Mover Mike

A number of blogs have written on a subject I've posted about, that of the economic implications of Kelo v New London. The Entrepreneurial Mind, included in Carnival of the Capitalists, is one.

Up until this decision, government could only take private property for what was considered truly "the common good," such as roads, hospitals, military bases, or utilities. Now those limitations are gone. Large corporations (such as the Best Buy case I wrote about yesterday) and developers with deep pockets can collude with local governments to hatch all kinds of plans to take away property. Some are arguing that governmental officials will surely use common sense. But we know better.

MyBlogSite has a satire Wal-Mart To Demolish The Supreme Court For A New Super Supreme Center

...today's decision, based in part on foreign law and plagiarized from a respected jurist Robert Mugabe's latest law review article - the Constitution of Zimbabwe, will help expand the chain of our small retail shops as we take baby steps around the globe.

Resistance is futile! asks

Do you trust your government to tell you what your land is worth to you?

Soccer Dad writes about Kelo and emminent domain in relation to a sports stadium.

A subsidized sports stadium will shift economic development away from manufacturing and toward the service economy. Moreover, a stadium probably will not generate a net increase in the number of jobs in the service sector. It is likely that new business start-ups in the stadium neighborhood will be negated by business failures in other areas of the city.

As has been demonstrated with Kelo, The Big Picture recognizes that for your investment safety, you need to follow politics.

The bottom line is that politics, as distasteful a subject as there is for those of us with a quantitative/technical bend, significantly impacts markets. We see it in obvious issues such as tax policy and Social Security — but its also in subtler areas, such as market sentiment and structural issues like the current account deficit.

And I've saved the best for last. The Becker-Posner Blog must have been reading my stuff, for they agree with me about the negative economic implications of decisions like Kelo in On Eminent Domain-BECKER

I am not claiming that a system without eminent domain would work perfectly--it would not. But modern governments have more than enough power through the power to tax and regulate. Although eminent domain can be considered just another (but highly intrusive) form of regulation, condemnation is too powerful and easy a regulatory form. "Power corrupts" is an old saying, which explains why condemnation has indeed been frequently abused (see Martin Anderson's classic study, The Federal Bulldozer). It allows governments to avoid the market test of whether a proposed project adds value in the sense that a project is worthwhile even after owners of property are bought out through regular market proceedings.

Eminent Domain