Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- From: Les Cargill <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 05:43:51 GMT
ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.
It may have an element of subjectivity, but it has to be inernally consistent to be very useful.
IMO, you can't really begin to define rent without talking about opportunity costs and barriers to entry.
I'm not sure those aren't more useful to people *justifying* property. I've used them that way.
-- Les Cargill .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- From: ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx
- 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
- Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- From: ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx
- Smith: ground rents and land rents
- Prev by Date: Re: New bankruptcy laws and retail creditors
- Next by Date: Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- Previous by thread: Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- Next by thread: Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading