Re: 'Waterhole' and land rents

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 06:44:32 GMT, royls@xxxxxxxxx in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 02:32:20 GMT, "Dan in Philly" <djr8@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message ...

The rent is the most someone else would have paid for access to the
unimproved resource. If he's the ony one who knows the resource is
there, he can get it cheap or free.

So he buys land (that everyone thinks is worthless) for $1 per acre, then
installs wells, and its worth $1000 per acre. And the LVT doesn't apply to
him. You're OK with that?

The LVT still applies. He just gets the first crack at the resource
while the LVT is still low. Depending on whether the land rent is
recovered by lease of public land or taxation of private land, he
might get a year or two of grace until the assessments catch up, or a
much longer period of secure tenure under a lease.

Even worse: suppose the guy wasn't clever; maybe he had inside knowledge
that there was water under there. If the LVT doesn't apply to him, that's a
pretty good return for being deceitful.

It applies. He can be deceitful all he wants, but once word is out
about the resource, other people (maybe more efficient users than the
discoverer) are going to want access to it, and cannot rightly be
deprived of it without compensation.

Seems to me that the inital increase in the value of land is driven
entirely by the act of showing everyone else that the water is there.
Why isn't that person compensated? Moreover, that act of bring the
water into use increased the value of the surrounding lands, They
might go from $1 to $650, the $649 should be his share of that
land value because nothing else changes so why does the rest of
mankind get a claim on the value he created?

I can see that later change in the land value will be driven by
other contributions and as umbannzation occurs of the activities
occurring on the land become more integrated in the economic nexus
of exchange the tracing to a particular person's contribution become
untractable or tends to wash.

jmh
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More Anarchism with Roy L
    ... >to be able to produce the same value without using land as a resource. ... >Land is an input to production, as such, it's value is part of the sum. ... >center housing on a polluted lot, thus the community has lost Rent. ... >> private producers or owners is by stealing it. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Historical comparisons
    ... land in Singapore. ... ownership of natural resources means stagnation and collapse. ... an undeveloped resource that may be extracted from the wild ... but they also offer the developer a working interest. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Waterhole and land rents
    ... If he's the ony one who knows the resource is ... So he buys land for $1 per acre, ... The LVT still applies. ... He can be deceitful all he wants, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Historical comparisons
    ... ` be a 'wrongful violation of others' rights' so-called. ... then he should be willing to rent ... the land on which the resource is located, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Historical comparisons
    ... 44 percent of the land in Singapore. ... because rising productivity tends to ... A depletable resource is not equivalent to a resource ... but they also offer the developer a working interest. ...
    (sci.space.policy)