Feed on

Country A: encouraging the poor to engage in the unrestricted trade or sale of land-use contracts, good for decades,  … adopting such a system would be a significant move toward privatization.

Country B: partially nationalizes its banking system,  makes it virtually impossible for “ordinary citizens” to run successfully for elected office, has dying cities that require dozens of permits to rebuild even the most worst off areas…

My bet is that country B will pursue more of this in response to country A’s move. Regardless of any of this or this.

This is recommended. I can’t believe it was on TV.

2 Responses to “Who is Moving in the Right Direction?”

  1. Masj says:

    I agree and respect with what China is doing right now with more clearly defining property law within the agriculture sector.

    “Under the new policy, companies buying land-use rights from peasants will probably still not be able to easily convert the land to some use other than farming. Senior Communist Party officials often express reservations at allowing businesses unfettered access to China’s land.” How long these restrictions are set are unclear. It clearly favors the agricultural sector and poor farmers immediately, but how about spill-over effect of this policy for the future? The underlying assumption on this is that farmers are prone to attack of corporations buying off their land to build factories, companies, and monopolize the farmer sector. But all farmers have conscience thus they will act to their own incentives, not others. If all they have done is farming all their life and is the only thing they know how to do, they will not give up that skill for any hefty sum of money. They will see more opportunity as a farmer with increased rights and will value more options in the unrestricted trade market. And there will be farmers who are willing to trade their land to corporations for what that farmer and the negotiator will find fair. No one loses in this exchange. The farmer gets what he wants, and the corporation gets what he wants. A win-win. And by restricting the incentive for corporations to set up, a possibly more productive sector in the same environment, this restricts more possible future use of the land. Isn’t this situation just a policy maker saying, “We think farmers are less sensitive to incentives and can’t weigh their options, and I think we should protect them by making it harder for corporations to set up in this sector so there will be less corporations ripping off farmers.”?

    All and all, I think the policy is good because of the increased awareness of property laws and implications for them, but I don’t like that the policy also makes harder for corporations to set up to the land they have bought from farmers. By removing this regulation the value of the land will go up, because corporations will respond to incentives and turn the land that could be used to produce more good and services.

  2. Patrick says:

    That abc article is great. The Swing Voter’s Curse getting national press (even if they didn’t call it by its rightful name!) Huzzah!

    Wouldn’t a movement to educate young voters about the issues, rather than just registering them to vote, be much better? You could kill two birds with one stone: It makes it rational for young people to vote, as they are now informed voters, and it makes their voting patterns rational, therefore leading to better policy.

Leave a Reply