Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 09/25/04
- Next message: Mason A. Clark: "Re: how large is oil industry subsidy?"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Let's have a day without religion"
- In reply to: jmh: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Next in thread: jmh: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: jmh: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:17:08 GMT
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:27:21 -0400, jmh <j_m_h@cox.net> wrote:
>royls@telus.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:03:31 -0400, jmh <j_m_h@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>My claim was that no one can
>>>charge a rent for access to Land if we're taking
>>>a production-based theory of ownership--not the
>>>person and not the community as neigher created
>>>Land.
>>
>> Wrong. Unlike the private landowner who seeks to own and to charge
>> others rent for what he never produced, the community does not claim
>> to own the land. It just administers possession and use thereof.
>
>That is a distinction without a difference.
Wrong. There is a real and important difference between an owner and
a trustee.
>Call it what you
>want but if some group of people decide that no one, part
>of that group or from else where, can use some available
>and unused only if they pay a fee then they are not merely
>collecting a LVT.
Let's be clear: the fee only arises when more than one person wants to
use the land. There is no rent on land that only one person wants to
use, because he does not have to bid against anyone for it.
>>From where does this group gain the moral
>right to exclude others from unsued land or to demand some
>access fee?
Same place it gets the right to tell people that certain kinds of
activities are not permitted in the community, to demand fees (taxes)
for providing police, fire and other security services, etc.
Legitimation of political authority is a separate issue.
>It's this claim of yours that the group can
>collect the fee for access--completely separate issue
>from that of Land Value--for which I said your approach
>is no different than what you describe of the individual.
It is different, because no individual has the right to exclude
_others_, but the community has every right to regulate its _own_
affairs.
>> Similarly, the community does not claim to own its citizens, yet it
>> administers the legal framework within which they interact with each
>> other, assume and discharge obligations to each other, etc.
>
>Yes and there is a presumption that the citizens have
>implicitly joined the community.
Right. And the community has the right -- a self-defense right -- to
regulate use of nature in the area over which it exercises sovereign
authority, because such regulation is necessary to prevent a perpetual
war of all against all.
>I've already covered
>this aspect of the issue in another port--the group
>can certainly agree amongst themselves not to use
>any land without paying a fee without claiming
>ownership of that land. As soon as they attempt
>to enforce that agreement upon an outsider who
>seeks only to use unused land in the area have
>they crossed the line into claiming ownership.
If no one else wants to use the land, there is no fee. Otherwise,
there must be some method of allocating tenure, and the only fair way
is to require the user to pay the community the value of what the
community secures to him.
>>>The access fee to Land, be it charged by
>>>a person or a group is not legitimized by the
>>>claim that the fee will be spend on good things
>>>or even mostly given back to the person required
>>>to pay.
>>
>> I agree that the fundamental justification for the community to charge
>> rent is not that the money will necessarily be wisely spent, but
>> rather that the community created the rent, and no one has any better
>> claim to it.
>
>But I've never disputed the issue of Land Value--you keep
>attaching that concept to the issue of merely charging for
>accessing unused land. The issue of how that access fee
>is spend has nothing whatsoever, logically or morally, to
>do with the actual right to demand someone pay a fee
>just to use the land.
Not so. Part of the justification is that by paying the fee, the user
will get _secure_ tenure. Securing his tenure costs money, which the
fee will help defray.
>The issue of the Land Value
>only arises when land is bought and sold
Wrong.
>and your
>point is that the Value the private owner is able
>to internalize was not of his or her making, but
>the larger communities (I would say it's a feature
>of Smith's external increasing returns proposition)
>and so the large group should be the joint owners of
>the Value.
Right.
>I agree that Land Value is intimately tied to Land
>but we need to analytically sepatate the the natural
>value of land in production from that of the Land
>Value existing from network effects (external
>increasing returns).
They cannot be separated, and we don't need to separate them.
>The collection of the increased
>value deriving from the network effects associated
>with a location is not the same as charging an
>access fee.
How are they different?
>>>Neither the community nor the governemnt
>>>did anything related to the productive of the land.
>>
>> That is of course just flat false.
>
>Perhaps you will clarify just what it is that you are
>talking about here.
The source of the land's economic productivity -- the user's advantage
as measured by the rent -- in the community's presence and activities.
>What has the community--not merely
>members of the community but the community as a whole--
>or the goverment done and what aspect of land's productivity
>has been affected?
The services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities the
community provides all enhance the land's productivity.
>Keep inmind that I've not been talking
>about value when speaking of productivity.
