> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:06:18 -0700 (PDT), Shrikeb...@
gmail.com wrote:
>>On Jul 11, 4:07=A0pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>>> On Jul 11, 6:55=A0pm, Shrikeb...@
gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> On Jul 11, 3:31=A0am, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>>>> On Jul 11, 2:15=A0am, Shrikeb...@
gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>> On Jul 10, 9:18=A0pm, Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>> how is the value of the land
>>>>>>>> to be taxed determined?
>
>>>>>>> Same as it is now. =A0The city or country assessor.
>
>>>>>> That doesn't answer the question, dipshit. =A0_HOW_
>>>>>> is the value of the land to be taxed determined. =A0After
>>>>>> all, when Georgisdopia breaks out, all land will have
>>>>>> a market value of zero, because it is being taxed at
>>>>>> its amortized value. =A0Hence, no market. =A0With no
>>>>>> market, there is no way to determine the value,
>>>>>> aside from arbitrary and capricioius bureaucratic
>>>>>> fiat. =A0Reductio ad absurdum. =A0QED. =A0Case closed.
>>>>>> One more utopia shot down.
>
>>>>> That makes no sense. Of course there will be a market since consumers
>>>>> have a choice to rent or not to rent, and to pay for a resource or
>>>>> not, and to do so in a different state if the price is right. How is
>>>>> that not a market?
>
>>>> I suppose it depends on what your definition of the word,
>>>> "market" is.
>
>>> What's yours?
>
>>It seems to me that your definition would include degenerate
>>cases such as the collectivization of agriculture in the Great
>>Leap Forward. Â After all, the peasantry can always choose not
>>to eat. Â Or turn to cannabilism, since there were plenty of fresh
>>dead around. Â That's a state-monopoly, as far as I am concerned.
>
> OK, so you have no definition, no facts, no logic, no arguments, just
> name calling and strawmen.
>
> The important lesson here is that it never gets any better. Â That's
> all ANY anti-geoist has ever offered.
>
>>>> are right. =A0It is certainly a degenerate (in the mathematical
>>>> sense) sort of market. =A0I like how you claim that consumers
>>>> have a choice. =A0How do you avoid renting again? =A0What's
>>>> the alternative? =A0Live with your mom?
>
>>> Markets provide opportunity, not guaranteed outcomes. Lots of people
>>> live with their moms now.
>
>>That is entirely beside my point. Â You claimed that consumers
>>could avoid renting. Â Ultimately, there is no such thing as free
>>rent, we all know somebody's suffering some opportunity costs
>>in the example of moving back in with your Mom. Â She can't
>>host threesomes at her place anymore, for one thing.
>
> All land rent recovery proposals I am aware of include a personal land
> rent exemption or citizens' dividend that allows one to use enough
> land to live on while paying no rent.
>
>>>> So our monopoly market in land has that much competition.
>
>>>> I also like how you offer up the choice of moving to another
>>>> state. =A0I suppose if the monopoly is by state, that is correct.
>>>> But I have found that even regional monopolies suck. =A0Forcing
>>>> people to move in order to have a choice is a considerable
>>>> hurdle to the idea of free competition, ain't it?
>
>>> People are forced to move all the time in order to do whatever
>>> business they fell like. Markets provide opportunity, not guaranteed
>>> outcomes.
>
>>So what? Â You are advocating that there be a regional
>>monopoly on land, and you are claiming it isn't a monopoly
>>because consumers can always leave?
>
> No, it's just no more a monopoly than the current situation. Â The big
> difference is in who gets the rent, not who has the land.
That _is_ the point. In your system, there is only
ONE landlord to rule them all. That is a monopoly.
What part of "mono" do you not understand?
>>Well, the central
>>point to take away from this discussion is that you want
>>to reduce the choices available to the consumer.
>
> Garbage. Â The supply of land is fixed. Â
So? The price of a commodity is not only proportional
to the supply, it is also proportional to the number of
competitive sellers. That is the most basic of economics.
It is quite obvious that a monopoly can, in theory, command
higher prices than competitors in a competitive market.
> Consumer choice would be
> _enhanced_ by speculator dishoarding.
How do you figure, aside from by a leap of faith?
>>> For those who aren't innumerate fundatarians, it is worthwhile to
>>> observe that there are many areas of commerce in which the number of
>>> suppliers is much less than the number of nation-states.
>
>>For those who aren't innumerate leftards (which is
>>a self-evidently true description, in this case) it is
>>worthwhile to consider that in the area of commerce
>>that is under discussion, it is not the case that the
>>number of suppliers is less than the number of nation-
>>states.
>
> Yes, it is, because there are no suppliers of land. Â All the land
> there is going to be is already here, has been here all along, and was
> not supplied by anyone.
That is irrelevant. If there is but one landlord, the rents can
theoretically be completely arbitrary.
>>There is a far greater choice of landlords now
>>than advocates of Georgism call for.
>
> LOL! Â The landlord has nothing to do with the level of choice. Â
That's absurd. If you don't like landlord A's prices, you can
go to landlord B.
> He
> simply appropriates the additional production his more advantageous
> site makes possible. Â It couldn't matter less if there is one or a
> million of them. Â They have no effect on the land market.
They don't affect the supply, but it is a simple logic that
choice requires... choices.
>>Georgism has reactionary consequences, therefore.
>
> False.
If you say so.
>>Advocating
>>greater monopolization of power is reactionary, after
>>all.
>
> Geoism disperses both land and power.
How does it do that? How does centralizing land under
a single monopoly landlord disperse anything?
>>And what is the justification for the nationalization
>>of the land market? Â Some goofy utopian ideal?
>>Good luck selling that one to landowners, pal.
>
> "And what is the justification for the nationalization
> of the slave market? Â Some goofy utopian ideal?
> Good luck selling that one to slave owners, pal."
Slavery was banned. Your analogy is screwed.
It would be more akin to your plan if all slaves were
declared to be owned by the State, and everyone
had to rent them.
