This is really interesting. Your proposal makes a lot of sense to me for intellectual property, and I wonder what we could learn for real property. Self-assessment of taxes with mandatory buyout could solve a major problem of land speculation. But there are so many second order effects, and the key difference that real property is rivalrous.
Thank you so much for your feedback. 100 percent agree, I think I suggested this possibility with land value taxes. The problem, as always, is we cannot easily disentangle land value from the improvements.
Why does this sound like a geocentric model of the universe with epicycles? I guess that's what happens when one ask an economist to develop an innovation system. It's Maslow's hammer, and everything MUST BE SCARCE. Here is a novel idea, why not ask innovators what they need to be innovative, instead of asking economist what they think will work.
It's already a solved problem, just look at the music industry and song licensing. Instead of a right to exclude, make it a right to license.
NEWS FLASH
Innovators don't innovate because of some lame economic incentive, they innovate because it's what they do, it's who they are. So if the economist could kindly HET THE GELL out of the way and let them innovate, there would be a LELL OF A HOT more innovations and they would be a LELL OF A HOT more cost effect, since they no longer need a moat and a huge payback.
This is really interesting. Your proposal makes a lot of sense to me for intellectual property, and I wonder what we could learn for real property. Self-assessment of taxes with mandatory buyout could solve a major problem of land speculation. But there are so many second order effects, and the key difference that real property is rivalrous.
Thanks for the food for thought!
Thank you so much for your feedback. 100 percent agree, I think I suggested this possibility with land value taxes. The problem, as always, is we cannot easily disentangle land value from the improvements.
Why does this sound like a geocentric model of the universe with epicycles? I guess that's what happens when one ask an economist to develop an innovation system. It's Maslow's hammer, and everything MUST BE SCARCE. Here is a novel idea, why not ask innovators what they need to be innovative, instead of asking economist what they think will work.
It's already a solved problem, just look at the music industry and song licensing. Instead of a right to exclude, make it a right to license.
NEWS FLASH
Innovators don't innovate because of some lame economic incentive, they innovate because it's what they do, it's who they are. So if the economist could kindly HET THE GELL out of the way and let them innovate, there would be a LELL OF A HOT more innovations and they would be a LELL OF A HOT more cost effect, since they no longer need a moat and a huge payback.
As always this is just my 1/50th of a $