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

Elasticity of demand/was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: A problem with Geoism

Expand Messages
  • kurtjhorner
    Comments interspersed . . . ... That isn t true, as we ll see below. ... This is identical to land-A as I defined it. I.e. all things not created by past or
    Message 1 of 732 , Jul 3, 2007
      Comments interspersed . . .

      --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard"
      <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
      >
      > Kurt,
      >
      > You tell me the two ways I have defined land, yet I have
      > never used either of them.

      That isn't true, as we'll see below.

      > Classically "Land" is natural resources. We usually say
      > that should we remove Man and his products from the earth,
      > what is left we shall call Land. So, indeed, the air,
      > ocean, and electromagnetic spectrum, are all "Land".

      This is identical to land-A as I defined it. I.e. all things not
      created by past or present human effort.

      > The skyscraper is a product of human exertion and is
      > Capital. It cannot be Land.

      The physical materials in a skyscraper are not land-A. We agree there.
      However, the *volume of air* enclosed by a skyscraper *is* land-A, by
      your argument above. So the creation of a skyscraper involves *both*
      the creation of capital and the enclosure of land-A.

      From my previous post:

      "If you state that skyscrapers should be evaluated using land-A, then
      you have to concede that Georgist complaints about inelastic supply of
      standing room are unsound."

      So, can I conclude that you are dropping your arguments about
      inelasticity?

      Additionally, do Georgists believe that skyscraper owners should
      compensate the surrounding community for the volume of air they have
      enclosed? If so, what about shorter buildings like a house? Don't they
      owe air Rent as well (just a smaller amount)?

      - Kurt
    • dan_ust
      Most definitely. I d be able to check it out too to see how the sources you cited came up with the figures.
      Message 732 of 732 , Feb 23, 2013
        Most definitely. I'd be able to check it out too to see how the sources you cited came up with the figures.

        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, royll@... wrote:
        >
        > Quoting Dan Ust <dan_ust@...>:
        >
        > > Does Roy have a reference for that?
        >
        > Would it have any effect whatever on your beliefs if I supplied one?
        >
        > -- Roy
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.