Film review – Elysium
03 Sep 2014 Leave a comment
in constitutional political economy, development economics, economic growth, entrepreneurship, history of economic thought, law and economics, liberalism, P.T. Bauer, politics - USA, property rights, Public Choice, Rawls and Nozick, technological progress Tags: democracies, movies, rule of law, The Great Enrichment
Elysium was on TV. When I saw it on the big screen, no one told me it was a depiction of contemporary capitalism and the class war.
I read it as a contrast between third world countries lacking the rule of law and capitalist democracies.
The ships shooting up to the space station reminded me of Cubans trying to cross into the USA by boat to Florida.
Sorry, but I am just a simple country boy from the back blocks of Tasmania.
What a member of parliament is, is a legal curio. So are heads of state.
11 Aug 2014 1 Comment
in constitutional political economy, economics of crime, law and economics, property rights Tags: bribery and corruption, constitutional law, patronage
Under the Sale of Offices Act 1809, the sale of House of Commons seats was outlawed so membership of parliament must be freehold property. Prior to that 1808 Act, there is a lively trade in seats in the House of Commons: you can buy them outright, or just rent a seat for a session of Parliament.
- Being paid a salary as a member of parliament is very 20th century with the House of Representatives beating the House of Commons by 5 years.
- Back in 1695, the House of Commons resolved that offering a bribe to a Member of Parliament shall be a high crime and misdemeanour liable to impeachment, and an MP accepting such a bribe shall be a matter of privilege.
- In 1858, the House resolved to prohibit advocacy for fee or reward.
- In 1947, a further resolution banning MPs from entering agreements which restricted their freedom to act and speak, or require them to act as a representative of outside bodies.
Prior to the 19th century virtually all European civil appointments were made through outright sale or patronage, included judicial courts, public finance, sheriffs, and notaries public so the offices were freeholds – effectively private property.
Once an office had been granted it could be mortgaged, sold privately or through public auction, and bequeathed to heirs. The key source of income from most offices was the right to charge fees for service.
The buying and selling applied to army officer commissions, but never to the British navy for reasons explained by Doug Allen in his clever writings on the economics of patronage and veniality. The sale of military commissions ended in 1871.
The queen is corporation sole in perpetual succession – she or he may possess property as monarch which is distinct from the property he or she possesses personally, and may do acts as monarch distinguished from their personal acts.
Elizabeth II has several corporations sole – Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia are all distinct corporations sole. She is also a distinct corporation sole for states and provinces.
Ministers of the crown can be corporations sole. This is administratively convenient as regards the ownership of property because it facilitates continuity when the office-holder changes.
There ends today’s trivia.
Can One Enviropreneur Save an Endangered Species? See for Yourself | Learn Liberty
01 Aug 2014 Leave a comment
in entrepreneurship, environmental economics, law and economics, property rights Tags: endangered species, enviropreneurs
Institutions matter
18 Jul 2014 Leave a comment
in development economics, law and economics, property rights Tags: border effects, property rights
Rwanda has better institutions than the congo.
Haiti and the dominican republic share the same island but not the same property rights.
The Rhino’s Horn and exactly why Australia was colonised-updated
12 Apr 2014 Leave a comment
in development economics, law and economics, property rights Tags: Australia, colonisation, property rights, rhino
Doug Allen in The Rhino’s Horn explains why owners sometimes reduce the value of certain attributes of their property because this reduces the incentives for others to steal it. These attributes may be of little value to you but of much greater value to those seeking to steal it.
The rhino’s horn is cut off to stop poaching. The horn is a mass of hair so removing it is painless. This is much cheaper than hiring bodyguards for every Rhino.
My garage door was tagged last year. I do not have this small tag cleaned-off because it would just invite another tagger to have a go.
Allen argued that it is cheaper to reduce the value of that part of the asset that others want to steal than spend a fortune defending it against potential theft. With regard to Australia, he said:
The country had, ironically, been discovered and claimed first by the Dutch, who at the time were a significant force in the region.
Starting in 1772, the French began their first claim to the territory. Although ignored by the British, the French sent expeditions in 1785 and 1792, making significant explorations of southern Australia and Tasmania. The French did not cease these efforts until the 1820s.
Australia was first colonised in 1788 as a penal colony. Very expensive to do, but it did fill-up the only valuable part – Sydney harbour – with 60,000 mainly riffraff and low life. This penal colony for a number of decades made the only valuable part of Australia more unattractive to other European powers to conquer. Allen explains:
In the case of Australia, the hypothesis might appear silly.
How much reduction in the first-best value to a continent can come from 60,000 convicts?
However, one must keep in mind that the only value of Australia at the end of the eighteenth century was from Sydney Harbour, Norfolk Island, and a few other strategic locations.
On these margins, the convicts could lower the value considerably
… After the War of 1812 Britain realized the strategic significance of Bermuda and subsequently established a penal colony there.
A prosperous colony is an attractive colony to conquer so imperial army and navy resources would have deployed to defending it. Prosperous locals and locally recruited troops can switch loyalties.
An empire full of prosperous colonies makes you an attractive target for other European powers to gang up on and divide the spoils. This may explain why some colonial powers had mixed feelings about developing their colonies. Robert Lucas observed that:
Stagnation at income levels slightly above subsistence is the state of traditional agricultural societies anywhere and any time. But neither did the modern imperialisms—the British included—alter or improve incomes for more than small elites and some European settlers and administrators.
France lost its once vast North American colonies through wars. Many colonies changed hands after the countless European wars as part of peace settlements.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments