Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Private property rights in natural resources

Rate this topic


Saurabh

Recommended Posts

Every discovery uses elements from nature which you claim have "intrinsic value" that needs to be distributed.

According to you I am owed countless fortunes for all of man's productive use on land they didn't create. (Yes, only the fortunes from the portion of "intrinsic value" of that land... Not for the discoveries.) I would like my check.

I am not very clear on your argument - when did I claim that intrinsic value needs to distributed?

From what I can understand about your argument, I believe you are missing a crucial link (in italics below):

Land has intrinsic value.

This value enters into the price (of anything that is produce using land) and gets paid as a $ to someone.

This $ is not earned by that person - as it arose due to scarcity.

Edited by Saurabh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My issue with your position is: What made 1-4 earn the land? Please let me know your response on this.

That has already been explained, but I'll do it again. I doubt that I will get through to you this time, but I'm stubborn.

They applied their time, their mind, their effort and other resources - in other words, a part of their lives - to the task of making the unused, useless land useful. They invested themselves, their very being, into making this land productive. Their investment of their limited lives into their land is what makes the land and everything they gain from it their property. To deprive these men of their land or of some of the things they produced through their efforts is to deprive these men of a part of their lives.

I have modified my position slightly - There should be common ownership only for productive people (who would use the land given a chance). I modified my position becuase I agree that rents should not be given to people who have no intention/capability to use it. Thanks to you guys!

Freestyle has already called you out on this one, but I want to do it again for emphasis: How would you know who had the intention/capability to use the land? Everyone who says "Hey, I coulda/woulda/shoulda done that"?

Now, I take this (modified) position because I am still not convinced what made 1-4 get ownership of that land. They were first-movers, i agree. But, they did not discover the fertile properties of land.

This is not about the discovery of fertile qualities. Even if it is common knowledge that land is fertile, if it still goes unused it is still unowned. Only the actual use of a previously unused resource turns it into the property of the user - and no one else's.

So, in essence I am for individual rights.

I hate to break it to you, but as long as you think that any collective (whether that collective is composed of everyone or just "potential producers") has any claim on an individual's life, you have not understood the first thing about individual rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stated pretty clearly that that every discovery uses nature's "intrinsic value". Whether it be a physical invention, farming technique, windmill, whatever. These discoveries have obviously lead to wealth of various kinds.

I am not very clear on your argument - when did I claim that intrinsic value needs to distributed?

I thought you were done with intrinsic value and moved on to calling it "scarcity rent"? No matter.

Ok then.

Starting here with your first statement of principal:

Land (in its original state) needs to made common property.

Leading to here in an example of $100 land sold minus "costs" and "landlord maintenance" of $80 (my bold emphasis):

Now, we are left with $20. This part has arisen without any human action of body or mind. This part has arisen due to scarcity of supply of land.
This is the part that needs to the go to the society.

.. the essence of the example is that scarcity rents are a fact of life, and should be distributed equally.

And here (my bold emphasis):

B. If we can show that this original-state land has some intrinsic value, then this value must not be appropriated by any one person...

C. ...- who should claim that part of the price which has arisen due to the intrinsic value of land?

D. Because, this intrinsic value part is being paid (as part of price) to some individual. ... So, if it HAS to be paid,
then it should be paid
to no particular person, but
to everyone
.

And here you restated for clarity again:

My argument:

Because, this intrinsic value part is being paid (as part of price) to some individual. And that individual has not done anything to earn this part. So, if it HAS to be paid, then it should be paid to no particular person, but to everyone.

And here you re-restated for clarity again:

My re-phrased argument:

D. Every man has equal claim on the part of the price paid for IV. Because, this IV ends up as $ with some individual; and that individual has not done anything to earn it. So,
it should be paid to no particular person, but to all.

And here (this one is great because you are even volunteering to participate in the equal distribution of intrinsic value):

I will send my cheque to the society once and if my assertions are
proven
to be true - and a systematic and convincing analysis is done of how much I owe.

