Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:47:00 GMT, royls@xxxxxxxxx in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:58:52 GMT, jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:30:00 GMT, royls@xxxxxxxxx in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:41:39 GMT, jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:11:52 GMT, royls@xxxxxxxxx in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 17:37:11 GMT, jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Smith's definition of
rent *is* the neoclassical definition: "Whatever part of the the
produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of it's price,
is over and above [the production costs and normal profit], [the
landlord] naturaly endevours to to researve to himslef as the rent
of his land..." (p144 in my Modern Library/Random House edition and
p 306 of the 1825 T & J Allman printing, London)

That's not Smith's DEFINITION of rent, either, nor is it the
neoclassical definition. You are just lying. That is the normal,
routine and expected practice of all apologists for rentier privilege,
greed and parasitism, without exception.

Odd that the last sentance of the first paragraph of Chapter XI
is "This portion [the difference in output and production cost +
normal profit and then allowing for some variance in reality],
however, may still be considered as the natural rent of of land,
or the rent for which it is naturally meant that land should for
the most part be let."

MIT Dictionary of economic: A payment to a factor in excess of
what is necessary to keep it to its present employment.

Commonality = 0.

? For someone who frequently accuses others of understanding
what's written you seem to be missing a lot here.

No, I am identifying the fact that you seek to deny.

If cost +
normal profit in the above is not the reservation price
what is it?

Cost + normal profit.

In both cases the definitions refer to a portion of the price
that exceeds the some normal base (be it the farmer's required
incomve rfom working the land or some reservation price) Different
words but same concept.

It is most certainly not the same concept. Don't be absurd.

above -- same concept, applied in a more narrow area.

Flat false.

Smith. in laying out his concept of Rent notes that not all Land
will earn rents -- that will be determined by the demand for the
product requiring the use of the land.

Can you provide a quote where Smith says rent is determined by demand?

Look at paragraphs 6 of Chapter XI.
"Such parts only of the produce of land can commonly be brought
to market of which the ordinary price is sufficient to replace
stock which must be employed to bring them thither, together
with it's ordinary profits. If the ordinary price is more than
this, surplus part will naturally go to the rent of the land.
If it is not more, though the commodity may be brought to market,
it can afford no rent to the landlord. Whether the price is,
or is not more, edepends on demand."

IOW it is not demand at all, but the surplus of price over the costs
of labor and capital.

LOL -- you've got to be joking Roy -- the text is just above.

Yes, and it proves that you are lying and that I am correct.

If the output price is not > than the cost + normal profit
(reservation rate) then rent = 0. Smith says the price
is set by demand and rent is the residual difference between
the two. Transitivity holds here.

No, because cost and "normal" profit are not fixed. Rent is a
_residual_, and is therefore _not_ determined by demand but by demand,
supply, technology, capital accumulation, quality and availabiilty of
labor, etc. You are just flat wrong.

For Smith, rent was a result of price, not a cause of price, and
that is what distinquished it from the other two factor payments.

Right. But price is not demand, although it does depend on demand.

You can also just read Part 2 of the chapter, sine that is where
Smith talks about the production activities where land may or may
not earn rent.

I would assum this is perfectly fine with your position.

He's not saying anything I'd object to, it's just that his analysis is
restricted to the rent of land, and does not extend to other rent
collection privileges.

Really?

Yes.

So what about all his comments about mechantilist and
labor unions?

He does not call their returns rent, although obviously he is aware
that they are not rightly called wages or interest.

Exactly the point. The concept is the same, but terminology
proved to be a chain around the classical economist analysis.
Neoclassical treatment of the phenomenon is the same and simplifies
the situration by adobpting the term that has a very simple and
understandable example historically.

Clearly the issue to Smith was widespread but he
simply reserved the lable "rent" when talking about income going
to Land owners.

Right. Which proves you are a liar.

Not at all. If I'm the liar so is Smith and since the
issue hear is about what Smith wrote, and is quoted above
it's obvious you have not moral fiber at all and simple
seek to twist everything into your world view, right or wrong
doesn't matter. All that matters is agreemet or disagreement
with you.



He also notes that technology will reduce these rents by introducing
competitive presures on landlord.

Yeah, we can sure see how technology has reduced rents since Smith's
day!

ROTFL!!

Tell me, jmh: do you ever actually _think_ about anything you write
before posting it?

Yes. Do you always resort to ad hominans when other don't see the
world as you do and refuse to allow you to do their thinking for
them?

Yes, well, some people obviously need all the help they can get in the
thinking department...

No, you've seem to have stopped thinking and work from the premise
that you *are* the authority on any subject you comment on here.

I'm not an authority on anything but how to identify and expose
errors.

Might try applying your skills a little closer to home them (hope
you're not married and have children though...)

You've lost the ability to recognize anyone else's thoughts that
conflict with yours.

No, I recognize them as erroneous, and show why.

No. You've blindly applied you view and done so with
way more text than required. If rent is simply the payment
to the Land factor input then that's a simple definition
and has 0 import to the issue of legitimacy or fairness
or equal rights. It's just a Lable and nothign more.

If the issue is more than the definitional arguement
here then clearly understanding that the concept
Smith was descriping about rent being a surplus
value above and beyond what is necessary to satisfy
the economic exchanges within society that lead to
its wealth is critical. Your the one wishing to blur
that insight and the value that comes from understanding
rent in the neoclassical sense and the value that adds
to political economic analysis.

You're so myopic on the definiton and you belief that
land cannot be privately owned that you're willing to
not only toss out the baby with the bath water but
actually put the baby on the alter and split it wide
open to pay tribute to "rent".

jmh
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Does (residential) land rent merely grow with population?
    ... "For US residential price appreciation, ... Ricardo's Law of Rent implies that land rent will rise faster than ... productivity between the best land and marginal land increases, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: CPI a fraud?
    ... We are talking about how to compute the cost of housing in the CPI other than ... > general price levels. ... In what way is the land rent increase ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
    ... >Impossible you still do not understand what economic rent means. ... people will only use 0 rent land if it is marginal land. ... No, it will not sell for a positive price, because the owner will not ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
    ... produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of it's price, ... is over and above [the production costs and normal profit], ... That's not Smith's DEFINITION of rent, either, nor is it the ... however, may still be considered as the natural rent of of land, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: CPI a fraud?
    ... >>using rent. ... > rent and increases in land rent is not measuring housing price changes ... As best I can understand it, they have gone back to using actual rental costs ... In what way is the land rent ...
    (sci.econ)