On Fri, 04 May 2007 13:54:51 -0500, Publius
nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>Michael Scheltgen wrote in
>news:IZb_h.156882$aG1.140779@pd7urf3no:
>
>>> The same thing that gives all things value --- someone desires it. How
>>> strongly they desire it is measured by what they will give up to obtain
>>> it. That is why an acre of land in Manhattan is worth millions, while
>>> an acre in the middle of the Sahara is worth nothing.
>
>> Okay, but why would someone be willing to purchase an an acre of land in
>> Manhattan for millions but not an acre in the middle of the Sahara for
>> next to nothing?
>
>Because doing business in that location had more potential for profit than
>the same amounnt of land in the Sahara or in Topeka. Hence it is "bid up" ---
>people are willing to pay more for it because they can earn more by being
>there rather than elsewhere.
Oops. You said something true. Now what am I supposed to do?
>That value has absolutely nothing to do with any natural attributes of that
>land.
It's location is not a natural attribute? The fact that it is
dry land beside the ocean, and not out in the middle of the ocean?
Never mind. I'll cherish the paragraph above, where you actually
stuck to the facts.
>It does not rest on its mineral value, timber value, or fertility.
Oops. Another true statement. Pinch me, somebody, I must be
dreaming.
>No
>one who buys land in Manhattan gives a hoot about any of those things. No
>part of its value is "natural" in any sense of the word.
The location near a good natural harbor is natural. But it's true
that the value of the land comes from goverment and the community, not
the landowner. But you say it should all go _to_ the landowner, none
to government or the community.
Now you just need to find a willingness to think about why you would
think that.
-- Roy L
