Treehuggers eat your heart out!
Watch MEP Daniel Hannan school those eurotrash clowns on the necessity of environmental policy coinciding with economic law.
Though I really laugh at the notion of the EU protecting the property rights of some African land owners.
Yeah, he’s good. However, from a sartorial point of view…either that tie - or that pocket square. One of them has to go.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That reminds me, LIFT, your disfavored warmonger Beck had a segment on his show yesterday featuring a businessman who operates public parks in the US under concession. He apparently does a real good job of it. He is presently trying to contract with the State of AZ to keep their parks open.
So this guy gets to profit from something he has no direct risk in owning?
No, nothing can go wrong there.
The AZ parks are going broke because no one wants to visit the desert on their family vacation. Perhaps a real owner would figure this out and turn them into something more productive?
How would a government know if it could run parks efficiently…efficiently compared to what?
There are no market prices for those goods so those measurements cannot be made.
Also, how can a net tax consumer ever be productive? That also requires market prices to figure out.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How would a government know if it could run parks efficiently…efficiently compared to what?
There are no market prices for those goods so those measurements cannot be made.[/quote]
Very Wrong. There are several benchmarks the industry uses and can use to determine effectiveness and efficiency. I’m in this field.
Municipalities and Districts have national conferences, share ideas and hire consultants perform efficiency studies to benchmark this exact data.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Very Wrong. [/quote]
I agree. Until he learns how to match a tie with a pocket square, he’s definitely on my shit list.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How would a government know if it could run parks efficiently…efficiently compared to what?
There are no market prices for those goods so those measurements cannot be made.[/quote]
Very Wrong. There are several benchmarks the industry uses and can use to determine effectiveness and efficiency. I’m in this field.
Municipalities and Districts have national conferences, share ideas and hire consultants perform efficiency studies to benchmark this exact data.[/quote]
I don’t think so. Prices are all that matter. If the government owns it there can be no way to measure efficiency or productivity with respect to the real market.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How would a government know if it could run parks efficiently…efficiently compared to what?
There are no market prices for those goods so those measurements cannot be made.[/quote]
Very Wrong. There are several benchmarks the industry uses and can use to determine effectiveness and efficiency. I’m in this field.
Municipalities and Districts have national conferences, share ideas and hire consultants perform efficiency studies to benchmark this exact data.[/quote]
I don’t think so. Prices are all that matter. If the government owns it there can be no way to measure efficiency or productivity with respect to the real market.[/quote]
Again, you are wrong. Benchmarking best practices is how they do it.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Again, you are wrong. Benchmarking best practices is how they do it.
[/quote]
But that doesn’t mean anything to real people with real money to spend.
Investors need to know if an enterprise will produce wealth in order to be able to value it property.
The government can only consume wealth because, again, they do have a way to determine where capital should be directed with out free floating market prices.
Pretend you are a land owner who is facing “Eminent Domain” property confiscation. Uncle Sam comes along and offers you what they think is a “fair” price but perhaps the market would not have sustained that price at all…? Maybe it would have been worth more if you could have only had the chance to market it to real investors in the best possible light.
Value can only be determined by real owners. And ultimately that can only be reflected by prices.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That reminds me, LIFT, your disfavored warmonger Beck had a segment on his show yesterday featuring a businessman who operates public parks in the US under concession. He apparently does a real good job of it. He is presently trying to contract with the State of AZ to keep their parks open.
So this guy gets to profit from something he has no direct risk in owning?
No, nothing can go wrong there.
The AZ parks are going broke because no one wants to visit the desert on their family vacation. Perhaps a real owner would figure this out and turn them into something more productive?[/quote]
Maybe I’m just being naive but aren’t a lot of public parks designed specifically to preserve undeveloped land, wildlife, etc?
Would productivity defeat this original purpose? And if so, why would it be desired?
[quote]Tancredi wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That reminds me, LIFT, your disfavored warmonger Beck had a segment on his show yesterday featuring a businessman who operates public parks in the US under concession. He apparently does a real good job of it. He is presently trying to contract with the State of AZ to keep their parks open.
So this guy gets to profit from something he has no direct risk in owning?
No, nothing can go wrong there.
