Re: 'Waterhole' and land rents

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:07:53 GMT, "Dan in Philly" <djr8@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message ...

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.

Well noted. Why doesn't the increase in value go *to him*?

Because he didn't cause it. He only triggered it. Anyone could --
and in time someone certainly _would_ -- have done the same.

That's a big assumption,

No, it's an obvious fact.

and ties into my question about taxing
intelligence. Maybe this person thought of something that no one else had
thought of, and never would think of.

We're talking about waterholes, here. The water's there. It's just a
matter of someone eventually finding it.

Consider the analogous case of oil discovery. A bunch of exploration
companies are drilling in a promising area...

You assume the area is 'promising.' What if no one else was even considering
that land?

They will.

Let's make it even plainer: suppose someone discovers that gypsy tears
can prevent AIDS. Do you really think the resulting increase in the
rent of gypsy tears should go to him, and not to the gypsies?

That person (who discovered the connection) would first make contracts with
the gypsies and the AIDS patients: it would specify the cost to the
patients, the payments to the gypsies, and a secrecy agreement with
everyone.

Secrecy is not going to last, and then the rent will be out of the
bag. The contracts you are talking about are equivalent to the
initial sweet deal the waterhole discoverer can get for exclusive use
of the land before everyone else finds out about the water. That
knowledge advantage is what he earns by his discovery, and _nothing_
else. He certainly doesn't earn permanent exclusive ownership of what
Nature provided to all, and someone else would eventually (perhaps
even the next day) have discovered.

Or are you opposed to consenting contracts?

?? What is "consenting" about having your rights to use what Nature
provided extinguished by someone else with neither your consent nor
just compensation?

-- Roy L
.