[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 6 KB, 186x271, Henry George.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17226973 No.17226973 [Reply] [Original]

once you take the landpill, you can't go back
you'll never see the world the same way again

>> No.17226984
File: 10 KB, 94x125, 1554454044589.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17226984

go on

>> No.17227015

>>17226973
this
spreading the ideology of Henry George is my life's mission and I see crypto gains as a means through which I can accomplish that, Unroincally got banned on the first day /biz/ was created for making a thread about it

god bless you op you will make it

>> No.17227056
File: 71 KB, 900x1200, 1568455497653.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17227056

>>17226973
/biz/ is a land value tax board.

>> No.17227117

>>17226984
The basic gist is that any tax on labor or captial is theft and that natural resources are the common property of mankind. Since redistribution of land is impossible and immoral, the way to give everyone the same natural opportunity is to collect the economic rent of land, which is determined by the based free market.

Everyone has an inborn right to extract natural resources, yet all of them were in private hands at the time of our births. These are the things that no man has created (unlike labor or captial), yet are held in private until the end of time, to the detriment of everyone else-- as the supply of land is totally inelastic.

Land alone is the only just base for taxation.

>> No.17227154

>>17227015
check out this video from 1999 about Milton Friedman predicting crypto and endorsing land value tax:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2mdYX1nF_Y

>>17226984
it's a single tax on the rental value of land
some people say it could fund all levels of government
everything else would be untaxed: no more income tax, sales tax, capital gains tax etc

>> No.17227200

>>17227117
thanks for explaining better than I could, english is not my native language so I have a hard time explaining things

>> No.17227332

>>17227200
Not a problem anon. I studied natural resource economics in college and was never exposed to these idea. When I read "Progress and Povery" my life and my thinking was changed forever, like you said, I see it everywhere.

But how can we profit from this?

What you'll want to do is buy land that along a road that passes over an interstate but does not have an exit yet. This land will normally be cheap, as the bet here is that an exit will be built in the future. You'll want to start a cashflow business to pay your loan, think something like a nursery, tree farm, or cattle ranch. Then all you have to do is wait for the general public to finance the offramp, and the moment it's complete the entire cost and more gets priced into your land IMMEDIATELY, yet you do not pay a dime for it directly, and you'll often get tax subsidies for operating a farm.
Neat huh?

>> No.17227401

being born does not grant you the right to do, have, or take anything

>> No.17227456

>>17227401
the land owners took the land for themselves first, it's not wrong if we take it back
we were praticaly born into a game of Monopoly where all the properties already have owners, how fair is that?

>> No.17227458
File: 49 KB, 922x788, 76786876.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17227458

Yes, I'm interested in having an immobile investment/liability zone subject to the whims of local taxation that doesn't produce income without being developed further to its highest and best use, how could you tell?

>> No.17227500

>>17227332
I’d rather by link desu as I don’t want to operate a farm or wait for something that will probably never happen to cash out.

>> No.17227508

>>17227456
The land becomes owned once you produce capital using the natural resources and labour. Think of it like domesticating an animal; it'd be wrong to take or shoot your pet.

>> No.17227522

>>17227456
It is wrong because you were not the first and you put zero labor or capital into developing the land you dirty commie.

>> No.17227537

>>17227117
A land value tax is also the only form of taxation that has 0 deadweight loss for the economy. All other taxes reduce economic output and employment.

>> No.17227543

>>17227332
To give a specific example of what I'm talking about, please look at this parcel.

http://publicaccess.vcgov.org/volusia/datalets/datalet.aspx?mode=land&UseSearch=no&pin=3308174&jur=74&taxyr=2020&LMparent=20

That's 320 acres of prime land in the middle of Daytona Beach, directly adajacent to I-95 and i-4, with access from a county highway. It's currently classified as grazing land, and the total tax bill for this property is a whopping $2,300 per year, with an assessed value of $52,000.

The property is listed for sale for $30,000.000. Good for them, right? I would agree. But bad for all the constructions workers who would build homes there. Bad for the employees who would work in the stores there. Bad for the people currently experiencing a housing shortage, but cannot until the speculator decides that $20,000.000 is enough for their 'farm'.

This value was not created by the farmer. I support farmers keeping 100% of the value of their labor. What I don't support is the privatization of public spending while depriving everyone else of the opportunity of using that land in accordance to what the free market would have it be.

