Re: von Mises Institute on Henry George
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 08/21/04
- Next message: William F Hummel: "Re: Seigniorage in Australia"
- Previous message: H. E. Taylor: "Another week of oil market news"
- In reply to: Grinch: "Re: von Mises Institute on Henry George"
- Next in thread: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: von Mises Institute on Henry George"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:32:42 GMT
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 06:27:27 GMT, Grinch <oldnasty@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:21:39 -0400, "RueTheDay" <ruetheday@outgun.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Grinch" <oldnasty@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:c6mci0p1beu2qlnd2dln4dltec2f37c42i@4ax.com...
>
>> You are having enough trouble grasping basic economics.
>>If this were rocket science, you'd probably be arguing that gravity was a
>>function of volume rather than mass or some other nonsense.
>
>Maybe so!
>
>OTOH, in economics I know that the market price system serves the
>function of allocating items effeciently to the parties across the
>market to whom they are most valuable -- not merely of spurring new
>production, which seems to be the only function some Georgiststs think
>of for it.
Like who?
>>> When determining market price, it's not the total existent supply of
>>> anything that is reflected in its price as determined by the
>>> supply-demand diagram -- it is the amount of supply that is brought
>>> **to the market and marketed** by sellers.
>>
>>Land is not "brought to the market" by sellers;
>
>So who puts up the for "sale or lease sign" in the real estate office,
>and puts the signature on the contract to pay the 6%, and so on?
If the owner doesn't pay the tax, the government will sell the land.
>Who solicit bids to push them up to market level, haggles over the
>price, decides to hold out for more, picks the winning one, if any?
If the land holder doesn't want to do it, he has a choice: pay the
tax, or let the government do it.
>The land is just an inanimate object that exists there -- so it's the
>seller who has to go through all the trouble and expense involved in
>*bringing it to market* and discovering its full market price.
And if he doesn't, and doesn't pay the tax, the government will, as
with current property taxes.
>You said I was wrong, now you say I was right, make up your mind!
You are always wrong, even on the rare occasions when what you say is
factually correct.
>*Someone* has to do all that marketing work on the selling side to
>generate market prices -- if not the sellers, who?
Those who want to use the land will bid for it. The more they bid,
the more tax the land holder has to pay. It won't take long to bring
idle land to market.
>> Shoot the seller, and the land will still be there.
>
>And unless another seller appears for it, it will be *off the market*,
Another seller appears immediately: the holder's estate. In fact, the
landowner's death is one of the commmoner reasons for land being sold.
>which will affect the market price and allocation of land compared to
>if the seller wasn't shot and it stayed on the market, eh?
Nope.
>> Shoot all of the employees of a
>>car company and no cars will be produced.
>
>And the ones that *were* produced and are still sitting in inventory
>won't get sold either, right?
Sure they will. Somebody has the cars, and has no interest in paying
to store them indefinitely.
>>> And that amount is *most definitely* affected by the profit motive
>>> that exists for doing so.
>>>
>>> If there is no profit motive, so the supply line goes straight up from
>>> the origin, well then .... ;-(
>>
>>I've already proven you wrong on this.
>
>Bah! ha! ha!
You were wrong. The supply line for land is vertical and fixed. It
does not pass through the origin.
>You proposed a line with a horizontal slope for a situation when price
>was fixed at one point! $0.
?? No, he didn't.
>And then you corrected me by saying while I dumbasssedly said quantity
>produced would be zero, as seen where the demand line crosses the
>vertical axis right above zero, because that's where supply is with $0
>price, REALLY, with *correctly derived* lines, the quantity produced
>would be seen where the demand line crosses the Y axis, which is the
>vertical axis, immediately above zero, for a quantity produced of
>zero!!
>
>Boy, do I ever sit corrected! LMAO ;-)
No land is produced. The supply is fixed. It is not zero.
You do stand corrected, but are too stupid, stubborn and ignorant to
understand why.
>And with this boneheadedness you claim you have *proven wrong* the
>notion that a *profit motive* increases the efforts of sellers to work
>to generate true maximum market prices.
The idea that sellers must work to "generate" "true maximum market
prices" is incoherent and laughable.
>>> If you want to see "hoarding" of land, just set the incentive for
>>> bringing it to market to $0 (or negative). Duh.
>>
>>That would be true if not for the fact that for each parcel of land that you
>>hoard you will have to pay a tax on its rental value. How convenient of you
>>to leave out half of the equation.
>
>What rental value??
The most anyone else would pay to use it.
>With a 100% tax on rent, as you specified in your other post, what
>dummy is going to do *any* work to generate information about the
>rental value of his land, when he gets no rent on it so any effort is
>a loss.
He doesn't have to do anything. Other people want to use that land.
They will bid on it. He has to pay a tax equal to the high bid.
>And with no potential lessors doing anything to generate rental
>values, what are your rental values going to be?
??? "No potential lessors"? People need land to live and work on.
They will bid on it, at a minimum, in order not to starve or go
homeless. Others will see opportunities for profitable use in many
parcels, and will bid more.
>How convenient of you to leave reality out of your equation. ;-)
It is you who always leave reality out of your equations -- or at
least you would, if you knew enough math to actually produce an
equation.
>Hey, would *you* put a whole lot of work into selling something for no
>less than a best price worth exactly $0 to you, when it took you a
>bunch of effort to find that price?
Yes, if the alternative was a negative price.
>>> >Rothbard should have stuck with playwriting.
>>> >His, "Mozart Was a Red" piece was very entertaining.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it is something when people get just full of themselves and go
>>> on and on as if they know so much more than they do, eh?
>>
>>Are you talking about yourself?
>
>Nope!
Yes, actually, you are. You just don't realize it.
>Innanimate objects find the highest market prices for themselves all
>by themselves. ;-) Bwah!
No, but bidders bid even with no encouragement from sellers.
>Deep profound lesson of the day: The price system functions to
>allocate goods among users. If you pound the price system with a
>sledgehammer into a very different shape, the *allocation* will change
>even if the quantity of goods allocated does not. And in this case
>the change will not be for the better.
Actually, it will. And has been every time this particular
sledgehammer has been wielded.
-- Roy L
- Next message: William F Hummel: "Re: Seigniorage in Australia"
- Previous message: H. E. Taylor: "Another week of oil market news"
- In reply to: Grinch: "Re: von Mises Institute on Henry George"
- Next in thread: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: von Mises Institute on Henry George"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
