Elasticity of demand/was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: A problem with Geoism
- Comments interspersed . . .
--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard"
>That isn't true, as we'll see below.
> You tell me the two ways I have defined land, yet I have
> never used either of them.
> Classically "Land" is natural resources. We usually sayThis is identical to land-A as I defined it. I.e. all things not
> 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".
created by past or present human effort.
> The skyscraper is a product of human exertion and isThe physical materials in a skyscraper are not land-A. We agree there.
> Capital. It cannot be Land.
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
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)?
- 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