>> No.17227544

>>17227508
yeah but you can't breed more land you fucking idiot

>> No.17227561
File: 1.07 MB, 1639x1641, 1567581581504.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17227561

Smells like boomer in here.

>> No.17227566

>>17227456
>how fair is that?
At some point, the first settlers of land worked on it and turned it into the society you live in today. Inheritance works just like giving capital as gifts, not sure why you're saying it's unfair. Are you annoyed there's "no" land left to explore and make your own?

>> No.17227574

>>17227544
New cattle is still owned by the owner of the parent cattle because they put up the resources for their cattle to reproduce.
No new land means nothing to property rights.

>> No.17227582

>>17227544
So what if you can't breed more land?

>> No.17227592

>>17227500
This ideology is kind of what underpins why I think link is such an outsized investment. It's very much like monopolizing a bunch of land when it's cheap, knowing people will need it in the future.

>> No.17227593

>>17227537
How do you fucking retards breath?
Tax on land means the owner of the land is unable to use those funds for any economic activity.

>> No.17227611

If you don't have callouses on your hands from working, then you cannot call yourself a real communist.

>> No.17227613

>>17227522
suppose a plane crashed near a tropical island and I survie and swim there
then I walk all over the island (according to Rothbard, just walking over land is enough to homestead it)
then 1 month later your plane crashes there and you survive
should you pay rent to me for the rest of your life, since I was on the island first?
you can fish and find coconuts while I sit on my ass all day, you see nothing wrong with that?

>> No.17227618

>>17227566
>Are you annoyed there's "no" land left to explore and make your own?

Ok anon, do you think it's morally just for you to claim a part of the ocean for yourself because you once caught a fish there? You've mixed your labor with it.... does that give you the right to monopolize that spot in perpetuity? Does that make in fucking sense at all?

>> No.17227639

>>17227561
>logic is for fascists.
What kind of shitty shill campaign is this thread?

>> No.17227657

>>17226973
The idea of working hard is to create capital, that capital likely won't be sitting around, at least a portion of it will be used to purchase land and other things that give a rent without one having to work.

The reason people work hard and smart isn't because they want all their income to go towards consumption or because they enjoy working long hours. They work hard because they have a calculation in their head that working harder and smarter now should at some point in future allow them to extract rents and make their life more comfortable by purchasing land and property and bestow these benefits on their progeny.

To tax this would mean to greatly discourage people from that motivation which drives innovation and the world economy.

>> No.17227702

>>17227613
The situation only works if you, the landowner has a security apparatus in place to compel the new arrival to pay rent rather than take your property.

Property cannot exist without threat of force.

>> No.17227707

>>17227593
right but farmers that pay rent to a work on a landlords land are still able to turn a profit. What we see is the state should collect THAT rent, rather than tax people on income or sales or capital gains. It benefits those who produce and punishes those who provide nothing other than holding the ground from everyone else.

We want the farmer to keep all the money he earners from farming, but to do so we put the incidence of the tax on those that produce nothing.

>> No.17227721

>>17227613
There is nothing wrong with that. The random story you came up with to downplay how you own it is irrelevant. And no, walking over land not sufficient according to Rothbard. You must mix your labour into the land meaning you have built something over all of it.

>> No.17227748

>>17227593
LMFAO! That's the fucking point! The LVT takes money from land owners and uses it to fund the government!

>> No.17227761

>>17227657
You're the only person who has even mentioned rents so far, so congrats on that.

I don't agree that with the idea that eliminating rent seeking would deter production, which is what you're saying in a roundabout way. I think it would be offset by eliminating the very real existing taxes on production, which I think is a greater deterrent to economic activity than some whispy future dream of being a rent seeker in the future.

>> No.17227765

>>17227721
what if I want my land to be empty because it looks better? wouldn't a beach become ugly with fences all over it? how do you homestead a beach, or a forest?

>> No.17227771

>>17227707
There is only one moral law. The non aggression principle where you are unable to initiate the use of force. All taxation breaks this law otherwise it’d be a gift. All voluntary agreements between people are therefore valid including the farmer who wants to use someone else’s land to produce income.

>> No.17227805

>>17227748
Yeah that makes sense. Instead of someone investing and spending their own money it’s better to first push it through an inefficient bureaucracy and spend the funds on the whims of politicians bribing the public for votes.

