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

Re: Most salient overlooked facts

Expand Messages
  • Jeffery J. Smith
    ... Frank, is value for you price? For me it s rent, actual plus (or minus) potential, how much can actually flow in the economy annually, since price is
    Message 1 of 67 , Sep 30, 2008
      On Sep 30, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Frank Walker wrote:

      US home mortgages in 2007 were $11.2 trillion.  In computing total home real estate values, homeowners' equity must be added in, including the equity in properties which are not mortgaged.  

      This gives us some idea of residential land values even if only 50% of the average home's value is attributable to the land.  And what of the value of non-residential land?

      Frank, is value for you price? For me it's rent, actual plus (or minus) potential, how much can actually flow in the economy annually, since price is capitalized rent and disappears under socialized rent. Me any audience need to know rent flows, no more or less.

      SMITH, Jeffery J.
      President, Forum on Geonomics
      Share Earth's worth to prosper and conserve.


    • Roy Langston
      ... And all are governed by the willing buyer and seller market price mechanism. ... Only a handful of whom are productive enough to pay the rent, and none
      Message 67 of 67 , Oct 31, 2008
        Harry Pollard wrote:

        >Roy said in response to my:

        >>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.

        And all are governed by the "willing buyer and seller"
        market price mechanism.

        >Roy responded to my:

        >>HP: Nothing can be done without land, so to do anything,
        >>you must pay what is asked however exacting that may
        >>be.

        >"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.

        Only a handful of whom are productive enough to pay the
        rent, and none of whom has any reason to pay more than
        that.

        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 of
        >"reasonable owners".

        No, they were mostly conquerors and religious bigots,
        and acted it.

        >The only capital available would have to come from
        >collected rack-rents.

        Nonsense. 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 and
        >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" .

        But the law privileged them to violate their tenants'
        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/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.