The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

[MattintheCrown]

No need. Your source doesn't say what you claim it says.

[Steven Douglas]

No need. Your source doesn't say what you claim it says.

I take it the source(s) themselves aren't the problem, then - just my interpretations, which you believe are incorrect but have yet to present any arguments or give any specifics as to why.

Those sources were provided so that they could speak for themselves. Both the sources and my understanding of what they said are all there for your rebuttal and correction. You can expound logically and rationally on what it is you think they meant - or even where they might have erred (as I did with one source). Not only that, you could provide other scholarly sources of your own in support of your premises and arguments.

You and Roy are long on rhetoric and dogmatic hyperbole about Georgism, geoism, geolibertarianism, etc., as well as what you believe to be the evils of landownership and the virtues of perpetual land rent recovery to the State as a panacea. You are also long on assertive claims about economics in general, which serve as foundational underpinnings to your ideology and agenda. However, when scholarly sources are provided that appear on their face to refute the very basis for these underpinnings, there's absolutely no scholarly rebuttal from either of you; just ad hominem rhetoric and irrational attacks. Looks like a fragile house of cards to me.

[Roy L]

In a free market a seller (which has control over the "supply" -- as defined in economics) can certainly fix [his own] supply, such that the total quantity at his disposal is equal to the total quantity he makes available for a given price.

Gibberish. He doesn't "make supply available." The supply he has IS available, by virtue of the fact that he has it: it's available TO HIM.

That is true even if the total quantity supplied (an ASK exists) or withheld from supply (NO ASK EXISTS, NO BID IS ACCEPTED) is ONE.

There is no such thing as items being "withheld from supply." If they exist, they are part of the supply, as they are available to the market. If they do not happen to trade in any given period, that is irrelevant: they are nevertheless available to at least one actor in the market, namely their owner, at whatever price he considers fair. Your stipulation of "no ask exists, no bid accepted" is therefore irrelevant.

Whenever you use the word supply as it relates to economics, make damned sure at all times that you stick to the economic definition of supply, the whole economic definition of supply, and nothing but the economic definition of supply, as it has specific meaning. Stray from that and it's Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road.

Hehe. No $#!+, Sherlock. As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

[MattintheCrown]

I take it the source(s) themselves aren't the problem, then - just my interpretations, which you believe are incorrect but have yet to present any arguments or give any specifics as to why.

"By its very nature, conceptualizing a supply curve requires that the firm be a perfect competitor—that is, that the firm has no influence over the market price. This is because each point on the supply curve is the answer to the question "If this firm is faced with this potential price, how much output will it be able to and willing to sell?" If a firm has market power, so its decision of how much output to provide to the market influences the market price, then the firm is not "faced with" any price, and the question is meaningless."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Those sources were provided so that they could speak for themselves. Both the sources and my understanding of what they said are all there for your rebuttal and correction. You can expound logically and rationally on what it is you think they meant - or even where they might have erred (as I did with one source). Not only that, you could provide other scholarly sources of your own in support of your premises and arguments.

Problem is, those sources weren't discussing economics generally. As you well know.

You and Roy are long on rhetoric and dogmatic hyperbole about Georgism, geoism, geolibertarianism, etc., as well as what you believe to be the evils of landownership and the virtues of perpetual land rent recovery to the State as a panacea. You are also long on assertive claims about economics in general, which serve as foundational underpinnings to your ideology and agenda. However, when scholarly sources are provided that appear on their face to refute the very basis for these underpinnings, there's absolutely no scholarly rebuttal from either of you; just ad hominem rhetoric and irrational attacks. Looks like a fragile house of cards to me.

Disgraceful dishonesty. A fragile house of cards? That aptly describes the "arguments" of you, who relies heavily on nonsensical filibuster to make his position seem to be respectable.

[Steven Douglas]

Gibberish. He doesn't "make supply available." The supply he has IS available, by virtue of the fact that he has it: it's available TO HIM.

Yes, even as the money in your right pocket is "available" to your left pocket. No person or market participant alone is "the market" - to which the economic concept of "supply" applies. In economics the "market" is defined as a "Means by which buyers and sellers are brought into contact with each other and goods and services are exchanged."

Buying from yourself (willingness to make a given quantity of a thing available at a given price - to yourself?!) is absolute gibberish, and meaningless in economic terms, completely ignored for good reason. If there's no buyer, there's no market. If there's no seller, there's no market. A single person on an island is neither buyer nor seller, nor is there anything that could be called a market without the addition of at least one other party with which there can be an actual exchange.