>> No.17227836

>>17227765
I’m sure you meant to make a point.

>> No.17227843

>>17227771
OMG are you seriously going to talk about the NAP and private land ownership.

Every land title on earth exists because someone violated the NAP. Land IS the common property of mankind, which is why you ducked out of >>17227618

The idea is absurd. Any time you monopolize a piece of the earth you are imposing an opportunity cost on other people. I respect all libertarian arguments on everything else.

>> No.17227850
File: 106 KB, 1015x676, oracleface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17227850

>>17227805
Having no government doesn't work. Many people have tried.

>> No.17227873

>>17227056
what's the sauce on those milkers?

>> No.17227898

>>17227873
nvm it's shibukaho

>> No.17227913

property is a spook, personal possessions are not

>> No.17227919

>>17227873
4chan.org

>> No.17227973

>>17227843
>OMG
Land on which no person has set foot or worked is not owned by anyone. Therefore anyone can claim it which is as far as ethics will go in terms of common property. Another interesting feature of this original state of all land is that the NAP was not violated in claiming it.
>imposing an opportunity cost
This is not a violation of the NAP because unless they owned the land they had no right to any opportunity the land could yield.
>>17227850
No one has tried.

>> No.17228044

>>17227973
>Land on which no person has set foot or worked is not owned by anyone

Do you have autism? Does dragging a net through the ocean give you a right to claim it in perpetutiy?

Reality is very different from the abstraction you've created for yourself. There is no moral justification for being able to hold any natural resource in perpetuity. Rothbard was completely and objectively long yet ancaps still hug his nuts like this.

Reality is that we need to end taxation on labor and capital, and that's only possible by taxing land. If you want to have a vacant lot in the middle of manhattan fine by me, but doing so imposes a cost on labor and capital alike. The free market knows what land is worth and how it should be used, but land speculation prevents this.

>> No.17228075

>>17227761
>I don't agree that with the idea that eliminating rent seeking would deter production

I think rent-seeking, or any kind of passive-income is the motivation for active production. Generally speaking, nobody wants to produce for production's sake, you are producing to get something. Assuming the reward for production or labor is money, it is not money in itself with its' capacity for consumption or purchasing of other products that is attractive to an individual. The attraction of money is that one will be able to purchase now such a thing that will allow him to extract money without having to engage in production.

A mechanism like this can be found all over the history. A simple case are active and sedentary merchants in Venice. If you don't have enough capital, you are an active merchant, using a ship owned by a sedentary merchant and goods mostly owned by a sedentary merchant. You are responsible for carrying out the operation and you get a piece of the pie. When your pie is large enough, you can afford to become a sedentary merchant, so that you can sit in your land and read books or drink wine or whatever you want to do. Nobody wants to be the productive force. This is the basic movement of economy throughout the history.

So while what you propose sounds good on paper, I quite doubt that people want to carry it out and it would soon result in internal antinomies that would sooner than later result in the present world, unless you have a sort of totalitarian communist regime at the head enforcing the tax, but who would want to live in a regime like that?

>> No.17228191

>>17228075
>, but who would want to live in a regime like that?

I find this to be an incredible stretch. You can still retire off of productivity activities. Income is the motivator, not the dream the of earning a certain type of passive income. I have my doubts that society will fall apart when boomers are buying dividend stocks instead of rental properties.

In fact, there are a number of compelling reasons to think that society would be much better off.

>> No.17228197

>>17228044
>thinks autism is an insult on 4chan
The reason the ocean is an absurd comparison is because fish fucking move and building on the ocean is somewhat uncommon. However, if one were to build on the ocean then yes. That piece of the ocean would become private property.
>perpetuity
Humans beings die and the moral justification regardless is the NAP. Without this any absurd condition could be invented on the spot to justify taking property from people by popular thieves.
The free market also punishes people who waste resources by inflicting monetary losses not that that’s relevant to the ethics of private property.

>> No.17228198

>>17227973
Experiments with no government fail so quickly that it's as if they have never been tried, and retards keep trying again.

>> No.17228217

>>17228198
What experiments? And before you come up with an example make sure there is nothing resembling a state.