The AZ parks are going broke because no one wants to visit the desert on their family vacation. Perhaps a real owner would figure this out and turn them into something more productive?[/quote]
Maybe I’m just being naive but aren’t a lot of public parks designed specifically to preserve undeveloped land, wildlife, etc?
Would productivity defeat this original purpose? And if so, why would it be desired?[/quote]
Well, that is a good point. Productivity, in a sense, can also mean more value is being gained from something of than it otherwise would have been.
For example, perhaps a real property owner figures out a way to conserve his land and provide consumers with enjoyment of it. That is production in the larger sense. Plus, he would ultimately charge a fee and profit from his work.
The problem I have is that many times government will build parks, tax the citizens and then they go unused. A real onwer who had to pay for upkeep of those parks would actually close such a park because it is unproductive since consumers do not want to use it. And really, most parks are FREE (at least superficially) and yet still none use them. That should be an indication that maybe it is a really bad investment.
Let owners profit from their land and they will always put it to its best possible use – whatever that might mean to himself and his potential customers.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Tancredi wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That reminds me, LIFT, your disfavored warmonger Beck had a segment on his show yesterday featuring a businessman who operates public parks in the US under concession. He apparently does a real good job of it. He is presently trying to contract with the State of AZ to keep their parks open.
So this guy gets to profit from something he has no direct risk in owning?
No, nothing can go wrong there.
The AZ parks are going broke because no one wants to visit the desert on their family vacation. Perhaps a real owner would figure this out and turn them into something more productive?[/quote]
Maybe I’m just being naive but aren’t a lot of public parks designed specifically to preserve undeveloped land, wildlife, etc?
Would productivity defeat this original purpose? And if so, why would it be desired?[/quote]
Well, that is a good point. Productivity, in a sense, can also mean more value is being gained from something of than it otherwise would have been.
For example, perhaps a real property owner figures out a way to conserve his land and provide consumers with enjoyment of it. That is production in the larger sense. Plus, he would ultimately charge a fee and profit from his work.
The problem I have is that many times government will build parks, tax the citizens and then they go unused. A real onwer who had to pay for upkeep of those parks would actually close such a park because it is unproductive since consumers do not want to use it. And really, most parks are FREE (at least superficially) and yet still none use them. That should be an indication that maybe it is a really bad investment.
Let owners profit from their land and they will always put it to its best possible use – whatever that might mean to himself and his potential customers.[/quote]
Should land use always be tied to the “market”?
Would there ever be an exception? Virgin forest seems to be a good candidate for exception, given how little of it is left. Where the exception begins and ends is probably more difficult to say.
My understanding of a market is that it is a fairly arbitrary and random way to decide worth, as decided by the rules surrounding the market, which do change as time goes on. This malliblilty and volitilty (sp?) makes me nervous, especially when it comes to things like privitation of public parks and conservation.
Yes, the current system of parks is a bad financial investment. But should such things really be tied down to maximizing productivity/profit, when in a partial sense at least, they were made to be a refugee from that?
I certainly don’t want to pay excessively for state parks, but at the same time I’d hate to see them turned into jellystone parks, strip malls, etc.
[quote]Tancredi wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Tancredi wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That reminds me, LIFT, your disfavored warmonger Beck had a segment on his show yesterday featuring a businessman who operates public parks in the US under concession. He apparently does a real good job of it. He is presently trying to contract with the State of AZ to keep their parks open.
So this guy gets to profit from something he has no direct risk in owning?
No, nothing can go wrong there.
The AZ parks are going broke because no one wants to visit the desert on their family vacation. Perhaps a real owner would figure this out and turn them into something more productive?[/quote]
Maybe I’m just being naive but aren’t a lot of public parks designed specifically to preserve undeveloped land, wildlife, etc?
Would productivity defeat this original purpose? And if so, why would it be desired?[/quote]
Well, that is a good point. Productivity, in a sense, can also mean more value is being gained from something of than it otherwise would have been.
For example, perhaps a real property owner figures out a way to conserve his land and provide consumers with enjoyment of it. That is production in the larger sense. Plus, he would ultimately charge a fee and profit from his work.
The problem I have is that many times government will build parks, tax the citizens and then they go unused. A real onwer who had to pay for upkeep of those parks would actually close such a park because it is unproductive since consumers do not want to use it. And really, most parks are FREE (at least superficially) and yet still none use them. That should be an indication that maybe it is a really bad investment.
