Re: Historical comparisons


royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 05:03:53 GMT, Fred J. McCall
<fmccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

:On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:36:21 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:
:>royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
:>
:>:On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:45:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:>:<fmccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>:
:>:>royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:On 26 Feb 2006 00:24:32 -0800, "William Mook"
:>:>:<william.mook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>:>:
:>:>:>We would also do well to allow the ownership of space based assets and
:>:>:>resources by people and business.
:>:>:
:>:>:Private ownership of privately created capital equipment is a very
:>:>:good policy. But private ownership of natural resources is a very bad
:>:>:policy that produces increasing inequality and injustice, and eventual
:>:>:economic and societal stagnation and collapse.
:>:>
:>:>As opposed to immediate stagnation and collapse because you can't have
:>:>private ownership of natural resources.
:>:
:>:Such statements only demonstrate your ignorance of both history and
:>:economics.
:>
:>Let's not tell the University, shall we? They might want my degree
:>back.
:


[snip]



:>What 'natural resources' do Singapore and Hong Kong have?
:
:Land.

You're confused then.

No, you are misinformed.

Private individuals can buy, sell, and lease
land in Singapore.

Not much of it. As your own source reveals, "In 1960, the state owned
44 percent of the land in Singapore. By 1985, the proportion of land
under state ownership had increased to 76 percent."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_5_59/ai_70738932

Notice that this period of rapid land nationalization in Singapore was
also a period of during which the country rapidly became more
prosperous. Which contradicts your claim, above, that lack of private
ownership of natural resources means stagnation and collapse.

ROY!

Correlation may derive from some causal relation, but you haven't shown
that causal relation yet.

Further, recent difficulties since about 2001 relate to difficulties
associated with the leases ending in 2047.

Finally, the most productive land happens to be the land owned by
private entities, which suggests that land ownership has some benefit
to society.

While all land is State-owned in Hong Kong it is
'leased' by the government for what is essentially the tax value it
would bring if it were privately owned, so it amounts to the same
thing in practice.

No, it does not, which is very much the point. HK probably recovers
more land rent than any other jurisdiction of comparable or greater
size in the world.

You're being a little dishones here Roy.

You're saying that government ownership of land that is leased to
private individuals is the most efficient way of extracting lots of
money from the private sector for the government.

lol.

You have not made a rational connection between rents governments are
able to collect,with productivity of society.

haha.

That is, just becuase HK recovers more rent than anyone else, doesn't
mean its a social benefit! It just says that land is really important
to those paying the rent in HK. The issue of long-term stability along
with differences in productivity between leased and privately held
lands suggest rents are tolerated in HK, but are in no way important to
the productivity of the place.

Sheez.


And it proves that your claim, above -- "immediate
stagnation and collapse because you can't have private ownership of
natural resources" -- is just flat false.

Roy,

This brings up an important point about your commentary.

lol.

You have unfairly catagorized land as a natural resources equivalent to
a resource that is extracted and consumed - which reduces the value of
the land the oil is found in once extracted... haha..

Clearly, a developed plot of land in HK is immediately valuable and
rents collected by those who own it provide immediate benefit to both
renter and landlord.

Obviously, an undeveloped resource that may be extracted from the wild
frontier that is of value if brought to market at a reasonable cost, is
something quite different.

Here the owner of the property, and resource, may lease the land to a
developer, and may charge a sort of tax by demanding a royalty
interest, but they also offer the developer a working interest.

Obviously, this working interest amounts to ownership of the extracted
resource, once discovered, and once the extraction infrastructure is
installed, and once the transportation infrastructure is installed.

Clearly the land is worth less once the resource is extracted and all
working interest is acquired by the developers.

Surely, the case of tar sands development proves the value of ownership
to developers. The Canadian government sometimes offers 100% working
interest, with 0% royalty interest, and so basically gives the
resource, once developed, to the developer. This derives DIRECTLY from
the recognition that the developer MUST OWN THE RESOURCE they develop
in order to be induced to invest in developing that resource. Where
the cost of development is less than the value of the resource
developed, working interests can be less, BUT THEY ARE NOT ZERO!!!

[snip]

<shrug>

Obviously,if we want developers to arise that have an interest in
developing billions if not trillions of dollars to develop off-world
resources, we must have a system of ownership of celestial bodies in
place that rewards the investment. The UN can maintain that direct
ownership is not allowed - for very good third party concerns.
However, unless and until humanity allows for leases with a working
interest in off-world resources no money will be invested in developing
off-world resources.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Historical comparisons
    ... 44 percent of the land in Singapore. ... because rising productivity tends to ... A depletable resource is not equivalent to a resource ... but they also offer the developer a working interest. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Fishing for the cycle...
    ... My house does not sit on public land. ... Ownership of the resource determines how the resource can be utilized? ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Historical comparisons
    ... farming or mining, or something, out of any plot of land. ... entity in economics, and should have its own standing, and never ... Because a developer made it particularly ... ` REGARDED AS THE COMMON INHERITANCE OF ALL HUMANITY - A couple of points ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: More Anarchism with Roy L
    ... >to be able to produce the same value without using land as a resource. ... >Land is an input to production, as such, it's value is part of the sum. ... >center housing on a polluted lot, thus the community has lost Rent. ... >> private producers or owners is by stealing it. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Historical comparisons
    ... ` be a 'wrongful violation of others' rights' so-called. ... then he should be willing to rent ... the land on which the resource is located, ...
    (sci.space.policy)