven every so often. What's the > rationale for this type of periodic redistribution? Ed here: >From a moral perspective, the concentrated control over land and natural resources denies "equality of opportunity" to those who cannot access land to produce foodcrops and where socio-political circumstances do not provide for alternatives forms of employment at a livable wage. One can argue (I so argue) that access to nature is a human right and that the institutional support for private appropriation of the rental value of locations (capitalized into selling prices) is unjust. Investment in and control over locations is a rent-seeking activity by nonproducers that, if justice is served, ought to be curtailed. Adherents to state socialism have long promoted land nationalization and land redistribution programs as the solution. Unfortunately, government control merely substitutes bureaucratic inefficiency and state monopoly in the place of private rent-seeking and private monopoly. The real solution is for society to collect location rents via the tax system (and simultaneously remove the tax burden on income streams generated by the production of goods and services and on capital goods). As to the 19th century Russian experiment in land reform, the story is rather complex, but the net result was to remove the remnants of whatever feudal relations remained, exposing peasants to the demands by absentee landlords to turn over a greater and greater proportion of production. Tolstoy tried on a personal level to convey land to the peasants, and the effort merely turned a portion of the former peasants into absentee landlords. Interestingly, Kerensky was petitioned by Tolstoy to adopt the above tax system as the solution to Russia's land problem (which Tolstoy believed would stabilize Russian society and prevent the coming upheaval). > > > Daljit begin:vcard n:Dodson;Edward tel;fax:215-575-1718 tel;home:856-428-3472 tel;work:215-575-1819 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Fannie Mae;Housing and Community Development, Northeast Regional Office (NERO) version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Senior Affordable Housing Business Manager note:If you need to reach me during non-business hours, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] adr;quoted-printable:;;1900 Market Street=0D=0ASuite 800;Philadelphia;PA;19103;U.S.A. fn:Edward J. Dodson end:vcard
Re: Periodic redistribution
Daljit Dhadwal wrote: >Before the Communist revolution in Russia, around every 10 years(I think) >land was equally divided up and distributed to the peasents. Also, under >some religions debts have to be foregiven every so often. What's the >rationale for this type of periodic redistribution? An obvious candidate is social insurance. And the obvious question about that is how well this mechanism compares to other social insurance mechanisms. This one at least is simple and clear, and difficult to corrupt. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Periodic redistribution
Here's some more information about periodic land redistribution in Russia: In 1861 Serfdom was abolished in Russia and land was divided between peasants and landlords. ". . .peasants did not achieve equality before the law or real personal freedom. Their land was held not by them but by the village community. The institution was often know as the mir or the obshchina. The heads of families in the village controlled land utilization. In most parts of European Russia they periodically redistributed strips within a three-field system familiar to students of medieval farming. The peasant was not allowed to leave his village without the authority of the community, and all the households of the village were jointly liable for taxes and redemption fees. . ." These practices came to an end between 1906-1911 with the introduction of land reform. ". . .Peasants were now free to leave their communities, to consolidate their holdings, to buy land or sell it, to move to town or to migrate."* *An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991. Alec Nove. Penguin. 1991. Daljit > I'd appreciate a reference for this land redistribution in Russia. > > > Before the Communist revolution in Russia, around every 10 years(I think) > > land was equally divided up and distributed to the peasents. Also, under > > some religions debts have to be foregiven every so often. What's the > > rationale for this type of periodic redistribution? > > >
Re: Periodic redistribution
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Daljit Dhadwal wrote: > Before the Communist revolution in Russia, around every 10 years(I think) > land was equally divided up and distributed to the peasents. Also, under > some religions debts have to be foregiven every so often. What's the > rationale for this type of periodic redistribution? I'd appreciate a reference for this land redistribution in Russia. Fred Foldvary
Periodic redistribution
Before the Communist revolution in Russia, around every 10 years(I think) land was equally divided up and distributed to the peasents. Also, under some religions debts have to be foregiven every so often. What's the rationale for this type of periodic redistribution? Daljit