>> No.17228237

>>17228191
>Income is the motivator

for what? income is only a motivator in that it gets you something. what does it get you? most people want to rise on the social hierarchy and you do that by buying land and extracting rents, income is a vehicle not an end-goal

>> No.17228298

>>17228191
another thing. a divident stock is in itself worthless. it does nothing for a human being. its promise is that you will get paid dividends or sell the stock in the future at a higher price. and why is that? because people speculate that they will use this income to purchase the thing that is materially concrete. land, property etc. AND that has the ability to produce passive income with little to no risk associated with it. people's desire is to see themselves and their social rank reflected in the material world. landownership and properties alongside with passive income are the best bet to increase reproductive success, social status, comfort of living and confer benefits on your progeny. this is what drives economy and why it is the way it is with its problems.

>> No.17228313

>>17228197
Anon it's not about 'buliding' or 'setting foot on'. In economics, the ocean is considered 'Land' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_(economics))..

Animals move on land. It doesn't matter. Does mixing your labor with a place give you the right to extract rents from it in perpetuity? You can see that's it's foolish in the ocean, yet can't make the distinction with other natural resources.

The georgist say that parcels of the ocean should absolutely be leased (in lieu of commerical licensing), and let the leaseholder decided how it's allocated. The value of this lease should be the only source of public revenue.

You're right that the one who catches the fish owns the fish. But I don't think he owns the place the fish was caught forever. I believe it is common property, and if someone wishes to monopolize that place he should pay us the market rate to prevent us from accessing our god given share of the earth.

>> No.17228374

>>17228298
Right, but we don't propose an end to owning house or farms or any of that. You can still rise in status and have the biggest plantation on the bock, you just can't extract economic rent from it, or only a minimal amount.

I find the argument very flimsy. Material possessions and status still exists.

>> No.17228408

Why should I have to pay anyone to use my own land? If I don't pay will they take me away by force? I don't want to have to submit to a supposed higher authority.

>> No.17228427

>>17228408
Don't you pay property taxes already?

>> No.17228493

>>17228427
Exactly. Property tax is an abomination.

>> No.17228527

>>17227508
>you produce capital using the natural resources and labour
Rape the land, take the trees, spill all the topsoil, kill all the pollinators.
>now I own it

>> No.17228618

>>17228493
Well, we try to be pragmatic here. I think taxation on income is objectively worse. Taxing land values alone would produce many desirable benefits at the expense of those who use land in a way that's not congruent with what an ideal market would.

>> No.17228846

>>17227117
now this is just based

>> No.17228896

>>17228618
Should just be sales tax like the Founding Fathers intended. Nobody should presume to evict me from my land just because I'm not paying them.

>> No.17228942

>>17228896
They didn't intend that anon you just made that up. If you read stuff like Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" and Thomas Paines "Agrarian Justice". you''ll find that both of them advocated for collecting ground rents. In fact, even John Locke recognized that homesteading was no longer morally defensible if there was not enough good land left over for everyone else.

>> No.17228971

>>17228942
When the federal government was founded there was no federal income nor propety tax, just sales tax.

>> No.17229014

>>17227613
>according to Rothbard, just walking over land is enough to homestead it
Wrong. According to Rothbard, mixing your labor with land to produce capital (for example, building a house on a bit of land and fencing it off) is enough to own it. And if he chooses to gift this land to someone else (usually as inheritance), and they choose to just rent it out, it doesn't take away from the fact that there was labor originally done to own that land

>> No.17229061

>>17227618
I don't know what to think about property rights in the ocean, but Rothbard would agree with you there. It seems ridiculous and hard to keep track of though

>> No.17229111

>>17229014
either way, it's arbitrary, as my fishing example proves. But you're way to deep in the philosophical end of things at the expense of practicality. There's a great argument for saying that Indians owned the US under the Rothbrad standard, but on the other hand you claim the land titles are still just despite them be obtained by a violation of the NAP.

All land is stolen. No land title was obtained justly.

>>17228971
There was no national sales tax. You're literally making that up. There were tarriffs, which also inhibit production. Taxes on land are the only morally defensible form of taxation. What gives your land value are the roads that connect to it, the school district you're in, the stores that are near you,. etc..... none of that is created by you yourself. Yet, when someone builds a market near you, the value of your land goes up.

If we have a choice between taxing that value, and the value that you do actually make yourself, I'll tax land values every single time. Want to opt out? Get some land somewhere with no public services.... it'll be much cheaper for you.

