Rent Seeking and the Boston Tea Party

[Wyatt earp]

The biggest problem in our economy today is rent seeking. In an effort to explain the concept of rent seeking I thought revisiting the Boston Tea Party might be constructive. Then we can find concrete examples of rent seeking in our current economy.

The Tea Act was not about taxes. At the time the East India company had huge stores of tea quickly rotting. The royal family and almost all of the upper house in England were shareholders in the East India Company. In a word, at the time, the company was too big to fail. In order to protect the company the Tea Act was passed, which reduced the tax that the East India Company paid and provided them with a significant competitive advantage. Not only could colonists now purchase British tea cheaper than Dutch tea, they could purchase British tea at half the price of the British.

Rent seeking is an attempt to increase one's wealth without producing any additional wealth. The tea was already produced. By getting the British government to pass legislation the East India Tea company was able to sell the tea they otherwise would not have been able to sell and it provided them with a competitive advantage that no other tea suppliers could attain.

The “tea partiers” were not protesting a tax hike, but a corporate tax break.

10 Things You May Not Know About the Boston Tea Party - History in the Headlines

Now, to modern times. We actually have something in place that is precisely the same thing as the break the British gave the East India Company. It is called a Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. We pass dozens of them every year. It is a law that temporarily reduces or suspends tariffs to goods imported into the United States.

It works like this. A well placed donation to a congressman can get that congressman to propose a MTB. Take Roger Millikan, owner of Millikan and Company, one of the largest textile and chemical companies in the United States. He donated $1,300 to the 2010 campaign of deficit hawk Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney promptly proposed two MTB's listing Millikan and Company as the interested entity. The value of those two MTB's was 2.6 MILLION dollars.

So, Millikan and Company does not produce anything additional and reaps 2.6 million dollars in additional wealth. Does anyone really expect a company to invest in expanding their company and creating additional wealth when they can get a two and a half million dollar return on a $1,300 donation to a Congressman?

The founders would have revolted long long ago. Americans today don't deserve to call themselves Americans.

What? It was about taxation with out representation , which was code "for we hate the British" and don't want a measly one seat in the house of Parliament..


.

Not the Boston Tea Party. Did you not read the link? The Tea act did not implement any new taxes, it granted a tax subsidy to the East India Tea Company. Hell, it made the tea cheaper for the colonists. But the colonists thought more about PRINCIPALS than buying cheap tea. It should be clear how much things have changed.

Your revisionist history is stupid

The Boston tea party was a ruse.


.

 

[Winston]

The biggest problem in our economy today is rent seeking. In an effort to explain the concept of rent seeking I thought revisiting the Boston Tea Party might be constructive. Then we can find concrete examples of rent seeking in our current economy.

The Tea Act was not about taxes. At the time the East India company had huge stores of tea quickly rotting. The royal family and almost all of the upper house in England were shareholders in the East India Company. In a word, at the time, the company was too big to fail. In order to protect the company the Tea Act was passed, which reduced the tax that the East India Company paid and provided them with a significant competitive advantage. Not only could colonists now purchase British tea cheaper than Dutch tea, they could purchase British tea at half the price of the British.

Rent seeking is an attempt to increase one's wealth without producing any additional wealth. The tea was already produced. By getting the British government to pass legislation the East India Tea company was able to sell the tea they otherwise would not have been able to sell and it provided them with a competitive advantage that no other tea suppliers could attain.

The “tea partiers” were not protesting a tax hike, but a corporate tax break.

10 Things You May Not Know About the Boston Tea Party - History in the Headlines

Now, to modern times. We actually have something in place that is precisely the same thing as the break the British gave the East India Company. It is called a Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. We pass dozens of them every year. It is a law that temporarily reduces or suspends tariffs to goods imported into the United States.

It works like this. A well placed donation to a congressman can get that congressman to propose a MTB. Take Roger Millikan, owner of Millikan and Company, one of the largest textile and chemical companies in the United States. He donated $1,300 to the 2010 campaign of deficit hawk Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney promptly proposed two MTB's listing Millikan and Company as the interested entity. The value of those two MTB's was 2.6 MILLION dollars.