Where do you think the value comes from?
>>>At the same time there is a totally
>>>arbitrary way in which you threat the value generated
>>>by the network effects by granting that value be
>>>collected and kept by the owners of both
>>>Labor and Capital but not Land owners.
>>
>> No. It is not arbitrary in the least. Because the elasticity of
>> supply for land is zero, the value generated by the network effects
>> all tends to go to land rent, none of it to labor or capital.
>
>That's pure hyperbole;
No, it isn't. It's a fact of economics. To access what the community
provides, you must either be a landowner or pay a landowner the full
rental value of what you are accessing. That is very much the point:
the private landowner is privileged to charge others for access to
what the community provides.
>you sound just like the marxists
>who claim a consipiracy of Capital acting as a homogeneous
>and internally coherent and consisten class.
?? I've said nothing of the kind.
>The presence or
>absense of competition and defections from attempted cartels
>will have more effect on the qunatity of the Value captured
>by Land than the elsaticity of aggregate supply.
Nope. Even _assuming_ competition, etc., land's zero elasticity of
supply guarantees that little or none of the value the community
creates therein will escape the landowner's pocket, which is why land
is a canonical example of monopoly. The shift of the demand curve
leaves consumer surplus effectively unchanged (it does depend slightly
on the shape of the curve).
>I'm fairly confident both Caital and Labor have enjoyed
>the benefits of these network effects on the level of
>Value generated.
However, your confidence is misplaced.
>One need only look at real incomes
You mean real incomes after taxes and _land_rent_...
>for areas where these effects should be strong and
>compare the real imcomes against areas where these
>network effects will be weaker. If all the extra value
>is captured by Land then real incomes in these two areas
>should be equivalent for Labor in each area and for Capital
>for each area. What do the statistics say?
The statistics say that in areas where network effects are strongest,
a minimum-wage worker cannot afford the land rent for enough land to
lie down on when he needs to sleep.
>>>Clearly
>>>there is a fairly large portion of the income
>>>going to both Labor and Capital that is due
>>>to the network effects present and completely
>>>independant of the direct contribution of either
>>>factor.
>>
>> It _goes_ to labor or capital, but it doesn't _stay_ with labor or
>> capital.
>>
>> Look at the difference in who actually _gets_ the value due to network
>> effects built up over the last several hundred years, which I think
>> you will agree is a stupendous amount of money.
>>
>> The capitalist? Nope. Despite the fact that the modern equipment he
>> has created or paid others to create may be _millions_ of times as
>> productive as the primitive tools owned by his forebears, competition
>> ensures that he gets just a few percent a year on his investment, just
>> the same as -- or more likely, less than -- his forebears.
>>
>> The worker? Nope. Despite the fact that he is _thousands_ of times
>> as productive as his forebear, he still gets just enough to eat, put a
>> roof over his head, and raise his kids (the improvement in his typical
>> standard of living being largely due to the fact that he has so many
>> fewer kids to raise than his forebear had).
> >
>> The landowner? Bingo. Anyone who is willing can see clearly where
>> those thousands and millions of times greater productivity of labor
>> and capital have all gone: land rent, which, on the
>> _exact_same_piece_of_ground_, is now thousands or millions of times
>> greater than it was for the landowner's forebears centuries ago.
>
>While not anything conclusive it's not what you'd call
>generally consistent with your claims above:
>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html
Yes, of course it is. Home ownership fell with urbanization as
farmers who had owned their own small plots in the mid- and late 19th
C moved to the cities, where they became renters. In addition, in
1900, the earliest year given in the table, slavery had been abolished
less than 40 years before, and almost no American blacks had been able
to buy their own homes yet (they of course never did get the mule, let
alone the 40 acres, that they'd been promised). Then, by tremendous
exertions of hard work and thrift, these ex-farmers and their children
and grandchildren slowly built up enough funds to buy much smaller
plots of land in suburbia. More recently, home ownership has
increased primarily because it has become rather disconnected from
land ownership, via condominium arrangements. People who would
formerly have been renters are living in the same kind of
accommodation, but now they own it. So although more people own their
homes, those homes include less land.
>Why has home ownership increased so much in the past 100
>years if Labor and Capital are just treading water and
>Land owners are extracting all the surplus?
The very url you pointed to gives a number of reasons. Condo-ization
is another very powerful one.
>Where did the
>resources come from to allow such purchases?
Labor.