>> No.17229131

>>17227843
>Every land title on earth exists because someone violated the NAP.
If you are talking about colonialism, it would be immoral and not encouraged by anyone who believes in the NAP.
>Land IS the common property of mankind
How? You are owed nothing by being born

>> No.17229156

>>17228044
>Reality is that we need to end taxation on labor and capital, and that's only possible by taxing land.
or no taxes at all desu

>> No.17229212

>>17229131
It's exactly the same as the ocean anon. No one owns it. No one has the right to claim it forever because they fished there.

Again, you're going back to the philosophical 'it would not be encouraged', yet that is the way it is. All land titles come from violence and theft. Why raise revenue from income rather than land? Like it or not, your monopolization of it does impose a cost on other people.

Why do you think you're 'owed' air to breathe? Would you think the privatization of air forever was a dumb idea?

>> No.17229409

>>17229111
>There's a great argument for saying that Indians owned the US under the Rothbrad standard
well not the entire country but sure, a lot of land was stolen from the Indians. In a perfectly moral world, settlers should have built around their land and worked with them.
But once you take land by violence, the other person has the right to fight back morally. The Indians would be better off not to fight back at this point

>> No.17229675

Georgism is fundamentally misguided as soon as it starts talking about taxation. It misunderstands government.

Land doesn't exist phenomenologically. There is only capital, which is logically constituted by a mix of land and labour (object and subject, owned and owner).

Anyway, to tax "the land element" and give government power (essentially to give government ownership over all land) has absolutely no reason to follow from the fact that land is uncreated. An unaware democratic idol.

If anyone is to be reimbursed by this appropriation of land, it is those whose rights are thereby directly harmed. This calls for direct restitution to the harmed just as theft of capital requires not taxation of capital (an absurd leap) but reimbursement of capital to the person whose capital was stolen.

Georgism raises a valid point towards object-based absolutist property rights. Its "solutions" are entirely misguided. And land is much less valuable than Georgists believe.

>> No.17229827

>>17229675
To elaborate roughly, people own functions and ownership precludes the rights of others to interact with the thing in certain ways. "Land" is functional to multitudes before objective appropriation, capital for which ownership by more than one does not violate the rights of the first person to make the land subjectively functional. If a person comes along and bans others from using it, he has violated the rights of those who have functionalised the land, not the rights of mankind as such. Land has no function as such, nor any value; all function is according to the peculiarities of man and arises as a consequence of a mix of subject and object.

The solution is not tax. It is, when conflict arises and in cases large enough to warrant action at all (now few), a court imposed restitution of the wronged by the wrongdoer.

>> No.17230189

>>17227721
Why does being first give you property rights?

>> No.17230685

>>17229827
Oh look another ancap that thinks the realistic solution is eliminating taxation and the state entirely. Surely they'll come around eventually.

>> No.17230834

>>17229212
>Why do you think you're 'owed' air to breathe? Would you think the privatization of air forever was a dumb idea?
Rothbard addresses this. For something to be considered a good, it must be scarce. Clearly land is scarce. However, air is not scarce, so it is not a good and "privatization" of it is meaningless.

>> No.17231037

>>17230834
>air is not scarce
If air wasn't scarce then air pollution would not be an issue.

>> No.17231174

>>17231037
It is not necessary to assume ownership of air to make use of it hence it is an abundant general condition of welfare.

>> No.17231230

>>17231174
It's not necessary to assume ownership of land to make use of it either so I don't know how you think that condition supports your point

>> No.17231309

>>17231230
The difference is that land is an object of action, unlike air.

>> No.17231342

>>17231309
How is air not an object of action? That's gobbledygook, anon

>> No.17231377

>>17231342
Because if it were, there would be other ways of enforcing claims of ownership to it than violence. However, there are not.

>> No.17231378

Funny I was just discussing the georgist tax with my friends.
Apparently in China this is the system they use. No income or stock tax. It's all land tax.
Could be one of the reasons they've done so well

>> No.17231416

>>17231377
There is no other way to enforce ownership of land than violence either. None of there are supporting your point.

>> No.17231446

>>17231378
Wtf we instead have income tax and dividend tax and we buy certificate from government to use the property for 70 yrs

>> No.17231554

>>17227805
Land value is still determined by the free market you stupid pleb. Gov just takes a percentage according to that value.