Let owners profit from their land and they will always put it to its best possible use – whatever that might mean to himself and his potential customers.[/quote]
Should land use always be tied to the “market”?
Would there ever be an exception? Virgin forest seems to be a good candidate for exception, given how little of it is left. Where the exception begins and ends is probably more difficult to say.
My understanding of a market is that it is a fairly arbitrary and random way to decide worth, as decided by the rules surrounding the market, which do change as time goes on. This malliblilty and volitilty (sp?) makes me nervous, especially when it comes to things like privitation of public parks and conservation.
Yes, the current system of parks is a bad financial investment. But should such things really be tied down to maximizing productivity/profit, when in a partial sense at least, they were made to be a refugee from that?
I certainly don’t want to pay excessively for state parks, but at the same time I’d hate to see them turned into jellystone parks, strip malls, etc.[/quote]
Yes. All things of value require the market to send signals to both investors and consumers – without the market those signals do not exist. And really the market is not a real thing. It just refers to people who exchange one state of lesser valued affairs for a state they find more valuable.
You make fun of strip malls but think about this: Disney World, for example, as despised as it is by many people, takes completely useless Florida swampland and turns it into something of value for many families. On the other hand the government pretty much owns the Everglades and they are dumping tons of money into it to keep it from draining itself? Why? No body wants to live in a swamp except a few native tribes? In fact, they stole this land from them and keep them from using it to their best possible means.
Just because some law says land is being preserved does not mean it actually is. Owners have the most to gain from the value of their land so they are ultimately the only ones capable of “preserving” it.
[quote]Tancredi wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Tancredi wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That reminds me, LIFT, your disfavored warmonger Beck had a segment on his show yesterday featuring a businessman who operates public parks in the US under concession. He apparently does a real good job of it. He is presently trying to contract with the State of AZ to keep their parks open.
So this guy gets to profit from something he has no direct risk in owning?
No, nothing can go wrong there.
The AZ parks are going broke because no one wants to visit the desert on their family vacation. Perhaps a real owner would figure this out and turn them into something more productive?[/quote]
Maybe I’m just being naive but aren’t a lot of public parks designed specifically to preserve undeveloped land, wildlife, etc?
Would productivity defeat this original purpose? And if so, why would it be desired?[/quote]
Well, that is a good point. Productivity, in a sense, can also mean more value is being gained from something of than it otherwise would have been.
For example, perhaps a real property owner figures out a way to conserve his land and provide consumers with enjoyment of it. That is production in the larger sense. Plus, he would ultimately charge a fee and profit from his work.
The problem I have is that many times government will build parks, tax the citizens and then they go unused. A real onwer who had to pay for upkeep of those parks would actually close such a park because it is unproductive since consumers do not want to use it. And really, most parks are FREE (at least superficially) and yet still none use them. That should be an indication that maybe it is a really bad investment.
Let owners profit from their land and they will always put it to its best possible use – whatever that might mean to himself and his potential customers.[/quote]
Should land use always be tied to the “market”?
Would there ever be an exception? Virgin forest seems to be a good candidate for exception, given how little of it is left. Where the exception begins and ends is probably more difficult to say.
My understanding of a market is that it is a fairly arbitrary and random way to decide worth, as decided by the rules surrounding the market, which do change as time goes on. This malliblilty and volitilty (sp?) makes me nervous, especially when it comes to things like privitation of public parks and conservation.
Yes, the current system of parks is a bad financial investment. But should such things really be tied down to maximizing productivity/profit, when in a partial sense at least, they were made to be a refugee from that?
I certainly don’t want to pay excessively for state parks, but at the same time I’d hate to see them turned into jellystone parks, strip malls, etc.[/quote]
You should read up on what Rothbard taught on Conservation and Property Rights. You would be surprised how much ‘public’ lands have lead to the lack of conservation. An acquaintance and I recently has bought four sections of ponderosa pine forest, in Flagstaff for the sole reason of conservation.
Quick and simple way to privately (and more effectively than government) run a conservation projects:
If there is an organization (and there are) or a trust set up to conserve land privately, people will want to donate money in order to conserve the land and keep it from being molested. Obviously the organization’s least costly option to them is to conserve the land. Therefor the land will be conserved.