And here:

The part of this payment (scarcity rent) that did not arise from an individual's action, is now collected from all available land, and is re-distributed equally (or put to a social use, e.g. defence).

Here you entertained the question specifically:

1) Inherent value will be passed on to consumers, and this will make poor even poorer

2) How to calculate inherent value?

3) How to collect it and distribute it?

4) How to ensure that it is paid?

Here again (very directly):

Hence, we need to share this value - since no one has earned it.

Here you make clear that your use of "inherent value" and "scarcity rent" are interchangeable. And then you suggest it be "taken back" (obviously, of course, to be "fairly" distributed):

Let me replace the term inherent value by the term scarcity rent (let me know if anyone has objections).

- ... this rent needs to be taken back from the landlord

Yes, there's more. This is where your modification goes from equality "distributing" the value to everyone to only the "productive people" :

c) So, these rents should go to these productive people

d) However, these rents need to be equally distributed among productive people

And nice and clearly you state the same here:

...

There is some money that needs to be paid for the use of land just because of the fact that demand (at zero price) for land exceeds its supply...

... this money needs to go equally to the group of productive people who have caused this scarcity.

So, Saurabh, what is possibly going on when you ask:

I am not very clear on your argument - when did I claim that intrinsic value needs to distributed?

Please. You came here looking for a legitimate and structured debate/discussion, but how can one exist if you can honestly ask that question after 11 pages of posts?

(you can thank my lunch break for the above post research services)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is only true for perfect competition.
No, it is true for most real-life examples. As for "perfect competition", it is another unfortunate idea in economics. A perfect lack of competition is considered "perfect competition"! Besides the poor choice of terminology, the concept itself has very limited use. Worse still, economists like Frank Knight made is seem that it was a good thing and ought to be encouraged in Capitalism. This has led to the notion that government should force people to be perfectly free!

Popular conceptions of monopoly confuse force with economic advantage. The only monopoly one needs to worry about is the one maintained by force. Government stands behind almost every real monopoly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stated pretty clearly that that every discovery uses nature's "intrinsic value". Whether it be a physical invention, farming technique, windmill, whatever. These discoveries have obviously lead to wealth of various kinds.

Freestyle,

Let me clarify. Every IV needs not to be distributed. Only when this IV has been converted into $ as scarcity rent, should the IV be re-distributed.

If you re-read my posts, you will notice that I already have this condition - of IV going into Price - for re-distribution of IV.

Now, we need to differentiate between IV of scarce vs non-rescarce natural resources. If someone exploits the natural properties of sound to create music, then this IV does not lead to scarcity rents - as everyone can use this discovery and make music. In fact, now, you owe money to the pioneer for using his discovery. And you can build on that discovery.

However, the IV for land leads to scarcity rents. Right now, this rent is mal-distributed with landlords. I am for re-distributing this rent, as the landlords did not earn it. I have modified my position that this re-distribution should be towards people who would use the scarce resource given a chance, and not towards free-riders. How to do this practically, is not the most pressing question for me right now (but I will address this later on).

Randriod,

They applied their time, their mind, their effort and other resources - in other words, a part of their lives - to the task of making the unused, useless land useful...

This looks a bit exaggerated. I agree that the land was unused; but was it really useless?

Softwarenerd,

I don't understand you. Your post has lot of generic statements - but how are you claiming that an Oligopsony will not lead to wages dropping below MPL? Can you provide a concrete example?

Edited by Saurabh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the IV for land leads to scarcity rents.

And yet again, you try to sneak that assumption into the debate without proving anything. Again, you talk about the redistribution of "scarcity rents" and completely ignore that you have failed (for lack of even trying, I might add) to convice any of us of the existence of "scarcity rents" in the first place.

I agree that the land was unused; but was it really useless?

Potential use is not actual use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet again, you try to sneak that assumption into the debate without proving anything. Again, you talk about the redistribution of "scarcity rents" and completely ignore that you have failed (for lack of even trying, I might add) to convice any of us of the existence of "scarcity rents" in the first place.

