<sigh> You claim that absence of a price implies absence of supply. That is nonsense, because supply is defined as the amount available at a given price IF IT WERE TO TRADE AT THAT PRICE.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?
And that is the available supply, even though there is not going to be any transaction or price, because supply is defined for a given price IF THAT WERE THE PRICE.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".
The total amount. Artificial subclasses are just arbitrary divisions, as are parcels. What is set apart in one class or parcel simply ceases to be part of another class or parcel. The total supply is unchanged.Which total? The grand aggregate total, the total area within a given subclass, or the total parcels within a divisible area within that subclass?
So is gold. So? Does that mean cutting all the bars in half doubles the supply? Wheee! We can have an infinite supply of gold just by continuing to subdivide it!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.
Fallacious, absurd and dishonest nonsense.
As explained above, it couldn't matter less whether they have "FULL control" (they don't) or not.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.
This is going to kill you, I know, but this is the way it works, Steven: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)
Supply is not the amount for sale. It is the amount that would be available to the market at a given price IF THAT WERE THE PRICE. That is why anything that exists and will continue to exist at any price is automatically part of supply.
It is if it is presumed to have a price.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.
Yes, it is, because that is how supply is DEFINED.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.
Especially you...Owners have full rights, full powers, to choose what is or is not available to the market. Some things really are "priceless".
Steven, the definition of supply has already been posted. You just ignore it and give every evidence of not understanding it.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.
Lie. What I quote a lot is a letter written by someone else, which George merely reprinted in one of his books. Other than that letter, I think you will search in vain for quotations from Henry George's works in my posts.Even though you quote Henry George a lot,
No. Christianity has splinter factions based on different interpretations of the Bible and Christ's life, but they all accept the Biblical account of Christ's life and teachings, His divinity, etc. My differences with Georgism are explicitly intended as fundamental amendments to and improvements on George's ideas, not mere matters of interpretation. I am not a splinter faction Georgist any more than Christians are splinter faction Jews, or Muslims splinter faction Christians.your particular brand of Georgism is a splinter "protestant" faction.
Wrong. See the definition of supply. You are Not Clear on the Concept.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.
Even if that were true (it isn't) it is irrelevant to supply.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.
It follows logically from the definition of supply.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.
<sigh> Hurlburt's key statement:On the other hand, here is an indisputable fact of objective reality - Since you never responded:
"The supply price is the seller's minimum asking price."
SUPPLY DOES NOT VARY WITH SELLER'S MINIMUM ASKING PRICE.
No, they don't. Certainly a higher price for land may stimulate subdivision, but that does not increase area (see the gold example, above, and try to understand it). Land prices have risen 1000-fold over the last century, and the number of acres available to the market is just the same.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.
Yes, it is.That's not a vertical supply curve, Roy.
Please present your evidence that the 1000-fold increase in land prices over the last century has resulted in more land being offered for sale. Please present your evidence that the 50% or even greater decline in land prices over the last five years in some US markets has been accompanied by a decline in amount of land offered for sale.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.
Show me where your sources provide EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that amount of land offered for sale is directly related to price.Refute that - and not with your own geogibberish. Show me your sources.
Steven, this is not as complicated as you are trying to make it. If an acre of land sells for $1K, no more of that land will come on the market if it sells for $10K (or $100K or $1M), because the rising price just reflects how much people want it, SELLERS AS WELL AS BUYERS. If an ounce of gold sells for $10K, by contrast, gold producers will produce a lot more of it than if it sells for $1K, because they are PRODUCING gold, not just swapping all the same gold around at higher and higher prices as landowners are doing with land.
You just need to find a willingness to know that fact.