So, now you have gotten down off your "law of economics" high horse and admit that you are merely advocating a particular postion. I don't know why auctioning the land or the rights is any different than leasing them, or taxing the revenue stream from them.
In fact, leases come in various forms, from conveyance of land and all rights for a period of time, to an agreement to share the revenue stream derived from the exploitation of the land (standard commercial leases for retail space work very much this way). It is exactly a mechanism to let the free market set the revenue each side derives from the exploitation of the property.
In this regard leases providing a precentage of the revenue stream and taxes taking a percentage of profits are not radically different.
Furthermore, why shouldn't natural resource companies pay the taxes to support Alaska infrastructure. They and their customers in the lower 48 are the beneficiaries of that infrastructure.
Of course, with your business professoriat you already know all of this and can explain it as well as anyone, and are just preying on the ignorance of others in an effor to pull a fast one - just like your socialist colleagues whose mode of argumentation you have adopted - yes another ad hominem directed against a fraud who should know better.
My arguments have not changed. I have argued the superiority of private property rights instead of public control. I prefer private property rights because private property rights promote efficient usage of resources. You may prefer public control because it maximizes revenue to Alaska residents by raising energy prices to others.
In fact, leases come in various forms, from conveyance of land and all rights for a period of time, to an agreement to share the revenue stream derived from the exploitation of the land (standard commercial leases for retail space work very much this way). It is exactly a mechanism to let the free market set the revenue each side derives from the exploitation of the property.
Yes I agree that leases can be made in many forms. The issue is not the form of leases. The issue is price setting. Public control and price setting is the opposite of prices determined through a market. You are incorrect in asserting that public control provides a market for lease prices. Private ownership of mineral rights provides a market to set prices. In Alaska, the price of mineral rights is set by the government not in negotiations with owners of mineral rights.
In this regard leases providing a precentage of the revenue stream and taxes taking a percentage of profits are not radically different.
I agree that the state of Alaska would derive tax revenues if mineral rights were auctioned. The nature of the tax revenue would be different and possibly lower. Alaska could impose a very high corporate income tax to achieve the same end. The corporate income tax would be imposed on all businesses however unless it was cleverly structured.
Furthermore, why shouldn't natural resource companies pay the taxes to support Alaska infrastructure. They and their customers in the lower 48 are the beneficiaries of that infrastructure.
You have revealed your objective. Your objective is revenue to the state of Alaska especially revenue provided by residents of other states not efficient usage of resources. Your argument is contradictory. The state of Alaska benefits from investment to support energy development. Private enterprises invest in infrastructure and employment to support energy development. I am not sure why residents of other states should pay Alaska for development that benefits Alaska. I acknowledge that Alaska has a right to assess taxes or fees to mitigate environmental damage or other negative side effects. Public control is not necessary to mitigate side effects.
Your infrastructure argument could be made for any business development in a state. You could argue that new businesses should pay extra taxes to support new schools and roads necessary to support new employees. Most states would not adopt this policy because it would discourage hiring and economic development. The difference in this situation is that energy companies can pass the costs to residents of other states. For other areas with strong competition, businesses would avoid states that assess high taxes.
Of course, with your business professoriat you already know all of this and can explain it as well as anyone, and are just preying on the ignorance of others in an effor to pull a fast one - just like your socialist colleagues whose mode of argumentation you have adopted - yes another ad hominem directed against a fraud who should know better.
There you go again with your baseless personal attacks. You are right that I have many (mostly) socialist collegues. My conservative view point is in a distinct minority even in a business school. I have no idea what you are talking about with adopting argumentation tactics of the left. A major tactic of the left is baseless personal attacks. You have repeatedly used that tactic. I have never personnally attacked you. I have attacked your arguments and style of arguments.