Randroid,

I think there are two parts to a debate - clarifying your position, and supporting it.

I was doing the first in my post. I did that since you seem to have mis-understood my position.

On the second, we are still engaged on two issues:

1) My question to you: What makes 1-4 earn the land?

You have not yet provided me a complete answer. Per your answer, they made the land usable, but not useful. Land was fertile already. They may have cleared the field, weeds, etc. And they can claim this value add - but not own the entire land.

2) Your question to me: What makes land common property?

My answer to this proceeds from my objection to 1-4 earning that property. I can take on the burden of proof, but it will be great if you can prove 1.

Potential use is not actual use.

This is a fact. And I can't disagree with it. Would you want to tell me what are you implying here?

Edited by Saurabh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... how are you claiming that an Oligopsony will not lead to wages dropping below MPL? Can you provide a concrete example?

  • The idea that 4 people (on whichever side of the market) will be able to agree with each other and not want to better their own position in particular without regard to the others is a false assumption. [However, though false, it is a minor assumption, as I will explain later]
  • The idea that value can only be created by working on land is a false assumption. In actual fact, there are other ways to earn value. The marginal productivity of labor in most of those occupations impacts the options available to land-workers. [Again, though false, this is a minor assumption.]

The biggest problem with an example like the one you describe is that it has little to do with reality. Even in the tiniest of countries (think of the old city-states like Venice and Florence), there were many landowners and many factions. So, examples about 4 people owning all land belong more in science-fiction, and can teach us little about reality. i.e., The moment you try to expand the example to bring it closer to the real world, it undercuts the fundamental assumptions upon which the example was based.

The example depends an extreme lack of options; but then why bother making it so complex? Why not frame it this way: there is one landlord and one worker. The worker has no option except to work on the landlord's farm or die. Therefore the landlord can pay subsistence wages. That's a much cleaner example, and uncontroversial. It describes some types of feudal tenure pretty well; but, of what relevance has it to the discussion of capitalism and the real world?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are two parts to a debate - clarifying your position, and supportting it.

I was doing the first in my post. I did that since you seem to have mis-understood my position.

Oh, I believe I do understand your position. You may start supporting it any time now.

You have not yet provided me a complete answer. Per your answer, they made the land usable, but not useful. Land was fertile already. They may have cleared the field, weeds, etc. And they can claim this value add - but not own the entire land.

If the land is theoretically useful, but practically unusable, it is still useless. Like I said, potential use is not actual use. Unused = without use = useless.

We are moving in circles, because you fail to understand my point. I point out that the value of the land was created by the investment of effort; yet you still claim (without support) that value was only added to preexisting value. Preexisting value that, according to you, is somehow collectively owned, another claim without support.

This is a fact. And I can't disagree with it. Would you want to tell me what are you implying here?

Food that could be grown on fertile land does not nourish you, only food that is actually grown on fertile land will satiate your hunger. Likewise, the possiblity of using land does not give you any claim to the land or what is produced on it, only actually using the land makes it your property.

2) Your question to me: What makes land common property?

My answer to this proceeds from my objection to 1-4 earning that property. I can take on the burden of proof, but it will be great if you can prove 1.

You've been doing this for quite a while now. Shifting the burden of proof, changing the phrasing of your arguments but never really changing your position...

Why don't you start over? We keep moving in circles because you keep insisting that we accept your premises and take your argument from there. Take everything you supposedly learned from this thread and rewrite your current position from scratch. This time, prove the existence of intrinsic value or scarcity rents or whatever you'd like to call it and why IV/SR is commonly owned before you jump to your conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you start over? We keep moving in circles because you keep insisting that we accept your premises and take your argument from there. Take everything you supposedly learned from this thread and rewrite your current position from scratch. This time, prove the existence of intrinsic value or scarcity rents or whatever you'd like to call it and why IV/SR is commonly owned before you jump to your conclusions.

Randroid,

Thanks for this suggestion.

