> The Trucker wrote:

>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:08:00 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>

>>> The Trucker wrote:

>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:51:28 -0500, Publius wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> The Trucker verizon.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:pan.2008.07.11.22.07.01.31149@verizon.net:
>>>>>

>>>>>> How about a little stupidity shoot-down, eh? Let us assume
>>>>>> that there really is a government and that the government
>>>>>> actually does its job in assuring the tenancy rights of
>>>>>> exclusive use just as it does now. That land deed that you
>>>>>> have in your hot little hand is a "piece of paper". It says
>>>>>> that the Bandito MurferCycle Gang can't just invade your
>>>>>> farm and rape your chickens. The land is allocated just as
>>>>>> it is now to the highest bidder for the use of the land. The
>>>>>> only difference is that instead of paying the mortgage for 30
>>>>>> years and the taxes, you will just need to pay the taxes which
>>>>>> will be less than the sum of the current mortgage and the taxes.
>>>>>> The value is determined in a free market: Who will bid the most
>>>>>> for the use of the land. What are you refusing to let yourself
>>>>>> understand that?

>>>>> Er, no. The taxes (or rent, they are one and the same in this case) will be
>>>>> no less than the current sum of mortgage and taxes. The total cost of
>>>>> operating in a given location, vs. the earnings potential of operating
>>>>> there, determines the value of land. If a prospective tenant is willing to
>>>>> bid $20/sq. ft. in mortgage + taxes for a particular parcel, he'll also be
>>>>> willing to bid $20/sq. ft. in taxes (rent) alone. It will make no
>>>>> difference to him. The only difference is that the gummint captures the
>>>>> entire value of the land, instead of having to share it with a landlord.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is another difference. When land is under multiple ownership
>>>>> there is competition among landlords for tenants, which tends to restrain
>>>>> rents and drives fairly rapid adjustments in rents as market conditions
>>>>> change. If there is a monopoly landlord there are no such restraints, and
>>>>> it will not reduce rents until the tenant businesses begin to fail.

>>>> This is an urban legend. Landlords are price takers and they seek to
>>>> maximize accounting profits like any other economic entity. There is
>>>> absolutely __**NOTHING**__ that a landlord can do about the amount paid
>>>> for the use of land. The "competition" of landlords is total crap. The
>>>> users of the land will pay what they pay and the competition comes from
>>>> other would be users. Repeat after me, "Landlords serve no real purpose
>>>> in the economy other than to employ rent funds in a manner that will
>>>> differ from the way a government or a group of citizens might".

>>> And that's enough for me. Have you ever served on a committee? I have.
>>> Never underestimate the power of the stupidity of a committee.
>>> Seriously, there may be a training solution to this, but I rather
>>> doubt it.

>>
>> I handle the problem in the same way every time. I just send the rent
>> right back out to the public that created it. There aren't any decisions
>> being made about what to do with the rent.
>>
>> You, on the other hand, want to give it to particular individuals who are
>> pals with the government. Sorta like the powerful land owners of
>> California you were telling me about that made Reagan the (P)resident as
>> opposed to Carter.
>>

>
> I don't think you understand the phenomenon. The "under the table"
> things happen when the public story has become so Utopian that it's
> unworkable. This is the genesis of all corruption - the hell
> led to by roads paved by good intentions.

>>> By doing this, we've translated land-rent-seeking to the other
>>> kind of rent-seeking - currying political favor in the Roman
>>> fashion.

>>
>> Not if every voting member of the society gets an equal rent check every
>> time.
>>

>
> That should be enough. It won't be.

>>>> If you
>>>> seek justification of landlords than you must run away into "trickle
>>>> down", "Republican supply side" economic arguments. There is no direct
>>>> economic benefit, no additional competition, created by the existence of
>>>> landlords.
>>>>
>>>>

>>> You simply have to be an advocate for the concept of private property.
>>> That's an idea even Democrats support. Usually.

>>
>> Rightfully owned private property comes into being in the hands that
>> produce it. Land is not produced and is therefore not rightful private
>> property. You already know this.
>>

>
> I'll be sure to inform the local tax assessor's office. I "know" no
> such thing - I can parse the parallel universe theory in which this is
> true, but I have absolutely no way to evaluate the validity of any claim
> in its favor. Stretching a syllogism from Spencer's Statics into
> that level of upheaval....