>> No.17231580

what would happen if every plot of land was an "exchange" and the owners of the land get tranasction fees, and certain market makers just bet on the price of this land over and over, they might technically own a certain percent of the land in their trades from their contracts but they never gain the right to take the land from the person who lives on it

>> No.17231587

>>17231446
Buying a certificate from the government for 70 years IS a land tax, fren

>> No.17231604

>>17231446
What happens after 70 years btw? Land re-evaluation on the market?

>> No.17231685

>>17231587
Yeah, you pay 30% of the reevaluated market price after 70 yrs to get renewal

>> No.17231708

>>17231685
(((evalutaions))) are realy undesirable
IMO if the value can't be objectively determined by the market it shouldn't be done at all

>> No.17231745

>>17231708
Market price is always higher than the evaluation price which is done by the government

>> No.17231774

>>17231745
Based China.

>> No.17231848

>>17231774
This or annual property tax

>> No.17232091

>>17228313
it seems like a man would not pay rent for someplace he does not live

its almost like the man living on a plot of land is now a liability to production so we ask him to pay us otherwise we will kick you out

so the people who "own" the land are kind of like a mafia

>> No.17232380

>>17232091
like if i stalled my boat in the ocean for maybe 48 hours, now theres a law that exists that i must be living on the land. but there are fishers that come through these waters everyday and i inhibit their possibility on profits, so now i must compensate for their profits by paying rent for the land i take up that is not being used for production.

then for people like farmers who both choose to live and produce on land there should be a law stating they should be exempt from maybe other companies begging for ransom

and if a man wanted to live in the middle of a forest, but coincidentally a logging company is ran in that forest and "owns" the land, well chances are they might have a price, and if the human offered millions of dollars to live in the middle of where this logging company worked I bet they would allow him, but i feel like there are laws in place that would not allow a man to live in an unsafe environment like the middle of this logging companies boundaries, well unless he lived right where the staff tents are located

>> No.17233066

>>17232091
What is a vacant lot in a city if not a liability to production? Land speculation is the enemy of production.

>> No.17233233

>>17229212
>you're going back to the philosophical 'it would not be encouraged', yet that is the way it is
Just because that's the way it is, doesn't make it right. Land titles coming from violence and theft are immoral, and anyone that cared wouldn't use violence or theft to claim land title.

If I own a bit of land and die before being able to give it away, then the land is essentially unowned again. No one can own land forever, just simply pass it on

>> No.17233262

>>17227401
You’re retarded

>> No.17233272

>>17230189
Because the land doesn't belong to anyone, everyone has equal opportunity to the land morally (obviously not physically, due to location). It makes no sense to claim someone's farm or house as your own land just by working on it, so it only applies to unowned land

>> No.17233286

>>17231037
in places where clean air is scarce, you can buy canned air

>> No.17233302

>>17231342
in the average day, acquiring air to breathe is never an end to be reached; merely a general condition

>> No.17233314

>>17231416
You can enforce ownership of land through self defense

>> No.17233545

>>17233066
i was thinking about that, a man pays rent to two pieces of property in two different cities. obviously he can't live in both at the same time but he likes to express his option at any time to live in his 2nd house he rents out, kind of like a monthly "premium"

if we defined the guy in the first paragraph as the one who is the renter, then the "owner" of the property demands for someone to live in it. See its impossible to give the renter an option to not pay rent in a property he doesn't currently reside in, but he can move to at any point in time. the owner would just demand that the renter give up any rights so he can immediately get some tenant to start raking in profits immediately, otherwise wise the vacant lot is just a dead investment besides getting someone else to sell it to completely

basically the owner doesn't care about the productivity of an empty house or a none empty house, all he cares about is getting his rent. but one fact i didn't touch up on. is that he has to make sure the house is still upkept, so maybe he raises the rent or something there

however i was just jesting and not whole heartedly knowledgeable on the subject

one flaw in my argument is that the owner of the land does not care about the tenants output to society, so we have to go out on a wild hope that the tenant goes out and works a job that produces for society. if all the owner of the land cared about was the money he made from the land, and not making sure that they were producing food and clothes for other people, then the government somehow needs to come into play and make sure those needs are being met. but i guess the tenant needs to go out and do that anyways if he hopes to pay his rent

so its kind of like the land speculators produce nothing to society, besides that they demand they are compensated for people who live on their land that can not be worked on for its natural resources, because well, people live on it. i hope some of that made sense

>> No.17234022

>>17227117
well congrats now go take that there land from the injuns, erm, I mean well-to-do whyte peepuls