I will get back with a detailed post - after incorporating all that I have learnt so far.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randroid,

Thanks for this suggestion.

I will get back with a detailed post - after incorporating all that I have learnt so far.

Cheers

Hi,

Below is my overall refined position on the issue:

A) Nature provides us land which has the property of being fertile even without human action

B ) This land generates scarcity rent (SR) i.e. money that needs to be paid solely becuase of the land being inelastic in supply

C) This SR arises due to the scarcity created by the action of productive people

D) Now, anything growing on this land when sold in market, fetches a price which is a sum of both this SR and the value-add by humans

E) This SR that currently goes to the landlord, needs to be distributed among the set of productive people that created that scarcity. It does not belong solely to the landlord.

F) Any concern around the implementation of the above proposal, is secondary. First one needs to agree on the morality of the above proposal. One cannot reject the morality of an idea by saying it is impractical. One can only reject the operationalization of the idea. Morevoer, my core belief is that operationalization should be possible (if not by us, then by someone more qualified than us), though I would not like to invest my time there right now. Also, one cannot reject the morality of the idea by citing bad consequences that do not 'necessarily' follow from the idea (e.g saying that this idea will give more power to the govt. and govt. is 'often' corrupt).

Below, I give me defense for B. I propose that we only discuss B first, as B is the core assumption. To keep the debate focussed on the most basic issue, I will not respond to any objection raised on C-F, until B is resolved.

Now, B is true simple becuase demand for land (at zero price) is greater than supply. To clear the market, price will have to greater than zero. If the land had been there in abundance, demand and supply would have matched at zero price. But land is not abundant, so it generates scarcity rent.

Now, to me the explanation above is based on an irreducable primary - that SR arises because demand exceeds supply of land. I can't break it down any further (except telling you why demand exceeds supply). So please help me understand why you do not agree.

Edited by Saurabh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any concern around the implementation of the above proposal, is secondary. First one needs to agree on the morality of the above proposal.

Morality requires of one to be rational. Your concoction (scarcity rent) is deeply irrational, therefor it is immoral.

And I disagree that the implementation of this manufatured state of affairs is secondary, just because you deemed it so. The means by which it would be implemented (force), would make it anti-human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, to me the explanation above is based on an irreducable primary - that SR arises because demand exceeds supply of land.

It is not an irreducible primary. It is spurred by your ability to come up with false concepts, therefor it is secondary to it. And your ability to come up with false concepts is secondary to your ability to choose to ignore the obvious, which is secondary to you being a human being. What do you think an irreducible primary is?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you joking? I challenge you to "prove the existence of intrinsic value or scarcity rents or whatever you'd like to call it and why IV/SR is commonly owned before you jump to your conclusions" and you come up with this:

Now, to me the explanation above is based on an irreducable primary - that SR arises because demand exceeds supply of land. I can't break it down any further (except telling you why demand exceeds supply).

In other words, "I can't explain it, you just have to believe it - or at least take the burden of proof off of me!"

Sorry, not good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B ) This land generates scarcity rent (SR) i.e. money that needs to be paid solely becuase of the land being inelastic in supply

Land as such does not create anything. People create. The fact that people use land can lead to it being a scarce resource in some areas, though by in large it is not scarce, even in India.

Now, B is true simple becuase demand for land (at zero price) is greater than supply. To clear the market, price will have to greater than zero. If the land had been there in abundance, demand and supply would have matched at zero price. But land is not abundant, so it generates scarcity rent.

So your assumption is because land doesn't exist at "zero price" then it is scarce. Well, water is plentiful, especially where I come from (Canada) which holds the largest freshwater reserves on the planet... yet water is not offered at zero price. Indeed it costs money, all of it, from bottled water to water out of the tap and even the stuff that goes into flushing my toilet costs me money, but certainly you could not say that water is scarce.

Now, to me the explanation above is based on an irreducable primary - that SR arises because demand exceeds supply of land. I can't break it down any further (except telling you why demand exceeds supply). So please help me understand why you do not agree.

