[Applejinx]

This argument (real life game theory) seems to be like:

"I'm taking this (goods, property, residence in a place) and I'm going to give you this (payment, lease, rent, tax) for it"

"Okay. As the owner, the price of (goods, property, residence in a place) is this."

"That's nice of you to think that but I'm not going to pay it. I'm giving you what I said I was going to. Maybe you should be nice, or I'll take the thing and give you even LESS for it"

I think in some contexts that's called extortion, not 'game theory'. Seems like the bottom line is the question of whether the owner of a thing has any property rights over the thing through owning it. If in practical terms they are obligated to sell at whatever terms the buyer demands, they're not much of a property owner.

[fennecfoxen]

I have tried, but I am not able to meaningfully relate the situations described in this comment to taxes on the operation of a stock exchange. Who owns the property? Who is buying and selling it? Is the property the stock exchange? Is the state the owner of something and individuals are buying it? Is the state the buyer?

[pc86]

Seconding fennecfoxen's confusion on this one.

Are the goods in this example NYSE's processing of data? Are you saying that, for example, the NYSE/NASDAQ should not be able to move data processing out of NJ in the event NJ implement a stock transfer tax?

[Chris2048]

> or I'll take the thing

How does this happen? Usually the threat is getting the "thing" from somewhere else.