There is no such thing as items being "withheld from supply." If they exist, they are part of the supply, as they are available to the market.

Tell that to Robert R. Gottfried, as I guess he failed to get that memo. He's so ignorant of supply as it relates to raw land that he actually goofed up and made it a variable:



He's not the only one who 'refused to know' that total quantity equals the supply, or quantity supplied. For your reading pleasure, here's a snippet from nice Georgist site [LINK] , one that talks about the virtues of LVT in relation to the current practice of tracts of land that are :::: gasp :::: "withheld from supply":

The speculative component of land prices would be removed as the increased supply of property (huge tracts are withheld from supply by speculators) leads prospective buyers to pay only what the property is worth in terms of location, infrastructure and amenities.

Did they trip over their supply book larnin' too? You might want to educate them, because evidently they don't know any economics either.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

[Roy L]

Buying from yourself (willingness to make a given quantity of a thing available at a given price - to yourself?!) is absolute gibberish, and meaningless in economic terms, completely ignored for good reason.

What's really gibberish is pretending that thousands of new, unsold cars are not part of the supply.

If there's no buyer, there's no market. If there's no seller, there's no market.

There are both. They just haven't agreed on a price.

A single person on an island is neither buyer nor seller, nor is there anything that could be called a market without the addition of at least one other party with which there can be an actual exchange.

That doesn't mean he has nothing.

Tell that to Robert R. Gottfried, as I guess he failed to get that memo. He's so ignorant of supply as it relates to raw land that he actually goofed up and made it a variable:

Wrong. Raw land is merely a subclass of land, and the subclasses are not fixed in quantity, only the total. Land can be moved from class to class (zoning also does this), affecting its potential uses and the amounts in the classes without affecting the total supply.

He's not the only one who 'refused to know' that total quantity equals the supply, or quantity supplied. For your reading pleasure, here's a snippet from nice Georgist site [LINK] , one that talks about the virtues of LVT in relation to the current practice of tracts of land that are :::: gasp :::: "withheld from supply":

That's a clear error. Whoever wrote it probably meant, "withheld from use." It's certainly part of the supply, as the speculator is by definition just waiting for the right price.

And BTW, that seems like a generally good site. You could read it to advantage.

Did they trip over their supply book larnin' too? You might want to educate them, because evidently they don't know any economics either.

I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist, so I don't feel I have to defend everything soi-disant Georgists say; and it's true that unfortunately, some people who do call themselves Georgists say some silly (but more often, as in this case, just careless) things.

[Steven Douglas]

What's really gibberish is pretending that thousands of new, unsold cars are not part of the supply.

What kind of nonsensical non sequitur strawman combo was that? I wrote, "Buying from yourself is absolute gibberish, and meaningless in economic terms...", which was in response to you stating that what an owner possesses is consider "supply" (to the market) because it is available TO HIMSELF. That's absolute rubbish to begin with, but then you come out with a reference to new, unsold cars (which actually are available -- to the market) while claiming that I'm pretending they are not?

Onto more of your nonsensical gibberish:

If there's no buyer, there's no market. If there's no seller, there's no market.

There are both. They just haven't agreed on a price.

Again with more quarter-baked nonsense out of left field. My statement was in reference to your claim that 100% of the total quantity in an owner's possession counts as "available to the market" or "supply", and by virtue of the fact, according to you, that it's available to HIMSELF. You came back with the point that he hasn't agreed on a price...with himself?

A single person on an island is neither buyer nor seller, nor is there anything that could be called a market without the addition of at least one other party with which there can be an actual exchange.

That doesn't mean he has nothing.

Why, that's true! That doesn't mean he has nothing! I don't know why you wrote that, or how you thought it was relevant in any way, but that is correct. He likely "has something".

Raw land is merely a subclass of land, and the subclasses are not fixed in quantity, only the total.

Which total? The grand aggregate total, the total area within a given subclass, or the total parcels within a divisible area within that subclass? Because as you just freely admitted, the total of a subclass is not fixed. Likewise with parcels of land within a given subclass under the current landownership regime. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about a subclass or parcels within a subclass -- land is DIVISIBLE. And because it is divisible, and because landowners have FULL control over which quantity of those divisible units are offered for sale (supplied) at a given price, the total quantity available to the market is NEVER fixed. Which brings us to your next nonsense:

Whoever wrote it probably meant, "withheld from use." It's certainly part of the supply, as the speculator is by definition just waiting for the right price.

