Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Unimproved Land Value? (Read 6400 times)
|
|
WendellBerry
|
the value of land is mostly determined by improvements, whether to that specific property or to nearby properties, you're talking about the product of labor and the laborer should have a right to that value. Yes... 1. unimproved land value (or economic rent) by definition has nothing to do with any improvements (labor) upon the land but rather the location's proximity to the labor and services of those being excluded (includes public infrastructure) plus natural land forms (rivers, lakes, views, etc). 2. improved land value is called "capital" and is the direct result of labor upon the land in question. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
the value of land is mostly determined by improvements, whether to that specific property or to nearby properties, you're talking about the product of labor and the laborer should have a right to that value. Yes... 1. unimproved land value (or economic rent) by definition has nothing to do with any improvements (labor) upon the land but rather the location's proximity to the labor and services of those being excluded (includes public infrastructure) plus natural land forms (rivers, lakes, views, etc). 2. improved land value is called "capital" and is the direct result of labor upon the land in question. I need to be more clear. The value of the land I haven't touched has also went up in value. I divided off a section of the land to sell and nothing has been done to it, but it's still worth $100k/acre now because it's near my new developments. What about the extra $99k/acre on that land? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
If we accept your premise that an owner who does not labor to produce value can rightfully looted by society, you must also accept that any appreciation in property is forfeit to the common good as well. No, because the "property" you are referring to that has market value is the result of human labor. Locations are not. You're changing the subject. I said the appreciation to the property that is not caused by the owner's labor, i.e. is caused by consumer demand. For example, I buy a bushel of corn for $10.00. Tomorrow, corn is worth $15.00. I just made $5.00 by sitting on my arse. I did not labor to produce the corn, nor to increase the value of the corn. The value appreciates only because the market values the corn higher. But under your theory, I do not deserve to keep this $5.00 profit--because the sole reason I have any claim to it derives from my exclusive right to exclude other people from my propery. Therefore, other individuals are justly able relieve me of this surplus by violent force for the common good. Everyone is free to own land. Just as everyone is free to own apples, or diamonds, or a 747. Locations are not "produced" via human labor. Apples, diamonds, and 747 are. Again, you're changing the subject. I did not say that "locations" were produced by human labor. Nor that apples are diamonds were either (and in some cases, they are not). You said you wanted equality of liberty. And as I've said, we already have it! Everyone is already equally free to obtain those things. Just go purchase your guilty pleasure at the prevailing market price. But what you're hinting at--but would never dare say here--is that you want people to have equal economic opportunity. But this is not a naturally occurring or even stable economic state. To achieve it, one must "reallocate existing economic resources": steal. No the use of force is rightful and just because it is upholding the absolute right of self-ownership of everyone - both excluded and excluders.
Where is this absolute right to self-ownership being violated?! Landowner has some money. You want it. You decide you should have it. So, you take it by force. It is theft, plain and simple. No matter whether you do it alone, with two of your friends, or with a torch-and-pitchfork mob. There is nothing about stealing a person's money that is "rightful" or "just". Even if pursued to assist the "economically disadvantaged". |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 02, 2009, 10:04:31 am by B.D. Ross »
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
The value appreciates only because the market values the corn higher. But under your theory, I do not deserve to keep this $5.00 profit--because the sole reason I have any claim to it derives from my exclusive right to exclude other people from my propery. Therefore, other individuals are justly able relieve me of this surplus by violent force for the common good. And as the price goes up more will be produced to bring it into equilibrium. You can not produce more locations. I have an additional value theory to add to subjective and labor based theory of value. "value from obligation" Everyone is already equally free to obtain those things. Just go purchase your guilty pleasure at the prevailing market price. But what you're hinting at--but would never dare say here--is that you want people to have equal economic opportunity. But this is not a naturally occurring or even stable economic state. To achieve it, one must "reallocate existing economic resources": steal. Everyone is not equally free because some our starting out economically disadvantaged by violating their right of self-ownership. So the landowner is "more free" than those they exclude. The original "allocation" of the return on land is wrong because it violates the right of elf-ownership. Where is this absolute right to self-ownership being violated? Forcing others to the "margin of production" - the next "best" location economically disadvantages them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
OK, I wouldn't get so sensitive about thread-jacking, except that you answer B.D. Ross's questions but not mine.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
And as the price goes up more will be produced to bring it into equilibrium. You can not produce more locations.
Screw the equilibrium price, you're dodging my question: should society be able to confiscate this $5.00 profit that I did not labor for? The amount of land that can be brought into use is finite. So is the amount of corn that can be produced. And the number of diamonds that can be produced. And the number of cars, trucks, microwaves, and computers that can be produced as well. Supply is finite? Land is not special. Everyone is not equally free because some our starting out economically disadvantaged by violating their right of self-ownership.
Some people "starting out" are blind. Would that justify using force to poke everyone else's eyes out? --You know, just to make it fair? You're not speaking of freedom here. You're talking about economic equality. I don't think the "right to self-ownership" you keep reiterating encompasses some vague "right to be as economically well-off as my neighbor." Forcing others to the "margin of production" - the next "best" location economically disadvantages them.
Déjà vu. You're only comparing these people relative to the productive capacities of others. Yet your "economically disadvantaged" are still better off than they would be if they had no land. It seems your "right of self-ownership" includes that a person should be able to live and have what he wants. OK, I wouldn't get so sensitive about thread-jacking, except that you answer B.D. Ross's questions but not mine.
The floor is yours! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
OK, I wouldn't get so sensitive about thread-jacking, except that you answer B.D. Ross's questions but not mine.
