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

Re: Land value UK

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... Mostly land speculators (including banksters) and governments. Your question is not responsive to my statement. ... And probably own some of them. So...?
    Message 1 of 46 , Nov 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:

      > HP: > The monopolist achieves his high return by refusing to supply demand.
      >
      > RL: That is simply false. He is happy to supply all the demand there is at his most profitable price.
      >
      > H: Who holds the "nearly half" of Phoenix downtown which is vacant?

      Mostly land speculators (including banksters) and governments.

      Your question is not responsive to my statement.

      > And the
      > situation in Phoenix is mirrored in urban areas across the USA. I have
      > personally known good properties that have been held unused for 30 – 40 years.

      And probably own some of them. So...?

      > You appear to be using the Austrian version of the market which is blind to the peculiar nature of land.

      Claim lacking factual or logical support.

      > HP: > In the case of land, or more specifically locations, he has the added
      > advantage that people must have access or they do not survive. So he can>
      > run up the Rent until paying more is impossible for the prospective user.
      >
      > RL: No, he can't, or he would, and he doesn't. If he tries to charge more
      > than the economic advantage his location affords the user, the user will
      > just go elsewhere. Almost all land users could in fact pay more than they
      > are paying, and their landlords are powerless to charge them any more.
      > H: Again, pure Austrian – where is this "elsewhere"?

      Everywhere else.

      > In Phoenix you have
      > practically half the downtown vacant. Why aren't they snapped up by people looking for "elsewhere"?

      Because those who are looking to use land usually can't afford to buy tickets on the landowners' escalator.

      > The Austrian analysis is very good.

      No, it's based on the subjective theory of value, which is garbage.

      > The trouble is
      > that von Mises thought land would act in the market the way other things do. He was wrong - as are you when you follow this same path.

      You have provided no evidence whatever that I am following Mises's path (whatever you erroneously imagine that is), nor will you ever be doing so.

      > HP: > A large amount of urban land is vacant or underused. Perhaps the
      > underused amount – slums and suchlike – is more important than the vacant.
      > In any event, many landholders will be unable to continue holding their
      > land with the land rent payment pressing on them. So, they will have to
      > build or abandon. The once highly restricted market for land will become
      > open and available.
      >
      > RL: It's true that the land market will become more liquid, but that does
      > not imply that rents will crash, because the land market will still be a monopoly market.
      >
      > H: A market with lots of available vacant land competing for use is a monopoly?

      Land does not compete for use. Users compete for the fixed (monopoly) supply of land. Land rent is the RESULT of that competition. Please try to find a willingness to know that fact.

      > I doubt that even von Mises would go along with that.

      Which proves that contrary to your claims, I am NOT following Mises's path.

      > Rents won't crash. However, the competition for lots of available land will cause rack-rents to disappear to be replaced by rents.

      What you call, "rack-rents" are a figment of your imagination.

      > The city will
      > concentrate and compact. As one moves away from the center rents will drop.
      > There should be quite a lot of land around the edges that becomes marginal with no rent.

      Why would no more than one person be willing to pay to use such convenient and advantageous locations? Most people would like to use more land than they do now, but can't afford to.

      > This vacant land should be quite productive as it will still be quite close to the rich market of the central city.

      Which baldly contradicts your claim that no one will be able to afford to keep it out of use.

      -- Roy Langston
    • roy_langston
      ... 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
      Message 46 of 46 , Dec 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 become
        > 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.

        Rents already reflect that advantage, so they would not topple.

        > You agree with me that present land rent is a 'monopoly rent'. I happen to
        > call it rack-rent because that seems to me to be an appropriate term.

        It's not appropriate, because what you are talking about is in fact rent.

        > Your peculiar opposition to this seems to stem from your mistaken belief that
        > with full Rent collection, rack-rent would remain. In fact, as I have stated, it would disappear.

        No, YOUR peculiar theory stems from your mistaken belief that rent is rack-rent.

        > 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 Rent
        > (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.

        No, 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.

        > The object of full Rent collection is to take the first step towards
        > 'Liberty and Justice for All'. Reducing this to a simple tax advocacy diminishes its importance as a genuine reform.
        >
        > But, you probably know that.

        I do indeed.

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