This is going to kill you, I know, but this is the way it works, Roy:

Not all owners are sellers, just as not everything that is owned is for sale. (part of the supply available to the market)

An owner has full power at all times decide what quantity of his own possessions to make available to the market. It is only the quantity he has made available to the market for which he is considered a "seller". Selling is a subclass of Owning. Everything that is for sale is assumed to be owned, but not everything that is owned is presumed to be for sale. I know that may well be a source of ulcers for you, Roy, even to the point where you can't accept it at all, but not everything is counted as supply available to the market simple because it exists and is in someone else's possession. Owners have full rights, full powers, to choose what is or is not available to the market. Some things really are "priceless".

Again, stop spouting your own words and trying to pass it off as economics. You are no authority on economics here. If you have something authoritative that show otherwise, produce your source. Your gibberish alone won't cut it, regardless how much conviction of belief you convey.

I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist, so I don't feel I have to defend everything soi-disant Georgists say; and it's true that unfortunately, some people who do call themselves Georgists say some silly (but more often, as in this case, just careless) things.

I got that. Even though you quote Henry George a lot, your particular brand of Georgism is a splinter "protestant" faction.


TO SUM UP:

In order for there to be a "supply" available of any thing that is already owned there must first be a "seller". Not just an owner. An actual seller. Not everything that is owned has a seller, because not everything owned has been made available for sale by the RIGHTFUL OWNER, who cannot therefore be accurately referred to as the "seller" of that thing. You can test the opposite proposition (i.e., that everything is for sale, it's only a matter of price) by making offers. The moment you find a single thing that is truly priceless - not for sale AT ANY PRICE, the entire proposition is FALSIFIED. Not axiomatic, not universal, and not necessarily true of all things.

Your presumption, therefore, that everything in existence that is owned is necessarily part of the supply available to the market -- is absolute economics gibberish. A disputable opinion of subjective fiction.

On the other hand, here is an indisputable fact of objective reality - Since you never responded:

BONUS:

The quantity of land, in terms of geographic area, are fixed. But that does not necessarily mean that the number of tracts or acres to be offered for sale on the market will not vary with price of land or that changes in relative product prices will not encourage changes in products.

In the market-schedule sense the definition of supply of land follows that of other economic goods; the supply schedule refers to the relation between prices and the quantities (area) that owners are willing to sell. The supply price is the seller's minimum asking price.

That's happening today, Roy. The number of tracts or acres which are offered for sale (actual supply, or quantity made available at a given price) do in fact vary with the price of land. That's not a vertical supply curve, Roy. That particular QUANTITY SUPPLIED at any given time, which supply does indeed vary according to price, is NOT FIXED. Vary the price, vary the quantity supplied. Out there. In the real world.

Refute that - and not with your own geogibberish. Show me your sources.

[MattintheCrown]

Raw land is merely a subclass of land, and the subclasses are not fixed in quantity, only the total.

Which total? The grand aggregate total, the total area within a given subclass, or the total parcels within a divisible area within that subclass?

Land is fixed in supply. Artificial subdivisions can vary in supply to the extent one gains at the expense of another.

Because as you just freely admitted, the total of a subclass is not fixed. Likewise with parcels of land within a given subclass under the current landownership regime. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about a subclass or parcels within a subclass -- land is DIVISIBLE. And because it is divisible, and because landowners have FULL control over which quantity of those divisible units are offered for sale (supplied) at a given price, the total quantity available to the market is NEVER fixed.

Non sequitur. The supply of land is fixed.

ETA:

I got that. Even though you quote Henry George a lot, your particular brand of Georgism is a splinter "protestant" faction.

By the way, where has Roy quoted George a lot? I don't recall any such quotes. You're not simply lying in a lame attempt to claim Roy subscribes to a Georgist "religion," are you?

[Steven Douglas]

Land is fixed in total area, not market supply. Artificial subdivisions can vary in supply to the extent one gains at the expense of another.

I have your back. I fixed it for you so that it reads more accurately.

[MattintheCrown]

I have your back. I fixed it for you so that it reads more accurately.

Those changes are irrelevant to the point of the argument. This whole pointless bunch of nonsense resulted from your response to Roy's claim:

A single profit-maximizing landowner would behave no differently than a million profit-maximizing owners, because the landowner cannot affect supply.

The claim remains true, and none of this digression changes that.