Re: 1911 Reference Book Defines Georgism

royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:38:26 -0500, "lysander@xxxxxxxxxxx"
<lysander@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:41:35 -0500, "lysander@xxxxxxxxxxx"
<lysander@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<convulsions discarded>

Just one note. Roy seems to think you think capital from the land with you. Does he realize a building you placed on the land is capital? An oil rig placed over the oil well that is in the land is being sold is capital? Roy is confused again. If the improvements are all capital then some of the capital becomes indestructible characteristics of land which means a part of the rent derived from such improvements are produced.

If show the supply curve is not vertical. As Roy admits different land gives different rent. This means high rent land will need a higher price to sell than low rent land. The supply curve is therefore not vertical the amount offered for sale responds to price.
High-rent land and low-rent land are not the same good, stupid.
Roy does not understand that by saying this it blows the argument a supply curve even exist.

No, it does not, stupid.

Which makes tax incidence more complicated than textbook perfect competition and makes it even less likely that the tax will come to an efficient outcome.

Lie lacking any support whatever. As usual from Idiot Boy.


Pick up a textbook. I don't have time to explain how to do tax incidence under monopolist competition or monopoly. I will say it is very different. Furthermore, the fact that monopoly and monopolistic competition are inefficient means that the no shifting conditions, if they held in other market structures would mean the market is still inefficent if the owner bore the entire tax.


Roy is arguing that perfect competition is not the proper framework

I have informed you many times that land is a canonical example of
monopoly. You always refuse to learn.


Yet Roy wants to make arguments about results of tax incidence that arise from a perfectly competitive model. It is not a issue of me not wanting to learn. It is an issue of Roy's claim that land ownership is not competitive and then the fact he continually argues results from a competitive market.

Land ownership is actually more likely monopolistic competition. Each owner would hold a monopoly over his own piece of land. This is because the product is heterogeneous yet there exist close substitutes with similar pieces of land.

Roy does not realize for land to be a monopoly would imply there is one seller of the good and no close substitutes. The good would also have to be homogeneous. Roy wants the government to be a monopoly over land but no monopoly exist now nor has it ever exist. Even an argument for oligopoly is tough.

which means the elasticity of supply is meaningless because there is no supply curve.

You could call a vertical line "no curve," I suppose...


Roy does not understand that the vertical supply curve comes from an assumption of perfect competition something he has said does not exist. Roy wants to argue that land ownership represents a monopoly yet there is perfectly inelastic supply curve. Roy has no knowledge of even basic microeconomics. In a monopoly model, there exist no supply curve. Monopolies are price makers not price takers. The supply curve assumes price taking behavior. This is why Roy is confused to how it works and is making stupid comments like you are trying to measure elasticity at some level far away from prevailing price. If Roy understood the price taking assumptions he would have a better understanding of how supply represents how much someone would sell if price were $X and how much someone would sell at $Y etc.

Monopolist are price makers they face a downward sloping demand and downward sloping marginal revenue. They must realize that in order to sell another unit price will drop. Monopolies set the price so to say how much would a monopolist sell at $10 is a stupid question. The price will only be $10 if the monopolist is profit maximizing at $10. There is no supply curve in monopoly and there is no concept of elasticity of supply in a monopoly. The concepts of supply and elasticity of supply apply SOLELY to perfect competition.

Roy may be correct that perfect competition is not appropiate. However, he keeps wanting to refer to the perfect competition model and doesn't know the difference between monopolist competition and monopoly.
I agree with another poster. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing so that should make you extremely dangerous considering how little knowledge you have.

In a competitive model all grades of land are in the supply curve. The rent means that owners have different willingness to sell so the supply curve is not vertical.

That is simply gibberish.


Roy's lack of understanding does not make it gibberish.
Go play with your toys Roy or learn some economics. You do not even know enough to be called an amateur.

ROTFL!! I guess that must be why I invariably prove you wrong...


Roy does not understand there is no supply curve in a monopoly much less a supply curve with 0 elasticity. Yet he creates a fantasy where I am wrong.


If by land we mean resources given by nature for use without cost, a large part of territorial resources are not land at all:
The liar is in this case dishonestly substituting the term,
"territorial" (whatever that means) for "natural" in order to
construct an equivocation fallacy.
Roy can not understand the argument so he believes people are playing word games here.

No, I simply identified the fact that a fallacy was being constructed.


No you post a semantical argument that is made to confuse rather than make an argument.

fields that have to be
drained, cleared, and manuered are as much the product of past labor as machines.
Another obvious lie. The fact that labor must be applied to natural
resources in order to create products does not mean that labor created
the resource it was applied to.
No but labor PERMANENTLY CHANGED THE CHARACTERISTICS of the land.

