Re: Nicolaus Tideman: Georgist Scammer

On 26 Mar 2007 15:01:27 -0700, w_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

"Lack of factual or logical argument to that effect
noted. The fact that it is more economically
efficient to tax the economic rents of natural
resource because of their zero elasticity of supply is
well known to all competent economists (though
not, of course, to you) and is stated as established
fact in many standard textbooks on the subject."
---------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

Perhaps textbooks dated 1767.

<sigh> No, stupid, lying ignoramus:

"However, the supply of land does not represent a normal situation.
Instead land is a fixed resource which has a perfectly inelastic
supply.... Now if a tax was imposed the fact that supply is perfectly
inelastic means that the tax will be totally borne by the landowner."
-- REA's Economics Problem Solver, 1998

"George's case was built not only on equity but also on efficiency. A
levy on land rents is one of the few taxes that need not distort
resource allocation. Even if half the rent on land is taxed away, it
will still remain in use. What else can the owner do with it? And
because the quantity of land in use is not affected, there is no
reason to expect an efficiency loss."
-- Economics, Blomqvist Wonnacott and Wonnacott, 1983

You are destroyed. As always.

This is however the
year 2007. You Georgists have your heads buried
in the sand of pre-classical economics. NATURAL
RESOURCES INCLUDING LAND SIMPLY DO
NOT HAVE A ZERO ELASTICITY OF SUPPLY.

Yes, they do, by definition. See above.

A three hundred foot by three hundred foot parcel
will remain three hundred feet by three hundred
feet, it is true, but the utility of that parcel will be
many times the utility of that same parcel a hundred
years ago, because of developing technology.

Irrelevant. Utility is not supply.

We may think merely of agricultural productivity as
well as the ability to build multi-story buildings.
This holds true for practically any conceivable use.
Which is what modern textbooks will illustrate, if
you would simply care to look.

I am of course aware of that. It just isn't relevant.

"The document is widely available on the Net, well
known, as has been referred to numerous times in so
many other places that the signatories cannot
possibly be unaware of it. Yet which of the
signatories that you have contacted have disclaimed
their signatures?"
---------------------------------------------

They are very likely not aware of it.

No, that is just a transparent lie. I repeat: which of them that you
have contacted personally have stated that they were not aware of it,
or disclaimed their signatures of it? Which of them has EVER stated,
ANYWHERE, that they either are unaware of it, did not sign it, or
disagree with it?

The fact that you cannot name even a single one proves beyond any
conceivable doubt that you are simply lying, and that the letter and
signatures are all 100% genuine. No other arguments or facts need
ever be placed in evidence to establish that those eminent economists
support LVT. By your failure to name a single one of the dozens of
signatories to the Gorbachev letter who say they were unaware of it or
did not endorse it has proved the genuineness of the letter beyond any
question, for all time.

The document
that is now "widely available" on the Net may or
may not be same document "published" in 1990,
nor have the same names attached to it.

I have told you where to find the English version published in 1991.
The Russian version is actually less relevant to the proof that LVT is
supported by eminent economists, because the signatories would have
signed onto the English one anyway, not the Russian one, which few or
none of them would have been able to read.

Widely
available means copied ad infinitum by Georgists
sites, one from the other, which are mostly ignored
by serious educated people. It is on its face bogus
because there is nothing in the writings of the Nobel
winners or several of the others, throughout their
professional careers, that expressed agreement with
the peculiar Georgist ideas expressed in the
document.

That is false, but irrelevant in any case: of course their
professional publications do not dwell on facts known for centuries,
any more than the published research of eminent chemists dwells on the
discoveries of Humphry Davy, or the published research of eminent
physicists dwells on the principle of the inclined plane. That
doesn't mean they don't agree with the long-established facts of their
disciplines.

I think in the beginning the concoction
was merely part of Tideman's scam to get money
out of the Georgists, to illustrate what a great job he
was doing for them. Over the years he's gotten
quite a bit of money from the Georgists.

Evidence = 0. As always with Lyin' Ryan.

If an economist wants to get paid for espousing certain views, the
very last view he will espouse is Georgism. The anti-Georgist
endowment of privately owned land value exceeds the total Georgist
endowments by several orders of magnitude.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: von Mises Institute on Henry George
    ... Because land tends to be held longer than any ... > "The share of national income that accrues as land rent and the ... an integral part of the modernization of the economists of low income ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Nicolaus Tideman: Georgist Scammer
    ... resource because of their zero elasticity of supply is ... well known to all competent economists (though ... You Georgists have your heads buried ... signatories that you have contacted have disclaimed ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: von Mises Institute on Henry George
    ... Schultz was speaking about agriculture, not rent accruing in e.g. urban ... ideas about land are still, as a rule, those of Ricardo. ... "Writing a century before Paul Samuelson and other modern economists ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Georgist fraud
    ... economists who published an open letter to President Gorbachev on ... may follow us in allowing most of the rent of land to be collected ... publication in "Agricultural Life," Nov 1990. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Murray Rothbard on Georgism: Part 1
    ... The Single Tax: Economic and Moral Implications ... Most present-day economists ignore the land ... spur production; it will penalize idle land and force ... Unfortunately, most economists have accepted ...
    (sci.econ)