So, Millikan and Company does not produce anything additional and reaps 2.6 million dollars in additional wealth. Does anyone really expect a company to invest in expanding their company and creating additional wealth when they can get a two and a half million dollar return on a $1,300 donation to a Congressman?

The founders would have revolted long long ago. Americans today don't deserve to call themselves Americans.

What? It was about taxation with out representation , which was code "for we hate the British" and don't want a measly one seat in the house of Parliament..


.

Not the Boston Tea Party. Did you not read the link? The Tea act did not implement any new taxes, it granted a tax subsidy to the East India Tea Company. Hell, it made the tea cheaper for the colonists. But the colonists thought more about PRINCIPALS than buying cheap tea. It should be clear how much things have changed.

You're challenging their long held beliefs. They cling to false ideas like the Founders were conservatives, tax cuts create jobs, and deficits matter when a Democrat is President but when Republicans are in the WH, deficits don't matter.

If the founders were liberals why did they have slaves and refuse to give women the right to vote?

.

Who the fawk said they were liberals? Being against rent seeking is not a liberal thing. Hell, it fits more with conservative principals. By definition, rent seeking is gaining more wealth without creating new wealth. It is TAKING instead of MAKING. It is gaining income without earning it. It is taking more of the pie that is already there instead of creating more pie.

Do you really want to be in the position of supporting rent-seeking? Can you possibly provide some reasons as to why rent-seeking should be tolerated?

Rent seeking results in an ineffective allocation of resources. It is WASTEFUL. Do conservatives support waste.

It results in reduced wealth creation. I thought conservative were all about wealth creation?

It results in reduced government revenues. I thought conservatives supported a balanced budget. Eliminating rent seeking reduces the deficit without requiring additional tax revenue or cutting spending.

It increases income inequality. Oh wait, maybe that is what it is. Conservatives must want more income inequality.

But finally, it results in a national decline. The British empire was so saturated with rent seeking that they lost, not only the American Revolution, but within a few generations, their position as the supreme world power. Rent seeking was entrenched in the British society, from their inheritance practices to their means of collecting government revenues by actually selling and establishing monopolies. Today, our government is almost as saturated with rent-seeking as the British empire in colonial times, which kind of was the whole reason behind pointing to the Boston Tea Party.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The biggest problem in our economy today is rent seeking. In an effort to explain the concept of rent seeking I thought revisiting the Boston Tea Party might be constructive. Then we can find concrete examples of rent seeking in our current economy.

The Tea Act was not about taxes. At the time the East India company had huge stores of tea quickly rotting. The royal family and almost all of the upper house in England were shareholders in the East India Company. In a word, at the time, the company was too big to fail. In order to protect the company the Tea Act was passed, which reduced the tax that the East India Company paid and provided them with a significant competitive advantage. Not only could colonists now purchase British tea cheaper than Dutch tea, they could purchase British tea at half the price of the British.

Rent seeking is an attempt to increase one's wealth without producing any additional wealth. The tea was already produced. By getting the British government to pass legislation the East India Tea company was able to sell the tea they otherwise would not have been able to sell and it provided them with a competitive advantage that no other tea suppliers could attain.

The “tea partiers” were not protesting a tax hike, but a corporate tax break.

10 Things You May Not Know About the Boston Tea Party - History in the Headlines

Now, to modern times. We actually have something in place that is precisely the same thing as the break the British gave the East India Company. It is called a Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. We pass dozens of them every year. It is a law that temporarily reduces or suspends tariffs to goods imported into the United States.

It works like this. A well placed donation to a congressman can get that congressman to propose a MTB. Take Roger Millikan, owner of Millikan and Company, one of the largest textile and chemical companies in the United States. He donated $1,300 to the 2010 campaign of deficit hawk Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney promptly proposed two MTB's listing Millikan and Company as the interested entity. The value of those two MTB's was 2.6 MILLION dollars.

So, Millikan and Company does not produce anything additional and reaps 2.6 million dollars in additional wealth. Does anyone really expect a company to invest in expanding their company and creating additional wealth when they can get a two and a half million dollar return on a $1,300 donation to a Congressman?

