Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
From: Igor (jjweatherby_at_houston.rr.com)
Date: 01/11/05
- Next message: Bill: "Re: SS Reform a Scam"
- Previous message: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- In reply to: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Next in thread: The Trucker: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:45:25 GMT
royls@telus.net wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:51:42 GMT, Igor <jjweatherby@houston.rr.com>
>>No. I know something about economics and economic profit. It is basic
>>theory. Read something about economic theory.
>
>
> Again, you are equivocating. The long-run profits that entrepreneurs
> care about are not "economic profits."
>
Oh yeah. I am still going to keep growing corn if wheat gives me twice
the profit. That is what your statement says.
>>It is possible a different
>>industry may use the land but not the same industry that was using the
>>land if the market structure was perfectly competitive or
>>monopolisiticaly competitive.
>
>
> Which it never is.
>
Showing complete economic ignorance again. Monopolistic competetion is
the MOST PREVALENT form of market structure in the economy. Just about
any market you can think of is monopolist competition. Perfect
competition, Monopoly, and Oligopoly are all rare forms. Roy claims to
know something about economics but it is clear he could not pass a final
for a microeconomics principles course. Maybe not even an intro to
economics course.
>>or if it is more than profit taxes
>>will cause ECONOMIC profits to be less than zero.
>
>
> You are of course just babbling nonsense at this point.
>
Calculus seems like nonsence to those who have not learned algebra.
>
>>That means people exit
>>the industry. It does not mean that another industry that is making
>>profits may not open shop on the land but it does mean a decrease in
>>firms in the INDUSTRY.
>
>
> Which in this case would be more efficient.
>
> '
THERE IS NO SUCH THING IS MORE EFFICENT. IT IS EITHER EFFICENT OR IT IS
NOT. This is not efficent. Fewer goods and services are offered at a
higher price. There are LOST GAINS FROM TRADE.
>>The firms leaving were not inefficent. They would
>>be profit maximizing firms who could not make as much profit as the next
>>best alternative, ie. another business or working for someone else.
>
>
> IOW, they _were_ inefficient.
>
Showing economic ignorance again. Roy is clueless as to what efficency
means to an economist.
>>You have to vary the percentage to achieve it.
>
>
> Wrong. You have made this claim numerous times, and have never yet
> been able to support it with _any_ kind of fact or logic.
>
There is plenty of fact and logic you just have to understand what rent
is and the fact that more than economic rent determines the unimproved
values of the land.
- Next message: Bill: "Re: SS Reform a Scam"
- Previous message: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- In reply to: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Next in thread: The Trucker: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