>The national
>average was 1900 - 46.5% to 2000 - 66.6% with some
>remarkable changes:
>DC, from 24% to 42%
>RI, 28.5% to 60%
>MA, 35% to 61%
>ND, 80% to 66% -- yes a huge descreas.
>
>We might think things like population migrations might have
>something to do with this--peopl emoving from dense
>urban areas to suburban or rural areas
In fact, of course, the 1900 number came in the midst of a huge
migration from rural to urban areas resulting from the
industrialization of farming.
>And there is Personal Consumption Expenditures by Type
>from http://www.census.gov/statab/www/minihs.html
>that shows the portion of personal expendure on
>housing has remained basically flat between 1929 and
>1990.
But typical people now have much less land per household.
>>>The only objection I've really be raising--though it's
>>>made in several contexts so that's probably less than
>>>crystal clear--has been your claim that the community
>>>or government has any moral right to charge a fee for
>>>access to Land.
>>
>> I don't know exactly what you intend by a "moral right." The
>> community administers peaceful possession and use of the land for the
>> benefit of all, provides security of tenure to the user, and creates
>> the land rent, all at considerable expense to the taxpayer. Who on
>> earth has a better moral right to the rent?
>
>Perhaps everyone or no one.
It cannot be no one, because _someone_ will collect the rent. That is
a given. As to everyone, what do you think the community consists of?
>The issue I took with your
>statement about private ownership being the same as
>a protection racket scheme was that the [community] still has no
>clearer moral claim to possessing the land than
>anyone else alive.
Of course it does. Democratic government is legitimately empowered to
act, within a restricted sphere, for all who live under its authority.
If there is not to be perpetual violent conflict over possession and
use of land, _someone_ must decide who gets to use it. _Someone_ is
likewise going to get the rent. That authority must be coextensive
with responsibility is a fundamental moral principle. Therefore, any
separation of these two roles (authority over possession and use of
land, and responsibility for the advantage land use provides) is
inherently corrupt and unjust.
>We can all agree that is you're
>using the land then most will agree that leaving
>you unmolested in that activity is reasonable,
No. If you are using land, you are gaining advantages provided by the
community. If you decline to recompense the community for those
advantages, it has every right to rescind them, by dispossessing you
of the land to which they inseparably attach.
>and one can make moral arguments why that should
>be the case (equal access to nature for one).
How is equal access to be achieved, when each parcel of land can only
be used by one user?
>If no one is using the land then constructing a system
>that requires access fees is not clearly a moral
>action.
I agree, the fee only applies when there are rival potential users.
>The issue of land rent--by which I assume
>you actully mean the Land Value arising from network
>effects
It is not "network effects." It is the presence and activities of
government and the community.
>and not merely a fee charged--may or
>may not be relevant to the person attempting to use
>the land.
They advantges conferred by the community must be relevant to any user
who is not effectively a dog-in-the-manger.
>One criteria might be are they using the
>land in a way that the prouct directly enters the
>exchange nexus of the local community?
That could not matter less.
>If not
>then what aspect of the Land Value touches on
>this use of the land? If none, then where does
>this superior moral right to emand an access fee
>come from?
>From the fact that others are willing to pay it for access to what
none may rightly claim as his own.
>Nowhere, and then the provision of
>peaceful poession and security this user enjoys
>becomes quite similar to that of the protetion
>agency with that agency being the local community
>that would threaten to user who doesn't pay the
>accees fee.
Garbage. It is the greedy user who refuses to pay for what he gets
that threatens the community with expropriation of the land its
members need to survive.
>>>This is not an issue about LVT or even
>>>Land Value. The use vale of land is not always driven
>>>by the network effects that underly the LVT perspective.
>>
>> Even when land rent isn't driven by the advantages provided by
>> government and the community (which in that case are not what
>> primarily underlie the LVT perspective), security of tenure is
>> provided by government and the community, and more to the point, no
>> one else has a better claim to the rent.
>
>But they also would not appear to have any worse claim
>either:
Yes, of course they do. They aren't providing anything to make the
land more useful. The community is: security of tenure.
>neither party has a legitimate claim on
>demanding a land access fee by this production/labor
>based theory of property underlying the argument
>about land ownership.
Of course the community does, as it is the community's labor that
secures the user's tenure.
>Pointing out that all other
>claims are at least as bad as yours is not a basis
>for granting this right to anyone from a moral
>standpoint.
?? It most certainly is, and your bald denials can't change that.