You are trying to prove the unprovable. This argument is not based on an irreducible primary it is based on an abstract socialist economic theory.

If you were king of the world you could institute a system of collecting scarcity rent but it would be an arbitrary construct within (at best) a mixed economy. So you must dispose of the idea that you are talking about a fact about economics and resign yourself to the fact that you are talking about abstract social theory.

Once you have accepted that fact then in order to “win” this debate you must prove to us not only that your system is correct, but that it is moral and that you have the right to impose it upon us all. In short you must prove that you have the right to initiate force against all of those who oppose your social construct and economic theory.

Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, "I can't explain it, you just have to believe it - or at least take the burden of proof off of me!"

Randroid,

I have actually offered an explanation. All I said was that I did not want to make the explanation more basic. Please go over my explanation in my earlier post, and then tell me where you disagree.

It is not an irreducible primary. It is spurred by your ability to come up with false concepts, therefor it is secondary to it.

Jake,

I don't understand your comment. Are Demand and Supply false concepts?

Zip,

So your assumption is because land doesn't exist at "zero price" then it is scarce. Well, water is plentiful, especially where I come from (Canada) which holds the largest freshwater reserves on the planet... yet water is not offered at zero price. Indeed it costs money, all of it, from bottled water to water out of the tap and even the stuff that goes into flushing my toilet costs me money, but certainly you could not say that water is scarce.

My argument is not that land doesn't exist at "zero price" then it is scarce. My argument is: because land is scarce (Demand > Supply), so it does not have a zero price (which is called scarcity rent).

Moreover, water analogy is not correct because the water coming out of a tap is not original-state. It has been transported, after incurring some cost.

This argument is not based on an irreducible primary it is based on an abstract socialist economic theory.

Please show me how? Are demand and supply socialist concepts?

Again, my argument B is as follows:

B1) Demand for free land exeeds its supply.

B2) Hence, land market clears at a positive price.

B3) I am calling this price as scarcity rent (SR).

I am actually perplexed why you guys are not being able to challenge me on this very statement. Right now you guys are using unneccasry adjectives and generic statements (socialist theory, false concepts,etc).

Actually, let me now show you how I expect my argument to be challenged (Illustrative only):

Saurabh, I do not agree with B1. Because, land is not scarce. Because, If I demand a land today, I can get it...

OR

Saurabh, I do not agree with B2, because using an analogy, water's demand also exceeds supply, but its market clears at zero price...

Edited by Saurabh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please show me how? Are demand and supply socialist concepts?

Supply and demand help determine price. There is not a single producer or purchaser that pays any form of scarcity rent. Britannica online lists "scarcity rent" along with economic theories of land and rent It is a theory. The reason it is socialistic is that it is a form of wealth redistribution. It's a very simple concept.

I am actually perplexed why you guys are not being able to challenge me on this very statement. Right now you guys are using unneccasry adjectives and generic statements (socialist theory, false concepts,etc).

These adjectives are quite useful in defining socialist theories (the redistribution of wealth) and false concepts (land produces... Land gives... scarcity rent exists... land has intrinsic value).

11 pages of this and "scarcity rent" and "intrinsic value" are no closer to being proven, indeed your only attempt has been a rather pathetic, "let's pretend for the sake of argument."

If you can not prove the existence of your central point please don't rely on it to prove the rest of your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake,

I don't understand your comment. Are Demand and Supply false concepts?

Right now, in this conversation, they are undefined concepts. So, yes, if you're building your moral argument on them, they are false concepts.

B1) Demand for free land exeeds its supply.

See? You have no idea what supply and demand is. "Demand for free X exceeds its supply" is a nonsensical statement, since supply and demand are defined in the context of a marketpleace, where things are sold, and have prices. It's exactly like saying that 1/0=1.5234, therefor 1.5234*0=1., and we call this phenomenon scarcity rent. Scarcity rent would then, and in your case too, be a false concept, based on something that is not defined.

Incidentally, in a free market, demand never exceeds supply, but that's not a definition, just a true statement that follows from the definitions.

