Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Why is no one here talking about Greece?

Expand Messages
  • walto
    ... One of the things that confuses me about this stuff is that a stationary annual average depreciation % seems inconsistent with roughly the same % of good
    Message 1 of 102 , Jul 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@>
      > wrote:
      >
      > > I'd think that an annual avg figure, whether 2%, 3%
      > > or whatever, may mask a widely varying reality.
      >
      > Of course. The point is that the Officially Approved
      > Figure of 1.5% applies to perhaps 5% of all houses,
      > and the average is far higher. Looking at old houses
      > and observing that they still have some value simply
      > commits a survivor bias: it doesn't include all the
      > houses that have depreciated to zero and been
      > demolished.
      >
      > -- Roy Langston
      >

      One of the things that confuses me about this stuff is that a stationary annual average depreciation % seems inconsistent with roughly the same % of "good houses" and "crap houses" being built at any given time. I mean, if that good-to-crap construction ratio remained constant over time we'd expect the overall % of "good houses" to rise over time, and thus the annual depreciation avg to decrease because the good houses would remain, and some portion of the crap houses would be replaced by good ones.

      OTOH, if what remains constant is the overall ratio of good to crap houses (say good always replaces good and crap always replaces crap), it must be that a higher and higher % of new construction each year would have to be of crap houses, since the good houses don't need replacing as often. Is that what is actually happening? What does the median age of 32 years really tell us about how fast houses are depreciating? Don't we need a lot of other data to have a good sense? E.g., how much is being expended on upkeep to keep the 100-year old houses going?

      W
    • roy_langston1
      ... I don t recall him saying that, and it certainly isn t true. Many people will lose, especially in the transition period. That is why we must design the
      Message 102 of 102 , Jul 18, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...>
        wrote:

        > Henry George was adamant that full Land Value Tax,
        > the Single Tax, would mean all would gain, no losers.

        I don't recall him saying that, and it certainly isn't
        true. Many people will lose, especially in the
        transition period. That is why we must design the
        transition to be as painless as possible for the great
        majority of landowners: those who own only the land
        under their dwellings. And that is why restoring the
        equal individual right to liberty through a universal
        individual exemption (or, second best, a CD) is crucial
        to our success. This is something Henry George either
        did not understand or did not give enough weight to, or
        the exemption would have been a central feature of his
        Single Tax advocacy.

        > All boats rise on the same rising tide.

        Er, those who can't be bothered swimming or walking are
        drowned by a rising tide.

        > * Will the corporations still be loyal to the US?

        Is a tapeworm loyal to its host?

        > * Will they do everything to get the LVT
        > implementing government out?

        Yes. And that will include assassination. Let's not
        kid ourselves on that score. This is serious business,
        and the vital interests of some very powerful and
        deeply evil people are at stake.

        -- Roy Langston
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.