Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- From: "ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx" <ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Aug 2005 10:06:30 -0700
>I am skeptical of just how helpful this is in enabling those who do
>not understand rent, to understand rent.
>If I may, rent is simply gain from sources other than those
>which can be commonly agreed on as "earned".
>But this is also problematic, as it requires a rigorous
>definition of "earned". We might define "earned" in terms
>of "rent".
>But that would be circular.
Indeed, the problem is that we can go back and forth all day on a
proper definition of "earned", and it's ultimately a subjective matter
as to degree.
IMO, you can't really begin to define rent without talking about
opportunity costs and barriers to entry.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- From: royls
- Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- References:
- Smith: ground rents and land rents
- From: sinister
- Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- From: ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- From: royls
- Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- From: Les Cargill
- Smith: ground rents and land rents
- Prev by Date: Re: chicago school
- Next by Date: Re: Who is number-challenged: Krugman or Kudlow?
- Previous by thread: Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- Next by thread: Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|