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":

<yawn> 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.

[Roy L]

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?

Your "argument" is that because until land is sold, it has no price (which is true), and supply is only defined at a price, therefore land that has not been sold recently is not part of supply. That is fallacious nonsense, because supply is defined as the amount that would be available at a given price IF THAT WERE THE PRICE, i.e., IF the item were selling for that amount. The example of unsold new cars is exactly parallel.

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?

<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.

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".

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

Fallacious, absurd and dishonest nonsense.

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.

As explained above, it couldn't matter less whether they have "FULL control" (they don't) or not.

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)

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

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.

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.

It is if it is presumed to have a price.

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.

Yes, it is, because that is how supply is DEFINED.

Owners have full rights, full powers, to choose what is or is not available to the market. Some things really are "priceless".

Especially you...

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.

Steven, the definition of supply has already been posted. You just ignore it and give every evidence of not understanding it.

Even though you quote Henry George a lot,

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.

your particular brand of Georgism is a splinter "protestant" faction.

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.

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.

Wrong. See the definition of supply. You are Not Clear on the Concept.

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.

Even if that were true (it isn't) it is irrelevant to 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.

It follows logically from the definition of supply.

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

<sigh> Hurlburt's key statement:

"The supply price is the seller's minimum asking price."

SUPPLY DOES NOT VARY WITH SELLER'S MINIMUM ASKING PRICE.

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.

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.

That's not a vertical supply curve, Roy.

Yes, it is.

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.

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.

Thought not.

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

Show me where your sources provide EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that amount of land offered for sale is directly related to price.

Thought not.

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.

[Steven Douglas]

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.

I guess you weren't paying attention at all then, which is why you missed the entire point of the exercise, and the proof provided for why that assertion is completely untrue, based on both reality and the economic definitions of supply and quantity supplied.

Here, hopefully this will make it easier for you to get your head around:



Note (and this is crucial) how the seller is always the owner, but the owner is not always a seller.

EACH owner has sole discretion, sole control over the quantities he is willing to make available to the market at a given price (the very definition of supply). Furthermore, the owner is under absolutely no requirement whatsoever to make ANY of the quantities in his possession available to the market AT ANY PRICE. If he has not made a thing available to the market for a price, then he is not consider the SELLER of that thing. That is what full control over both the supply and the quantity supplied means, and why that quantity is anything but fixed.

The sources of your common misapprehension:

• The total quantity owned in existence is not, nor has it ever been, the economic definition of "supply", nor does that have anything to do with the economic definition of supply or quantity supplied. No assertion or insistence on either of your parts will change that. The more common definitions or meanings of supply are not interchangeable with the economic definitions. In economics, ONLY the owners control supply (which is concisely defined), just as ONLY the potential buyers control demand (also well defined).
• Not every good or service is considered supplied simply because it exists. Again, that is not the definition of supply, nor is it simply a matter of price. It is first a matter of whether or not a good or service is even made available for exchange at any price.

This goes to the core of why a million profit-maximizing owners do indeed (TODAY - IN REALITY) behave very differently, as each one has full control over his units (quantity, area) of supply, whether or not to make ANY of available to the market at all, and if so, at what price they are each willing to make a given quantity available.

[Steven Douglas]

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.

Bogus nonsense. That's your ad hoc addition in an attempt to change an established definition. Only the owner decides what to place, as a seller (even as a what-if), onto a supply curve. There is no requirement that everything (or anything at all for that matter) be placed on that curve. That quantity is fully controlled by the owners.

The supply curve deals with all prices possible for GIVEN QUANTITIES, not all quantities (let alone all quantities in existence). Only those quantities an owner chooses to place on the chart as a seller of those specific quantities can count as supply, and ONLY those quantities at a specific price.

Your "argument" is that because until land is sold, it has no price (which is true), and supply is only defined at a price, therefore land that has not been sold recently is not part of supply.

No, that is not my argument at all. That is your premises morphed into a strawman argument. My argument is that unless and until an owner indicates a willingness to sell a thing at all (not "sold", just made available - no sale required) price is irrelevant and that particular quantity cannot be counted as part of the supply.

There are three requirements for supply:

1) Willingness to sell
2) A given quantity at
3) A specific price

Take any one of these away, and you are no longer talking about market supply. Once these three requirements are satisfied and a given quantity of supply exists for a specific price, that supply can sit forever without a sale. It will still be counted as supply so long as there remains a 1) willingness to sell 2) a given quantity at 3) a specific price. However, the owner can change any one or more of these variables: A given quantity can change for the same specific price; an entire quantity at one price can shift upward or downward to a new price; the willingness to sell a given quantity can be removed entirely from ALL PRICES (i.e., a given quantity is taken off the market).