The founders would have revolted long long ago. Americans today don't deserve to call themselves Americans.

What? It was about taxation with out representation , which was code "for we hate the British" and don't want a measly one seat in the house of Parliament..


.

Not the Boston Tea Party. Did you not read the link? The Tea act did not implement any new taxes, it granted a tax subsidy to the East India Tea Company. Hell, it made the tea cheaper for the colonists. But the colonists thought more about PRINCIPALS than buying cheap tea. It should be clear how much things have changed.

You're challenging their long held beliefs. They cling to false ideas like the Founders were conservatives, tax cuts create jobs, and deficits matter when a Democrat is President but when Republicans are in the WH, deficits don't matter.

If the founders were liberals why did they have slaves and refuse to give women the right to vote?

.

Who the fawk said they were liberals? Being against rent seeking is not a liberal thing. Hell, it fits more with conservative principals. By definition, rent seeking is gaining more wealth without creating new wealth. It is TAKING instead of MAKING. It is gaining income without earning it. It is taking more of the pie that is already there instead of creating more pie.

Do you really want to be in the position of supporting rent-seeking? Can you possibly provide some reasons as to why rent-seeking should be tolerated?

Rent seeking results in an ineffective allocation of resources. It is WASTEFUL. Do conservatives support waste.

It results in reduced wealth creation. I thought conservative were all about wealth creation?

It results in reduced government revenues. I thought conservatives supported a balanced budget. Eliminating rent seeking reduces the deficit without requiring additional tax revenue or cutting spending.

It increases income inequality. Oh wait, maybe that is what it is. Conservatives must want more income inequality.

But finally, it results in a national decline. The British empire was so saturated with rent seeking that they lost, not only the American Revolution, but within a few generations, their position as the supreme world power. Rent seeking was entrenched in the British society, from their inheritance practices to their means of collecting government revenues by actually selling and establishing monopolies. Today, our government is almost as saturated with rent-seeking as the British empire in colonial times, which kind of was the whole reason behind pointing to the Boston Tea Party.

Your entire thread sucks...you are going on a huge arm chair quater back thing..


The Boston tea party once again was a ruse, it was propaganda to rally the troops. GB didn't want a war with the colony's... The colony's wanted a war with Great Britain

On a side note we asked Canada to join us...and they said ..well no


And we have been protecting them ever since.



.

 

[Winston]

The biggest problem in our economy today is rent seeking. In an effort to explain the concept of rent seeking I thought revisiting the Boston Tea Party might be constructive. Then we can find concrete examples of rent seeking in our current economy.

The Tea Act was not about taxes. At the time the East India company had huge stores of tea quickly rotting. The royal family and almost all of the upper house in England were shareholders in the East India Company. In a word, at the time, the company was too big to fail. In order to protect the company the Tea Act was passed, which reduced the tax that the East India Company paid and provided them with a significant competitive advantage. Not only could colonists now purchase British tea cheaper than Dutch tea, they could purchase British tea at half the price of the British.

Rent seeking is an attempt to increase one's wealth without producing any additional wealth. The tea was already produced. By getting the British government to pass legislation the East India Tea company was able to sell the tea they otherwise would not have been able to sell and it provided them with a competitive advantage that no other tea suppliers could attain.

The “tea partiers” were not protesting a tax hike, but a corporate tax break.

10 Things You May Not Know About the Boston Tea Party - History in the Headlines

Now, to modern times. We actually have something in place that is precisely the same thing as the break the British gave the East India Company. It is called a Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. We pass dozens of them every year. It is a law that temporarily reduces or suspends tariffs to goods imported into the United States.

It works like this. A well placed donation to a congressman can get that congressman to propose a MTB. Take Roger Millikan, owner of Millikan and Company, one of the largest textile and chemical companies in the United States. He donated $1,300 to the 2010 campaign of deficit hawk Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney promptly proposed two MTB's listing Millikan and Company as the interested entity. The value of those two MTB's was 2.6 MILLION dollars.

