Re: anti-Georgist rant
From: Mark Monson (m_monson_at_ztech.com)
Date: 06/26/04
- Next message: William F Hummel: "Re: Non-Banks versus Banks"
- Previous message: William F Hummel: "Re: Non-Banks versus Banks"
- In reply to: sinister: "anti-Georgist rant"
- Next in thread: Rue The Day: "Re: anti-Georgist rant"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:13:48 -0400
"sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:5A9Dc.1069$x9.473@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> From a weblog comment section:
>
> http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/001054.html
>
>
>
> I am a great admirer of Ricardo. That doesn't mean he was right about land
> rent (or about the Labor Theory of Value) for that matter. It wasn't his
> fault--he came before the marginalists. I am guessing that you haven't read
> economic theory from the last, oh, 100 years.
>
> Piet Eicholz did some interesting work measuring property values in central
> Amtredam going bank 200 years. His finding--on an inflation adjusted basis,
> land prices have basically not changed over that period of time. The
> reason--when land gets too expensive in one area (unless it is a truly
> unique place), people move to another so as to economize on land prices.
>
> So what about Boston? Yes, I have already noted that land is inelastically
> supplied there--but the best empirical evidence we have shows that it is
> land use regulation, rather than physical scarcity, that has made it
> inelastic. Similarly in California, regulation makes it difficult to build
> new housing (and Prop 13 is capitalized into land prices).
Rent is not a function of land's overall inelastic supply. Imagine a universe like
ours except that the Earth is a flat expanse that goes on forever with the same
climate, rainfall, soil, etc. throughout. Rent would still arise because people
find advantage to living close to each other. Locations nearer population centers
would offer greater commercial advantage and therefore command greater rent.
Ricardo's theory of rent states this as "the rent of land is determined by its
advantage over free land." It has nothing to do with the total quantity of land.
MM
- Next message: William F Hummel: "Re: Non-Banks versus Banks"
- Previous message: William F Hummel: "Re: Non-Banks versus Banks"
- In reply to: sinister: "anti-Georgist rant"
- Next in thread: Rue The Day: "Re: anti-Georgist rant"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|