Let me help you limit your imagination a bit, for your future "arguments". This is a true statement: As long as there is any trade, in any human society, demand for land equals its supply. The second there is no trade, at all, supply and demand do not apply, to anything, at all.

Any statement you make, that contradicts that simple truth (the part in red), will be false.

Jake,

I don't understand your comment.

You understand the word "not". And, since you used it first, you also are expected to understand what "irreducible primary" means. So, there is no reason why you wouldn't understand the meaning of: Your false statement, that you called an irreducible primary, in the previous post, is in fact not one.

So, read through it again, make sure you know what irreducible primary is, and then come back with the semblance of an arggument as to why your statement about supply, demand, and scarcity rent would be an irreducible primary, or quit calling it that, and start backing up until you come across some real irreducible primaries.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no idea what supply and demand is. "Demand for free X exceeds its supply" is a nonsensical statement, since supply and demand are defined in the context of a marketpleace, where things are sold, and have prices.

Let us first agree on what Demand and Supply are.

These two concepts are valid even if there is not a market place. Because demand stems from consumer preferences and his budget; and supply from a producer's production function and business motives.

A market place matches demand with supply by adjusting the price.

Supply and demand help determine price. There is not a single producer or purchaser that pays any form of scarcity rent. Britannica online lists "scarcity rent" along with economic theories of land and rent It is a theory. The reason it is socialistic is that it is a form of wealth redistribution. It's a very simple concept.

What do you think gives rise to this price (for land)? Is it not scarcity? And I am right now just giving a name to this price. I am not implying anything about it (in my argument B ).

It appears to me that you guys are still on the surface. I am not anymore getting the kind of challenge I wanted. But I will wait for a few more days.

Edited by Saurabh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think gives rise to this price (for land)? Is it not scarcity?
It is the ability of that land to be used as a factor in the production of something that is of value to someone.

It appears to me that you guys are still on the surface. I am not anymore getting the kind of challenge I wanted. But I will wait for a few more days.
Everyone is on the surface, and you're on a hamster's wheel, puffing and panting and getting nowhere. If you scorn your opponents, leave now!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us first agree on what Demand and Supply are.

These two concepts are valid even if there is not a market place. Because demand stems from consumer preferences and his budget; and supply from a producer's production function and business motives.

A market place matches demand with supply by adjusting the price.

Give an example of a "demand", a "supply", and a "price", in a place that has no trade. What would the purpose of each of those three concepts be in such a place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think gives rise to this price (for land)? Is it not scarcity? And I am right now just giving a name to this price. I am not implying anything about it (in my argument B ).

What gives rise to the value of land is what people can do with it. Be that cultivate it for grain, harvest its wood or dig beneath it for ore.

I'm glad you brought this up.

20 years ago much of the Canadian Arctic was considered worthless. A perpetually frozen wasteland best left to the seals and polar bears. Then we discovered oil, natural gas and diamonds under some of it. Those parts now have value, they are worth more because of their potential.

This potential is to be realized only through productive effort of men, without the technology and effort of men the land is still worthless it is still and always will be a frozen wasteland.

Guess what Saurabh, there is less than 1 person for every square Kilometre in the Canadian north, probably less than one person for every 10 or 100 square kilometers.

There is NO scarcity of land but the land is valuable when men can do things with it.

Your continual harping on this "zero price" shows just how intellectually poisoned you are toward the facts and reality of this world. The only thing that a man needs to survive that comes at zero price is the air we breathe. Nothing, absolutely nothing else comes at no price. You do not have a right to a piece of land, there is no right to food or water or anything.

Edited by Zip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
What gives rise to the value of land is what people can do with it. Be that cultivate it for grain, harvest its wood or dig beneath it for ore.

Zip,

Your point above does not conflict mine. People create value of land - by discovering its properties and applying labor. This generates a demand for land. Pretty soon there is more demand for land than the supply. So scarcity arises. So I see my point as an extension of your point.

