I wonder if Professor Duflo was ever introduced to the writings of Francois Quesnay, A.J. Jacques Turgot and other members of the Physiocratic school. These were individuals who managed to take a very objective look at the effect of socio-political arrangements and institutions on the production and distribution of wealth. They were writing a time when the widespread system of agrarian-landlordism was evolving and expanding. Subsistence farming by tenants of the landed aristocracy changed once deeds to land enabled the conveyance and mortgaging of land. More and more land was redirected to raising sheep and cattle and to commercial agriculture, generally. As peasants were removed from the land, they came into the towns, towns grew into crowded cities, and a class of urban landlords extracted rents from urban land in the same way rural landowners extracted commodity rents (from sharecroppers) and money rents when tenant farmers were required to bring their harvests to markets for sale. What the Physiocrats described in their teachings was absorbed by Adam Smith, who devotes a considerable portion of Wealth of Nations to land markets and the ability of the landed to extract rents from others without offering anything in exchange. As Smith observed, the landed become rich while they sleep as land values increase as population grows and the demand for land increases. David Ricardo expanded on this analysis with a scientific investigation that became the "law of rent." Later in the 19th century, Henry George applied Ricardo's analysis to all of nature and, importantly, to urban land values. George examined the dynamics of land markets and concluded that the privatization of land rent amounted to a redistribution of wealth from producers to nonproducing rentier interests. Governments dominated by rentier interests then moved to raise revenue with which to pay for public goods and services, first, by imposing tariffs on imports and eventually by the taxation of income earned producing goods and providing services and by the taxation of tangible property (including machinery, buildings, equipment, etc.). Everything discussed in this session is about income and wealth distribution to deal with poverty and suffering. What is actually needed is systemic reform. Nature must be recaptured as our commons, and the easiest means of achieving this outcome is moving in the direction called for by Henry George -- the elimination of taxes on earned income, on tangible goods and on commerce in favor the public capture of rents from all land and other natural assets.
The issue is not inequality but getting people to start on the same line and giving them opportunities, and not stunting them so they remain on the same level
I disagree, if the laws make it compulsory, then private sector would do so like CSR in India. Politics is a business here and business has become managing politics. In development economies, your findings are irrelevant for many
I agree the poor suffered more than the rich during covid but I disagree that people want dignity. Mist of the richest people praise the government in India though privately they express a totally opposite view as the government will harass them if they are criticised. So it’s all about high or low stakes
Ideologically-driven pro-business economists and free-market fundamentalism are what got us into these messes in the first place. The majority of the increases in your material standard of living were driven by what we would refer to as conceptualists and experimentalists, not "business people dealing with reality".
I wonder if Professor Duflo was ever introduced to the writings of Francois Quesnay, A.J. Jacques Turgot and other members of the Physiocratic school. These were individuals who managed to take a very objective look at the effect of socio-political arrangements and institutions on the production and distribution of wealth. They were writing a time when the widespread system of agrarian-landlordism was evolving and expanding. Subsistence farming by tenants of the landed aristocracy changed once deeds to land enabled the conveyance and mortgaging of land. More and more land was redirected to raising sheep and cattle and to commercial agriculture, generally. As peasants were removed from the land, they came into the towns, towns grew into crowded cities, and a class of urban landlords extracted rents from urban land in the same way rural landowners extracted commodity rents (from sharecroppers) and money rents when tenant farmers were required to bring their harvests to markets for sale.
What the Physiocrats described in their teachings was absorbed by Adam Smith, who devotes a considerable portion of Wealth of Nations to land markets and the ability of the landed to extract rents from others without offering anything in exchange. As Smith observed, the landed become rich while they sleep as land values increase as population grows and the demand for land increases. David Ricardo expanded on this analysis with a scientific investigation that became the "law of rent." Later in the 19th century, Henry George applied Ricardo's analysis to all of nature and, importantly, to urban land values. George examined the dynamics of land markets and concluded that the privatization of land rent amounted to a redistribution of wealth from producers to nonproducing rentier interests. Governments dominated by rentier interests then moved to raise revenue with which to pay for public goods and services, first, by imposing tariffs on imports and eventually by the taxation of income earned producing goods and providing services and by the taxation of tangible property (including machinery, buildings, equipment, etc.).
Everything discussed in this session is about income and wealth distribution to deal with poverty and suffering. What is actually needed is systemic reform. Nature must be recaptured as our commons, and the easiest means of achieving this outcome is moving in the direction called for by Henry George -- the elimination of taxes on earned income, on tangible goods and on commerce in favor the public capture of rents from all land and other natural assets.
The issue is not inequality but getting people to start on the same line and giving them opportunities, and not stunting them so they remain on the same level
Belo trabalho do professor barnejee
I totally agree that movement of labour is sticky. We create perfection in the mind but reality is different
Como traduzir para o português
I disagree, if the laws make it compulsory, then private sector would do so like CSR in India. Politics is a business here and business has become managing politics. In development economies, your findings are irrelevant for many
I agree the poor suffered more than the rich during covid but I disagree that people want dignity. Mist of the richest people praise the government in India though privately they express a totally opposite view as the government will harass them if they are criticised. So it’s all about high or low stakes
The best economist is a business person as they know who to deal with reality
Ideologically-driven pro-business economists and free-market fundamentalism are what got us into these messes in the first place.
The majority of the increases in your material standard of living were driven by what we would refer to as conceptualists and experimentalists, not "business people dealing with reality".