The floor is yours! Actually it's Wendell's  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
should society be able to confiscate this $5.00 profit that I did not labor for? Profit is the wages for entrepreneurs. Wages are the return on labor. Economic rent is the return on land. The amount of land that can be brought into use is finite. So is the amount of corn that can be produced. Locations are not produced. We are talking about "value from obligation". I am not obligated to buy corn. I am obligated to occupy a location. Would that justify using force to poke everyone else's eyes out? The force I am using is defensive. The landowner collecting economic rent is "poking eyes out". I don't think the "right to self-ownership" you keep reiterating encompasses some vague "right to be as economically well-off as my neighbor." Free to not be subject to a "tax on wages" from landowners. Yet your "economically disadvantaged" are still better off than they would be if they had no land. How can a person be alive and not occupy a location? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
Actually it's Wendell's We can't have that... Perhaps if you restate your question? I was a bit confused what you were asking. should society be able to confiscate this $5.00 profit that I did not labor for? Profit is the wages for entrepreneurs. Wages are the return on labor. Economic rent is the return on land. So... was your answer yes or no? The amount of land that can be brought into use is finite. So is the amount of corn that can be produced. Locations are not produced. Ah, yes. Forests of 12 story apartment buildings have always existed... The force I am using is defensive. The landowner collecting economic rent is "poking eyes out".
...
Free to not be subject to a "tax on wages" from landowners.
--Tax on wages? You keep flip-flopping your position: is your complaint that all excluded people are "economically disadvantaged" by land ownership, or that the laborers don't receive their "fair share" of the incoming revenue? Yet your "economically disadvantaged" are still better off than they would be if they had no land. How can a person be alive and not occupy a location? I didn't say they couldn't, and I don't think anyone ever has. You wrote that these people were "forc[ed] ... to the 'margin of production' - the next "best" location economically disadvantages them." Clearly, these people are somewhere. Perhaps just not the "best" location they would prefer. There's no need to invent this questionable scheme where people are allegedly threatened for merely existing in space. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
So... was your answer yes or no? No, but economic rent is not profit. 12 story apartment buildings Buildings are capital within locations but are not locations themselves. You keep flip-flopping your position: is your complaint that all excluded people are "economically disadvantaged" by land ownership, or that the laborers don't receive their "fair share" of the incoming revenue? Laborers have to labor somewhere. The economic rent they pay to landowners is a tax on their labor. Perhaps just not the "best" location they would prefer. Yes, and the difference between where they are located and the "best" is the economic rent of the best. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
Actually it's Wendell's We can't have that... Perhaps if you restate your question? I was a bit confused what you were asking. The developer in my example left some lots unimproved, perhaps expecting to sell them for a profit (the value went from $1k -> $100k) after the value went up due to his nearby investments. My question is whether the developer should be taxed on the $99k/acre that is unimproved locational value, but wholly attributable to the developer himself. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
So... was your answer yes or no? No, but economic rent is not profit. Right, it's economic profit. So, you're willing to take economic rent by force, but not economic profit? You keep flip-flopping your position: is your complaint that all excluded people are "economically disadvantaged" by land ownership, or that the laborers don't receive their "fair share" of the incoming revenue? Laborers have to labor somewhere. The economic rent they pay to landowners is a tax on their labor. I think you're woefully confused about classical economics. Laborers do not "pay" economic rent to anyone by virtue of laboring, nor is that labor "taxed". Perhaps just not the "best" location they would prefer. Yes, and the difference between where they are located and the "best" is the economic rent of the best. *sigh* No. Just... that's not even wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
Right, it's economic profit.
So, you're willing to take economic rent by force, but not economic profit? No the return on capital is called "economic interest". The return on money is interest. Profit is a specific type of return on the labor (a wage) of an entrepreneur for risk... The force is defensive in nature only to uphold the absolute right of self-ownership. Laborers do not "pay" economic rent to anyone by virtue of laboring, nor is that labor "taxed" A laborer earns a wage. If the laborer also owns capital, he needs to put that capital into production somewhere and if he doesn't own any location then he is paying economic rent to the owner. When the laborer comes home he pays the landowner economic rent if he doesn't own the location he resides upon. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
Right, it's economic profit.
So, you're willing to take economic rent by force, but not economic profit? No the return on capital is called "economic interest". The return on money is interest. Profit is a specific type of return on the labor (a wage) of an entrepreneur for risk... You're being unnecessarily technical about a dead economic theory. Forget profits as the "wages of the entrepreneur". I'm a referring to the "surplus" in value after expenses are deducted from revenues. As in the example I gave. We've discussed this distinction a few times previously. So... To repeat again, are you willing to take economic rent by force, but not economic profit? Laborers do not "pay" economic rent to anyone by virtue of laboring, nor is that labor "taxed" A laborer earns a wage. If the laborer also owns capital, he needs to put that capital into production somewhere and if he doesn't own any location then he is paying economic rent to the owner. When the laborer comes home he pays the landowner economic rent if he doesn't own the location he resides upon. Two things: 1. Your "reasoning" is a total non sequitur. Whether any particular laborer is also a capital owner ("If", as you state) is irrelevant to whether the actual labor performed was compensated for with wages. Any additional fact that the laborer/capital owner also has no land to put his own capital to use on, does not now mean a laborer's previously earned wages were "taxed" by the landowner. 2. "Economic rent" does not mean residential rent. Never conflate these two different uses of the word "rent". It broadcasts, "I don't really know what I'm talking about." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
are you willing to take economic rent by force, but not economic profit? The economic rent is taken by force by the landowner. I am using defensive force to uphold the absolute right of self-ownership. Any confiscation of either profit (the wage to an entrepreneur) or economic interest (return on capital) is theft because they are the result of labor. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