Once a thing is sold (Bid=Ask-->TRANSACTION) that thing is INSTANTLY no longer counted as part of the supply UNLESS AND UNTIL the new owner, which now has FULL CONTROL over that thing, satisfies all three requirements, beginning with a willingness to sell, followed by a given quantity at a specific price, thus making it once again a part of the market supply.

[MattintheCrown]

I guess you weren't paying attention at all then, which is why you missed the entire point of the exercise, and the proof provided for why that assertion is completely untrue, based on both reality and the economic definitions of supply and quantity supplied.

Here, hopefully this will make it easier for you to get your head around:



Note (and this is crucial) how the seller is always the owner, but the owner is not always a seller.

EACH owner has sole discretion, sole control over the quantities he is willing to make available to the market at a given price (the very definition of supply). Furthermore, the owner is under absolutely no requirement whatsoever to make ANY of the quantities in his possession available to the market AT ANY PRICE. If he has not made a thing available to the market for a price, then he is not consider the SELLER of that thing. That is what full control over both the supply and the quantity supplied means, and why that quantity is anything but fixed.

The sources of your common misapprehension:

• The total quantity owned in existence is not, nor has it ever been, the economic definition of "supply", nor does that have anything to do with the economic definition of supply or quantity supplied. No assertion or insistence on either of your parts will change that. The more common definitions or meanings of supply are not interchangeable with the economic definitions. In economics, ONLY the owners control supply (which is concisely defined), just as ONLY the potential buyers control demand (also well defined).
• Not every good or service is considered supplied simply because it exists. Again, that is not the definition of supply, nor is it simply a matter of price. It is first a matter of whether or not a good or service is even made available for exchange at any price.

This goes to the core of why a million profit-maximizing owners do indeed (TODAY - IN REALITY) behave very differently, as each one has full control over his units (quantity, area) of supply, whether or not to make ANY of available to the market at all, and if so, at what price they are each willing to make a given quantity available.

Nope. It remains true that "a single profit-maximizing landowner would behave no differently than a million profit-maximizing owners, because the landowner cannot affect supply."

[Icymudpuppy]

LVT would cripple farmers.

The best crop land typically develops cities around it. As the cities develop, they encroach on the farms. The farmer who refuses to see his back 40 to the urban developer because it is the best productive soil around is taxed out of it via LVT. Thus, the Kent valley SW of Seattle, the best farmland in WA state was paved over.

[MattintheCrown]

LVT would cripple farmers.

The best crop land typically develops cities around it. As the cities develop, they encroach on the farms. The farmer who refuses to see his back 40 to the urban developer because it is the best productive soil around is taxed out of it via LVT. Thus, the Kent valley SW of Seattle, the best farmland in WA state was paved over.

Actually, it's the current situation, where land is not taxed at a high rate, that results in sprawl: as current city owners refuse to sell, anticipating higher prices in the future, people have to seek land elsewhere: at the edge of town. Not taxing land at a high rates causes sprawl, LVT prevents it.

[Steven Douglas]

Nope. It remains true that "a single profit-maximizing landowner would behave no differently than a million profit-maximizing owners, because the landowner cannot affect supply."

And once again you substituted your own completely irrelevant and meaningless definition of supply - as you think of "supply" as the total quantity in existence rather than its actual well-established concise meaning -- knee-jerk, like a bad habit, and without a moment of second thought.

OK, OK, I'll clean up after your mess. Again.

It remains true that a single profit-maximizing landowner would behave differently than a million profit-maximizing owners, because while the landowner cannot affect the aggregate total fixed land area in existence, each landowner has full and complete control over his supply, otherwise defined as the quantity of area (tracts, acres, etc.,) he is willing to make available or not to the market at a given price."

[MattintheCrown]

And once again you substituted your own completely irrelevant and meaningless definition of supply - as you think of "supply" as the total quantity in existence rather than its actual well-established concise meaning -- knee-jerk, like a bad habit, and without a moment of second thought.

OK, OK, I'll clean up after your mess. Again.

It remains true that a single profit-maximizing landowner would behave differently than a million profit-maximizing owners, because while the landowner cannot affect the aggregate total fixed land area in existence, each landowner has full and complete control over his supply, otherwise defined as the quantity of area (tracts, acres, etc.,) he is willing to make available or not to the market at a given price."

Even if your definition of supply were correct, which it is not, your additions make no difference to the point. All you've done is wasted everyone's time for several pages/days.

Edit: which was, of course, your goal, as you can't make any meaningful argument against LVT.

[Steven Douglas]

Even if your definition of supply were correct, which it is not...

Well, I'm the only one that provided actual authoritative sources and arguments, which you denied, dismissed and poo-poo'ed, but didn't actually refute or provide any sources or authoritative definitions of your own.

All you've done is wasted everyone's time for several pages/days.

