pull down to refresh

Excellent opinion piece in the WSJ by eminent economist Thomas Sowell ("The World’s Biggest Landlord Is Washington")
Here are some extracts:
There is much to be said for the new administration’s plan to have a nongovernmental organization investigate how well, or how badly, government agencies are currently handling the taxpayers’ money. But there is a limit to how much money can be recovered by simply cutting back on “waste, fraud and abuse” in federal spending.
The federal government owns a little more than one-fourth of the total land area of the United States. The time is long overdue to consider whether that is the best economic arrangement. And reconsideration is especially needed at a time of urgent fiscal problems.
Steve Hanke, not exactly a favorite of ours in these parts of the internet, weighs in a letter published a week or so later:
Mr. Sowell argues that the federal government’s massive holdings of land are an anomalous and wasteful feature of the U.S. economic system, and that most of these lands should be privatized. I agree, and so did the nation’s founders. To a man, they saw the public domain as a way to generate revenue to discharge the public debt.
Em. Prof. Thomas Straka of Clemson University says "There are better ways to address our financial challenges." I don't know what they might be, and I certainly haven't seen them.
Afuera with todo. #privatize #everything

Non-paywalled here: https://archive.md/Q4Bcv
This is the lowest hanging fruit, for sure.
Of course, I'd prefer to see massive cuts to the regime.
reply
You think "the government should sell all the land" until you live in a state like Texas where nearly all land has been privatized. There aren't big open natural spaces you can visit, even parks feel like they're part of a disney resort instead of the real deal.
I live in a state with a lot of federal land. Had the state been allowed to, it would have privatized and sold much of that land for clearcutting, sprawl and other "economically productive" uses that prioritize the near-term over the future. But they couldn't because the federal govt owned the land. Nature is easy to access and abundant. It's wonderful.
And I'm not just talking about big sprawling national parks and forests, but local and county level parks as well. Land use here has been quite restrictive and while housing costs a bit more a result, everybody I know and care about is 15 minutes or less from usable green space.
Ask any foreigner who visits the states and they will tell you how much they marvel at our national parks system. The government gets a lot wrong, keeping land which doesn't need to be used out of the hands of the market isn't one of those things. Markets solve some things efficiently, and other conditions lead to inevitable "market failures" including tragedy of the commons. If we let the market control all this land, it would be ruined for future generations.
reply
Are they talking about the national parks as being part of the land they own? If they sold it, would it be maintained as well as it is being maintained now? "The amount of the national park land is more than the size of Italy." A lot of this land is being perserved, if it is sold...will we even be able to see this nature anymore?
reply
Usually people buy things with intent to use them. If nat parks have tourist values, a new owner has a strong incentive to cater to it
reply
A lot of this land wants to be used to develop and sell for housing. That would be such a loss.
reply
Why would that be a loss?
reply
How much undeveloped land is still left?
reply
A shit ton, is my understanding
reply
My guess is only a tiny fraction of the parkland is used for tourism, and that much of it could be redeveloped without much ecological cost
reply
22 sats \ 1 reply \ @Shugard 16 Jan
Great article, and crazy how good this man still is, considering his age!
reply
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 16 Jan
I enjoyed it also
reply
Nope, not even close to the Chinese government. Unless President Trump buys Greenland, of course. 😄
reply