Re: [LandCafe] Most salient overlooked facts
- On Sep 30, 2008, at 2:04 PM, chuck metalitz wrote:
If you can generalize to say that privilege, of which landholding is a big part, is a growing and problematic part of the economy, then you can use the graphic at the top of this that shows "intangibles" (which are, in essence, privilege) are a fast-growing proportion of the value of corporations. Data to 2005, still true after yesterday, I'm sure.Thanks, Chuck. Powerful stuff, hombre. You shoulda shared it with the list! So I will. I want to know if people feel that IP has caught up with land, or passed it, or in the same ballpark, or over-rated as a size and source of great wealth?
- Harry Pollard wrote:
>Roy said in response to my:And all are governed by the "willing buyer and seller"
>>HP: You seem to assume a "willing buyer and a willing
>>seller" a phrase that is not applicable when the
>>commodity is absolutely necessary to life.
>"You mean like food?"
>Exactly! Or you could suggest water. Shelter from the
>elements is also important.
>Yet, all come from land - the primary source.
market price mechanism.
>Roy responded to my:Only a handful of whom are productive enough to pay the
>>HP: Nothing can be done without land, so to do anything,
>>you must pay what is asked however exacting that may
>"No, you can just choose to deal with a more reasonable
>owner, one who prefers less unearned income than he
>would perhaps have liked to no unearned income at all."
>The "reasonable owner" has the pick of many people
>asking for a job.
rent, and none of whom has any reason to pay more than
I am a landlord, Harry. Getting a tenant is easy, as
long as you don't care if they pay the rent or not.
Getting a tenant who will pay more than the place is
worth to him, OTOH, is quite difficult.
>Perhaps that makes him less "reasonable" .And perhaps having a mortgage payment to meet makes him
more reasonable. To paraphrase Johnson, "The knowledge
that one will be foreclosed in a fortnight concentrates
the mind wonderfully."
Who will give an owner more than the rent, and why?
>You brought up Ireland - a perfect example ofNo, they were mostly conquerors and religious bigots,
and acted it.
>The only capital available would have to come fromNonsense. The tenants themselves were producing
capital. They then had to pay rent for it, because
they were denied the option of going elsewhere and
dealing with more reasonable landowners. That's
part of what made their rents rack-rents.
>They were more interested in grabbing the loot andBut the law privileged them to violate their tenants'
>using it to finance their great times in the Court
>of St. James, at which there would be general
>agreement that they were all "reasonable" .
rights to the products of their labor as well as to
access and use the land, so they did not have to be
reasonable in dealing with their tenants. Also, they
got the land without having to buy it, and legal
constraints made it difficult or impossible for them
to sell it, so the willing buyer and seller price
mechanism was not allowed to work wrt land. The
English were determined that the Irish should not own
their own land, so they just forbade them to buy any.
-- Roy Langston
Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/