>Still, it would be nice if you would start separating
>out what aspects of the "rent" the community or government
>has claim to. It's not clear if "rent" means the access
>fee, the access fee and the additional value arising
>from network effects or just the additional value.
Rent is the advantage the user gets from using the land.
>>>For some people and for some activities those network
>>>effects are unimportant within the contect of a specific
>>>activity. For those cases then the required fee for access
>>>to existing available land is little different than the
>>>private ownership case or the protection racket analogy.
>>
>> Garbage. Land rent only exists where more than one person wants to
>> use the land. In the rare cases where propective users' desire to use
>> the land does not arise primarily from the advantages conferred by
>> government and the community, it is still the case that without the
>> security of tenure provided by government, any private user would be
>> subject to forcible dispossession by a rival claimant, and the land
>> would consequently be worthless as a production factor.
>
>Please support that claim.
How much is land in Somalia or the anarchic areas of West Africa
worth?
>I've been told that there are
>a few localities that have implemented the a LVT approach.
To various degrees, none very thorough.
>In those location can I simply go find vacant land and start
>using it for my own personal activities?
No, because others also want to use the same land, and there has to be
a way to resolve the claims of rival potential users.
>More importantly,
>once I start using it can I be evicted or forced to pay a
>fee merely because someone else comes along and wants
>to build a factory?
Yes, under the terms of your tenure.
>Your argument about security suggest that what should
>be offered is security services and leave the issue of
>land rents entirely alone.
Nonsense. Land rent -- the economic advantage conferred by use of the
land -- arises from what is provided by government, the community, and
nature. The private user has no right to it, whereas where it does
not actually come _from_ the community, it is most certainly secured
to the user by the community.
>It would make for an interesting
>non-geographically dependant theory of political governance.
An absurdity.
>>>You cannot make the moral case for Georgism,
>>
>> I can, and have.
>
>Ascerting a case is not the same as making it.
I have proved it.
>>>>>and the resultant detour
>>>>>into the echange we had.
>>>>
>>>>The detour occurred because you claimed that the claims of capitalists
>>>>and landowners to their respective shares of output were equivalent.
>>>>They are not, and I accordingly corrected you.
>>>
>>>No, the detour occurred because you claimed that it
>>>the georgist propostion of collecting a fee for using
>>>land was justified by how the collected funds were spent.
>>
>> No, the justification was that the rent arose as a result of previous
>> community spending, which should rightly be paid for by the ultimate
>> true beneficiaries thereof.
>
>What spending are you talking about?
Pretty much all of it.
>And who are these
>"true beneficiaries" that are getting something for free?
The land holders.
>>>I suppose I should have pointed out that your argument
>>>only explains the magnitude of the rents collected
>>>but does not justify the basic claim of collecting
>>>rent for access to Land per se.
>>
>> Someone is going to collect the rent. Who has a better claim?
>
>You seriously want to argue about which thug has the
>better claim to rob? That's what you are asking.
Please try not to be so stupid and dishonest. There is an advantage
in using the land, an advantage that arises from and/or is secured by
the community. You might well say that a private individual
appropriating that advantage to himself is a parasite, equivalent to a
thug robbing others; but to claim that the community is a thug or is
robbing anyone when it seeks to recover the value that _it_ creates,
or even to distribute equally the typically much smaller value that
nature alone creates (and therefore no private individual has any
rightful claim to) is just a flat-out lie. The private land user
cannot be "robbed" of what was never rightly his.
>My answer, given the proposition that no one can
>own land, is that NONE has a moral claim and the
>question "Who has a better claim?" pointless from
>that perspective.
I still have not seen a clear explanation of what you mean by a "moral
right" or a "moral claim" in this context. It appears to be nothing
more than a cheap propaganda trick: you deny the community has any
"moral right" to administer possession and use of land, but cannot
articulate a plausible moral right of any private individual to use
land without compensating all the others who also wish to use it for
the loss of that opportunity.
>If you want to talk pragmatic reasons within the
>context of "Someone is going to collect the rent."
>then I suggest the discussion needs to turn to
>the question of Land ownership first and then
>once that issue is resolved you will have your
>answer about who has the better claim.
Agreed. As land is not produced by labor, no one can possibly have a
rightful claim to own it. The rent of land -- the advantage conferred
by use -- which cannot rightly go to any _one_, must therefore rightly
go to all who contribute to its creation.
-- Roy L
- Next message: Mason A. Clark: "Re: how large is oil industry subsidy?"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Let's have a day without religion"
- In reply to: jmh: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Next in thread: jmh: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: jmh: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