So, Millikan and Company does not produce anything additional and reaps 2.6 million dollars in additional wealth. Does anyone really expect a company to invest in expanding their company and creating additional wealth when they can get a two and a half million dollar return on a $1,300 donation to a Congressman?

The founders would have revolted long long ago. Americans today don't deserve to call themselves Americans.

What? It was about taxation with out representation , which was code "for we hate the British" and don't want a measly one seat in the house of Parliament..


.

Not the Boston Tea Party. Did you not read the link? The Tea act did not implement any new taxes, it granted a tax subsidy to the East India Tea Company. Hell, it made the tea cheaper for the colonists. But the colonists thought more about PRINCIPALS than buying cheap tea. It should be clear how much things have changed.

Your revisionist history is stupid

The Boston tea party was a ruse.


.

The revisionism is the claim that the Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. That was the "ruse" that John Hancock and Samuel Adams sold the colonist on because the subsidy the East India Company received allowed that company to undercut the price of Dutch tea, of which both Adams and Hancock were smuggling.

Look, a hundred years ago a young eighth grader could have told you exactly what I am telling you. He would have known about the East India Company and the subsidy, or tax rebate as it were, that spurred the Boston tea party. He would have known that it was not the tax, hell Benjamin Franklin made sure the tax on the tea got PAID. The British Government lost nothing from the tea party. The East India Company was the loser, and the target of the attack. But the powers that be don't want you to know that now.

Just like rent-seeking. Same hundred years ago a college student would be intuitively aware of what rent-seeking is. Now, instead of studying rent seeking Economic students, and business students, are required to read Atlas Shrugged, not because it is any type of Economic text, but because the Koch foundation donated millions of dollars to the university.

 

[Winston]

What? It was about taxation with out representation , which was code "for we hate the British" and don't want a measly one seat in the house of Parliament..


.

Not the Boston Tea Party. Did you not read the link? The Tea act did not implement any new taxes, it granted a tax subsidy to the East India Tea Company. Hell, it made the tea cheaper for the colonists. But the colonists thought more about PRINCIPALS than buying cheap tea. It should be clear how much things have changed.

You're challenging their long held beliefs. They cling to false ideas like the Founders were conservatives, tax cuts create jobs, and deficits matter when a Democrat is President but when Republicans are in the WH, deficits don't matter.

If the founders were liberals why did they have slaves and refuse to give women the right to vote?

.

Who the fawk said they were liberals? Being against rent seeking is not a liberal thing. Hell, it fits more with conservative principals. By definition, rent seeking is gaining more wealth without creating new wealth. It is TAKING instead of MAKING. It is gaining income without earning it. It is taking more of the pie that is already there instead of creating more pie.

Do you really want to be in the position of supporting rent-seeking? Can you possibly provide some reasons as to why rent-seeking should be tolerated?

Rent seeking results in an ineffective allocation of resources. It is WASTEFUL. Do conservatives support waste.

It results in reduced wealth creation. I thought conservative were all about wealth creation?

It results in reduced government revenues. I thought conservatives supported a balanced budget. Eliminating rent seeking reduces the deficit without requiring additional tax revenue or cutting spending.

It increases income inequality. Oh wait, maybe that is what it is. Conservatives must want more income inequality.

But finally, it results in a national decline. The British empire was so saturated with rent seeking that they lost, not only the American Revolution, but within a few generations, their position as the supreme world power. Rent seeking was entrenched in the British society, from their inheritance practices to their means of collecting government revenues by actually selling and establishing monopolies. Today, our government is almost as saturated with rent-seeking as the British empire in colonial times, which kind of was the whole reason behind pointing to the Boston Tea Party.

Your entire thread sucks...you are going on a huge arm chair quater back thing..


The Boston tea party once again was a ruse, it was propaganda to rally the troops. GB didn't want a war with the colony's... The colony's wanted a war with Great Britain

On a side note we asked Canada to join us...and they said ..well no


And we have been protecting them ever since.



.

Rally what troops? You do know the Boston Tea Party came before, not only Lexington and Concord, but also the Intolerable Acts, right? Damn dude, we didn't even have an army at the time of the Boston Tea Party, so again, what troops?