Re: Economic Rent in Terms of Risk Free Interest Rate

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:10:10 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>It is important to understand that the imposition of an LVT system
>>>>absolutely would _NOT_ eliminate land rent. It would only change the
>>>>_RECIPIENT_ of the rent. Attempts to eliminate or reduce rents (e.g.,
>>>>rent control laws) most certainly would have the effects you cite. An
>>>>LVT system makes no such attempt and simply redirects the rents away
>>>>from those who have appropriated it and to those who have created it.
>>>It would remove it as stored capital, and "redistribute" it
>>>( relative to the status quo ) as income. I rather doubt
>>>the economy would have the ability to cause that kind
>>>of accumulation of capital again.
>> Land is not capital and capital is not land. Nothing is being
>> "removed". The land will still exist. It's not as if a factory were
>> destroyed and the capital stock reduced a commensurate amount.
>Whether the practice is valid by your dictionary
>or not, it is clearly a fact that it is universal
>practice to commingle rents and capital.

It is not universal. It is a carefully cultivated error that honest
people reject, and dishonest ones rationalize.

>The unproductive accumulation of rents can indeed
>result in actual capital that creates actual wealth.
>In fact, we see that it does.

Nope. Never happened, and never will. That is merely the Fallacy of
the Seen vs the Unseen. You see the wealth in the landowner's hands
but you don't see the even greater wealth that others would have had
if he didn't have it.

>What is so hard about the hypothesis that rents
>bias some psychological "error" in human
>makeup, and that the result *might* be
>more than the resul without it?

You mean, other than the fact that it is a rationalization for evil
that lacks the slightest scintilla of logical or factual support, and
is flatly disproved by all historical examples?

>>>>This would only occur if an LVT system were imposed suddenly. A
>>>>gradual imposition over a sufficiently long transition period need not
>>>>cause deflation.
>>>Deflation is psychological - you'll never engineer
>>>it to be un-sudden enough not to cause a panic.
>> Tax policy changes that reduce the value of certain assets are
>> implemented all of the time; the economy does not collapse into
>> deflationary depressions because of it.
>Those would not be as as broad in effect as LVT. Those
>do not redirect what, 18%? of GDP.

Uh, yes, Les, they do. Duh.

>>>>I believe the assumption should be that "labor is a morally correct
>>>>font of legitimate property rights".
>>>I know. But we can't really say why, can we? It's
>>>habit, not founded in anything empirical.
>> It's founded in the notion that man is entitled to the fruits of his
>> labor. Sure, that's just an assertion, but without it, we devolve into
>> a Kolker-esque world where might makes right.
>Yet we don't.

?? Have you looked around, recently?

>Any man can take extreme measures to keep every whit of
>his labor, today.


>It is just less attractive than
>the alternative.

Being killed is also less attractive than giving the thug your wallet.

>>>Labor is becoming "shrinkingly" marginally
>>>important as a factor in production.
>> That position is contradicted by the objective _fact_ that there is no
>> historical downward trend in employment rates.
>Employment isn't labor.

?? ROTFL!!

>There is significant political
>interest in maintaining rates of employment, ala

?? A claim that employment is being maintained for political reasons
rather than by employers' self-interest is just idiotic.

> > Capital makes labor
>> more productive, it doesn't eliminate the need for it.
>Please note I said *marginal* factor - this
>according to Drucker as a direct component
>of COGS.

Then it's ignoratio elenchi.

>The world is more complicated than
>Spencer's Chapter IX.

<yawn> No matter how complicated the world is, it is not going to
make 2+2=5.

-- Roy L