The right question to debate on is: who should get this value? There are 3 parties involved: Productive people who would use the land and create this value, non-productive people, and landlords who would not use the land but would extract a major part of the value created. My debate is about taking this value away from landlords, and giving it to productive people.

Guess what Saurabh, there is less than 1 person for every square Kilometre in the Canadian north, probably less than one person for every 10 or 100 square kilometers.

There is NO scarcity of land ...

I agree with you that there in no scarcity in any fundamental sense. But that is not what I am debating.

I am debating a practical issue - that there is huge concentration of land in few hands. Hence, there is scarcity.

May be this does not apply to US and Canada. But it is very true for India.

The only thing that a man needs to survive that comes at zero price is the air we breathe. Nothing, absolutely nothing else comes at no price...

Again, I am not suggesting that land come at zero price. How did you get this impression?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zip,

Your point above does not conflict mine. People create value of land - by discovering its properties and applying labor. This generates a demand for land. Pretty soon there is more demand for land than the supply. So scarcity arises. So I see my point as an extension of your point.

You may see it that way but that is not how you are applying it. You claim that because I have made the land productive or that someone owns the land and rents it that some of that labour or ownership belongs to others and that is absolutely false.

The right question to debate on is: who should get this value? There are 3 parties involved: Productive people who would use the land and create this value, non-productive people, and landlords who would not use the land but would extract a major part of the value created. My debate is about taking this value away from landlords, and giving it to productive people.

This is a perfect example. If I own the land I am the only person involved. No one else has any say in what I do with my land or the money I generate off of it. That is part and parcel of what it means to have property rights.

If I rent the land off someone then they can charge me what they think the land is worth, it’s their property I merely have use of it. I can negotiate with them, and in the end if I deem the price too high then I look elsewhere. As for the involvement of unproductive people why do you think they are involved? My growing wheat on rented land has absolutely nothing to do with some vagabond living on the street. To hell with what he thinks or may want, he is not in any way part of the equation, I owe him nothing nor does my landlord.

I agree with you that there in no scarcity in any fundamental sense. But that is not what I am debating.

I am debating a practical issue - that there is huge concentration of land in few hands. Hence, there is scarcity.

May be this does not apply to US and Canada. But it is very true for India.

This is part of your problem you separate fundamental issues from practical issues thereby creating contradictions. Contradictions do not exist. There either is, or is not a scarcity of land. I put it to you that even in India there is no scarcity. In fact earlier in this very topic, with only a couple of minutes work I pulled several examples from the internet of land for sale in India at what seems to me to be an incredibly low price. Unless you are telling me that only certain people are permitted to buy land in India I say you are at best exaggerating your claim, at worst you are evading the reality of the situation..

Again, I am not suggesting that land come at zero price. How did you get this impression?

You are the person that introduced "zero price" into this conversation and pointed at it as an indication of scarcity.

You wrote...

This is where you are making ar error. Gold has an element of human effort. Nature does not supply it freely.

So, there is no moral basis for asking more its supply at zero price.

Land however is provided with its productive properties, by nature.

a) There is some money that needs to be paid for the use of land just because of the fact that demand (at zero price) for land exceeds its supply.

I was trying to get agreement on our basic point of disagreement- (a) There is some money that needs to be paid for the use of land just because of the fact that demand (at zero price) for land exceeds its supply

Don't Troll me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 3 parties involved: Productive people who would use the land and create this value, non-productive people, and landlords who would not use the land but would extract a major part of the value created. My debate is about taking this value away from landlords, and giving it to productive people.
That is a loaded description of a landlord. In fact, if we assume a free-market, the landlord is the person who identifies something of value, and takes whatever steps are required to appropriate it and make it ready for use by the so-called "productive people". If those productive people were smarter, they would be landlords.

Do not reply that landlords historically got their land in other non-freemarket ways, often through the use of force. That is a completely different discussion. It is not that is not specific to land and has not been the basis of the thread up to this point.

Rightly speaking then, a landlord is like a discoverer or an inventor, not like Saudi prince.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...