Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 10/06/04
- Next message: Fabrizio J. Bonsignore: "Fox was convinced by my plagiarists; turned me into supercriminal?"
- Previous message: William F Hummel: "Re: Bush busts Social Security with massive deficits"
- In reply to: jmh: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Next in thread: Courageous: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: Courageous: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: royls_at_telus.net: "OT: Spacing fault (was Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!)"
- Reply: jmh: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: Courageous: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:46:31 GMT
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:45:28 -0400, jmh <j_m_h@cox.net> wrote:
>royls@telus.net wrote:
>>
>> That depends on whether you regard the immoral as practical. If the
>> landowner simply does nothing, the user gets access for free. But he
>> is then just pocketing the rent in place of the landowner, and while
>> he is at least contributing something to the community by why of
>> production, he is not compensating the community for the benefits he
>> is receiving, and thus has no more _right_ than the landowner to deny
>> others use of the land.
>
>Clearly this is driven by your view that all the
>additional value generated by network effects
>are captured by land ownership. Certainly on
>a ceterus paribus case, where it's only the
>landowner simply on longs charges a fee, competitive
>pressures will still function to reduce prices
>and that "rent" the producers were captuing evaporate.
I can't begin to figure out what you think you are saying here.
>More importantly though is the validity assumption
>that all extra value derived from the presence of
>the network is capitured by landowners.
That is ensured by land's zero elasticity of supply. Unless the
demand curve is quite odd, any increase in rent leaves consumer
surplus effectively unchanged.
>I posted some
>rudamentary statistics that, while clearly insufficent
>to prove or disprove anything, suggested that perhaps
>you're making too strong a claim.
They suggest nothing of the sort. If anything, the modest increases
in home ownership relative to real wages would argue in support of my
claim.
>I never saw any
>response from you and was wondering if perhaps
>you have some stats to offer indicating the portion
>of "community" generated value versus privately
>generated value as it relates for land, capital and
>labor market value (realizing of course that labor
>value in this context will ned to be inferred from
>it's rental rate)?
I don't know what that is supposed to mean, either.
-- Roy L
- Next message: Fabrizio J. Bonsignore: "Fox was convinced by my plagiarists; turned me into supercriminal?"
- Previous message: William F Hummel: "Re: Bush busts Social Security with massive deficits"
- In reply to: jmh: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Next in thread: Courageous: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: Courageous: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: royls_at_telus.net: "OT: Spacing fault (was Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!)"
- Reply: jmh: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: Courageous: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
