Re: Land value UK
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> "GDP" was first developed in 1930s so hardly JS Mill.GDP is merely a measure of production, so yes, in fact, Mill.
> And Mill proposedI couldn't care less if it is Georgist theory. It is obvious (to anyone who devotes a few nanoseconds' clear and honest thought to the matter) that as rent is economic advantage, aggregate rent will tend to track the size of the economy, cet. par., not inflation. So yes, if the economy ceases to grow, rent will pretty much cease to grow. In the 19th C, inflation was effectively non-existent for decades at a stretch, but rents soared astronomically along with total production.
> that "growth" was not unlimited. He could be right. Who knows? But your
> link between GDP and Rent, suggests that rent will eventually stabilize - is that georgist theory? I don't know.
> You're the big empiricist. Where is the empirical support for your theory that GDP (which we don't know back to 1910)There are actually reasonably good estimates of US GDP back almost to Revolutionary times:
> is a better index for rent thanHow about the fact that land values have increased pretty much in pace with GDP, and far faster than inflation? If land value had tracked inflation, then the SFD building lot that someone bought for $100 in 1910 in a typical American city would be selling for $2,370 today:
> inflation (which we do know back to 1910.)
And not 10 or 100 times that much.
> You may well be right, but the source you cite is no source.It's actually about a million times more of a source than the source _you_ cite (i.e., none).
-- Roy Langston
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> There is an enormous amount of urban land of all values which is presently held out of use at rack-rent (or higher) prices.It is held out of use in the hope of rezoning windfalls, which permitting development and use at the current permitted density would likely scotch for decades. As long as the long-term economic growth rate exceeds the tax rate, owning land increases the owner's net worth, so there is no reason to take a chance by permitting productive use.
> Such holdings would becomeRents already reflect that advantage, so they would not topple.
> available to producers and other users with adoption of full land Rent
> collection and Rents would topple to a point where they would accurately
> reflect the advantage provided by the surrounding population.
> You agree with me that present land rent is a 'monopoly rent'. I happen toIt's not appropriate, because what you are talking about is in fact rent.
> call it rack-rent because that seems to me to be an appropriate term.
> Your peculiar opposition to this seems to stem from your mistaken belief thatNo, YOUR peculiar theory stems from your mistaken belief that rent is rack-rent.
> with full Rent collection, rack-rent would remain. In fact, as I have stated, it would disappear.
> I don't know where you got your land-value taxation ideas from, but you treat it as simply a good way to tax.My UIE proposal proves that claim false. LVT is essential to equal human rights.
> The real intention of collecting RentNo, the real intention is to restore the EQUAL RIGHTS of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, relieving the poverty of the less able by ensuring they have free, secure access to economic opportunity, and enabling the more able to rise as high as their productive contributions will carry them by relieving them of the burden of supporting the greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning overclass in exorbitant luxury. I am much more aware of that intention than you, as your opposition to my UIE proposal shows.
> (popularly, land-value taxing) is to produce a genuine equality of
> conditions for all, replacing the present rigged economy which condemns the
> less able to poverty and the more able to a lifetime of paying rack-rent.
> The object of full Rent collection is to take the first step towardsI do indeed.
> 'Liberty and Justice for All'. Reducing this to a simple tax advocacy diminishes its importance as a genuine reform.
> But, you probably know that.
-- Roy Langston