On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:23:39 -0500, Publius
nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>> Wrong. The market would just be in periodic use rights rather than
>> perpetual ownership rights. You appear to be unaware that there are
>> markets in use rights to land that can't be privately owned and thus
>> has no capital value, like federal range land, community land trust
>> land, etc.
>>
>>>With no
>>>market, there is no way to determine the value,
>>>aside from arbitrary and capricioius bureaucratic
>>>fiat. Reductio ad absurdum. QED. Case closed.
>>>One more utopia shot down.
>>
>> No, you are just ignorant of the relevant economics.
>
>I hate to launch a second thread on this topic, but it is you who are
>ignorant of the relevant economics, as usual.
No, I am entirely correct, and you are provably flat wrong, as usual.
>Gummint-owned land will have
>a capital and market value as long as a market exists.
But there is no market in titles to public land, as it is not for
sale. Thanks for agreeing that I was and am totally and indisputably
right, and you are, as always, absolutely and indisputably wrong.
>The value of a
>particular gummint-owned parcel will be established via comparables, and be
>carried on the gummint's books with that value.
That is not the land's capital value, but only the value it _could_
have if privatized. Furthermore, what constitutes a comparable parcel
is determined by to what use the land could most productively be put
-- thus, its periodic rental value -- not by your silly fantasies.
>When and if the gummint
>ever decides to sell that parcel, it will set a price based on that value.
Correct. But that is not its current capital value.
>If all land is owned by the gummint, however, and may not be sold to to
>aqnyone else, then there is no longer a market, and "market values" become
>meaningless.
Obviously, you are just wrong and stupid, as always. There has been
no private land in HK for 150 years, but there has been a lively
market in land the whole time.
You are flat wrong, proved wrong, and continue to be wrong. You are
flat ignorant of the relevant economics, as well as the relevant facts
of history.
-- Roy L
