Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 02:22:28 GMT, jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:16:28 GMT, royls@xxxxxxxxx in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:43:59 GMT, jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:18:33 GMT, royls@xxxxxxxxx in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:12:21 GMT, jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 05:56:16 GMT, royls@xxxxxxxxx in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:29:22 GMT, jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

My point was his emphasis was not really on the ability of
landlords to control who can access their property but that
a) rent is the term for payment to the land input (just like
wage is payment to labor input and profit payment to
capital input) and

Absolutely correct. The only difference is that unlike the recipients
of the payments for the labor and capital inputs, the recipient of the
payment for the land input does not _contribute_ that input.

b) motivations of landlords was not
much different than the other factor owners and

Now you are trying to divert attention from the fact that a laborer
does not get paid for "owning" labor, nor does a capitalist get paid
for owning capital. They get paid for _contributing_ labor and
capital to production. By contrast, the landowner gets paid for doing
nothing while the productive use the land that was there all along,
with no help from him.

In the above you're making a distinction between Land
and Capitial without a difference.

There is of course a huge difference. You simply refuse to know the
self-evident and indisputable fact that natural resources are not
created by labor, because it disproves your false beliefs.

Packing in more straw I see Roy. You've already tried that
claim once and I refuted it then.

No, of course you didn't.

I've not claimed that man created nature by labor.

Then why did you claim that the distinction between land and capital
is a distinction without a difference? Look up about 15 lines. Yep.
There it is.

I do not say that "the distinction between land and capital is
a distinction without a difference".

<sigh> Your exact words, above:

"In the above you're making a distinction between Land
and Capitial without a difference."

I said the distinction you
were making regarding this issue of "contribution" was such.

And you are self-evidently talking utter rot. If the landowner does
not do anything, the land is still available to aid production. If
the capitalist does not do anything, the capital is _not_ available to
aid production. Therefore, the capitalist makes a contribution to
production, but the landowner does not.

Creating capital (or what amounts to the same thing, paying its
creators to create it) is a contribution to the production that
employs that capital. Demanding money from producers in return for
not preventing production on land nature provided for free is not a
contribution to the production that employs that land. Such facts are
self-evident and indisputable, but there does not appear to be any way
to state them so clearly that you will be willing to know them. You
are clearly quite willing to physically cut your own brain out of your
head -- to repeatedly drive a large meat cleaver into your own skull,
pull the cranial bones apart, and scoop out whatever grey matter may
be in there, if any -- and fry it up with parsnips rather than consent
to know any of the facts that prove your beliefs are false.

Well, I hope you enjoy the parsnips, anyway.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Labors share
    ... labor, and it helped him win in the marketplace. ... I am saying that this is American land and you can't have it. ... Capital increases the rates of production. ... And all political economy is devoted to increasing the long run utility of the natural world as regards man. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labors share
    ... The land does not have its hand out nor does the road, the bridge, ... The source of all GOODS is labor ... draw it into the production process. ... Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labors share
    ... Capital increases the rates of production. ... The land does not have its hand out nor does the road, the bridge, the ... The source of all GOODS is labor applied to the ... It has little to do with consumerism although the current efforts to ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
    ... rent is the term for payment to the land input (just like ... of the payments for the labor and capital inputs, ... payment for the land input does not _contribute_ that input. ... In the above you're making a distinction between Land ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labors share
    ... He goes on to meet Malthus and Marx in the middle. ... labor, and it helped him win in the marketplace. ... Capital increases the rates of production. ... The land does not have its hand out nor does the road, ...
    (sci.econ)