No, it didn't. Let the land alone, and before long it will be
indistinguishable from natural land.


Really so the feet of dirt I pile up to raise elevation will simply disappear in my life time if I don't go put more dirt on it every day? You are stretching Roy. It is a symptom of not letting your religion crash.


Before draining and fertilizing the land could not have grown what it did afterward.

That's why those are called, "improvements," lying garbage.


Which become part of the land because they are not removable or not easily removed, and they change the characteristic of the land.

The labor has transform the land permanently and created new "land"

Another lie. The land was already there, and new land can only be
created by nature.


Roy still doesn't understand how labor makes land that was once sea dry land. It creates no land for use that nature provided in an unusable state. This creates useful land. Roy is too stubborn to understand this.


that can be used for a purpose it could not be used for before. This is mixing labor with land and making it property.

I have already proved that the "labor mixing" claim is nonsensical and
indefensible.

In your mind. It violates the Gospel of Saint Henry George therefore it is heresy and can not make sense to you.

Improvement of the physical condition of land, however
persistent the improvement might be, cannot make the unimproved
resource -- the location -- into property.


I have mixed my labor with the land and the fruit of my labor is indistinguishable from the land.


If land is a factor of production, it must be said to exist of the heritage of equipment and improvements of the past given to the present generation as free goods.
It only "must be said" in order to prevent awareness of the fact that
land as a factor of production _by_definition_ is _not_ "the heritage
of equipment and improvements of the past given to the present
generation as free goods."
Of course it is.

Lie. Inevitably.


Roy has no ideas and no arguments therefore I am lying.



The land my house is on is now permanently higher than it was before building. This was done to avoid flooding. This is a free gift to future generations who will have higher elevation land I paid to produce.

It is not a free gift, stupid, ignorant, lying garbage. You are going
to charge the next owner for the labor and capital that made the
alteration as well as for the pre-existing land that has zero, repeat,
ZERO labor component.


This is no longer capital. The extra dirt has permanently changed the land indistinguishable. The only extra charge is from the rent created now that the land will not flood. That is the portion coming from indestructible characteristics of the land. The new elevation is indestructible from anything but someone with equipment who wants to lower the elevation.


The filling in of the Arabian gulf in Dubai is a creation of usable land

No, you are stupid, ignorant, lying garbage.

The land could not have been unusable before it was used to pile fill
on, stupid, because then they could not have piled fill on it, lying
garbage.

If Roy wants to go build a house on 20 feet of sea by all means let him do it.


so he calls it a lie. A normal tactic of conspiracy kooks. To these kooks if the evidence isn't there it is because the government or the wealthy are hiding it. If the evidence shows them wrong it is lie and part of the cover up.

You have never offered any evidence for your claims, garbage. All the
evidence supports my position.


The evidence pulled out your arse or that has been misapplied.


You can not argue logic with conspiracy kooks like Roy. Anything counter to their paranoid beliefs is a lie and a cover up to hide the "truth" . Typical Alex Jones and David Eicke crap. Roy isn't even smart enough to write a book. This psuedo-science Charles Manson type reasoning actually makes a lot of money in the publishing world. Scary as it is.

Disgraceful.


Yes you are. Blind holier than though zealots are always disgraceful.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Distribution & Redistribution
    ... It is amusing that you would consider me dishonest Mr. Roy, ... I apologize if misinterpreted your defense and definition of socialism ... the difference in how you would establish a national land value tax ... So you are retracting your position that I am a slave owner because I ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Distribution & Redistribution
    ... Feel free to elaborate on which sense makes sense to you Mr. Roy. ... property tax, or land value tax, then please provide details. ... >>owners currently do pay property taxes Mr. Roy, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: 1911 Reference Book Defines Georgism
    ... Roy is uninformed and has no idea what he is talking about. ... The SLGs in Pennsylvania use a percentage of total value of land as raw land price in their system of taxing unimproved land. ... Roy is also ignorant that rent is only part of profit not all of it. ... Roy has no counter argument and knows he has just been shown not to understand economics so he just calls it a lie because it violates the gospel of Henry George as told to us by its messenger High Priest Roy. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Flat tax proposal
    ... Copyright monopolies made him rich. ... >want Roy L? ... >they may have received land under one of the Homestead Acts—government ... order to buy a privilege, that does not legitimize the privilege. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • LT Hobhouse and moving on from classical liberalism
    ... free exchange in the matter of land. ... Monopolies in our country fall into three classes. ... It is created by society. ... "Wealth, I would contend, has a social as well as a personal basis. ...
    (sci.econ)