Edit: which was, of course, your goal, as you can't make any meaningful argument against LVT.

Pretty much thoroughly destroyed a major part of its pseudo-economics underpinnings, actually. Time well spent, I thought.

[MattintheCrown]

Well, I'm the only one that provided actual authoritative sources and arguments, which you denied, dismissed and poo-poo'ed, but didn't actually refute or provide any sources or authoritative definitions of your own.

No you didn't. You googled until you found a discussion of something specific and irrelevant.

Pretty much thoroughly destroyed a major part of its pseudo-economics underpinnings, actually. Time well spent, I thought.

Except it obviously didn't, because the fact remains. Which is kinda the point. Duh.

[Roy L]

LVT would cripple farmers.

Do you know that there is a difference between "value" and "area"? Just sayin'.

The best crop land typically develops cities around it. As the cities develop, they encroach on the farms. The farmer who refuses to see his back 40 to the urban developer because it is the best productive soil around is taxed out of it via LVT.

Yes, and if that happens, it is called, "the free market not being prevented from allocating resources to more productive uses."

Thus, the Kent valley SW of Seattle, the best farmland in WA state was paved over.

?? Huh? That happened in the absence of LVT, which would at least have ensured that nearby urban sites were fully utilized before good farmland was paved over.

In fact, LVT leads to more compact urban development and preservation of good farmland for a number of reasons:

1. Urban sites are fully utilized.
2. Speculators can't grab any unearned wealth by buying up farmland and getting it rezoned for higher density use.
3. There is no longer a tax-funded subsidy to put as much land under your dwelling as you can afford.
4. Speculators can't grab unearned wealth by getting urban infrastructure extended to service their land holdings.
5. Urban development moves to low-value non-agricultural land in preference to higher-value agricultural land.

So, your "argument" again was....?

[Steven Douglas]

Except it obviously didn't, because the fact remains. Which is kinda the point. Duh.

Which fact remains? The opinion you asserted as fact, but was shown to be false when actual economics definitions (which you never provided) were substituted for the words you misused?

Your entire ideology is founded on deliberately shifting sand, Matt. Nothing but the most tenuous house of cards propped up by little more than illusions and delusions.

[Icymudpuppy]

Do you know that there is a difference between "value" and "area"? Just sayin'.

Yes, and if that happens, it is called, "the free market not being prevented from allocating resources to more productive uses."

?? Huh? That happened in the absence of LVT, which would at least have ensured that nearby urban sites were fully utilized before good farmland was paved over.



In fact, LVT leads to more compact urban development and preservation of good farmland for a number of reasons:

1. Urban sites are fully utilized.
2. Speculators can't grab any unearned wealth by buying up farmland and getting it rezoned for higher density use.
3. There is no longer a tax-funded subsidy to put as much land under your dwelling as you can afford.
4. Speculators can't grab unearned wealth by getting urban infrastructure extended to service their land holdings.
5. Urban development moves to low-value non-agricultural land in preference to higher-value agricultural land.

So, your "argument" again was....?

In WA state, the counties get their income by LVT. King county taxed all the best farmland out of the hands of farmers using a land value tax property tax.

[MattintheCrown]

Which fact remains?

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

The opinion you asserted as fact, but was shown to be false when actual economics definitions (which you never provided) were substituted for the words you misused?

Yawn: http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_.../econrent.html:

One unique characteristic of land is its absolutely fixed supply. The land available to society cannot grow even if payments to landowners rise to infinity; the supply is perfectly inelastic at Qs in Figure 1.

...

In summary, all payments received for the fixed supply of land are pure rents determined solely by demand.

(Emphasis mine)


All of your preceding nonsense has been nothing but a stupid waste of time. Again, I'll point out the obvious fact that stupidly wasting time is your only real strategy, as you can't really make a meaningful argument against LVT.

Your entire ideology is founded on deliberately shifting sand, Matt. Nothing but the most tenuous house of cards propped up by little more than illusions and delusions.

Your entire 'ideology' such as it is (read: strategy of wasting as much time as stupidly as possible) is based on lies and nonsense.

[Roy L]

In WA state, the counties get their income by LVT.

No, you're lying. WA counties use property taxes, not LVT, and also get sales tax revenue. You're just flat-out lying.

King county taxed all the best farmland out of the hands of farmers using a land value tax property tax.

No, you are lying. The farmers ignored King County's property (NOT land value) tax because it was far less than the opportunity cost of not selling to developers. If a developer offers you $1M for your farm, and you are only making $10K/yr farming it, property taxes don't even show up on your radar screen. You just take the cash -- a gift from the community, remember -- and retire. It was LACK of LVT that caused the sprawl that paved over the farms, as I explained to you in my previous post.

Every competent urban land economist knows that LVT causes urban development to be more compact, preserving farmland. Your claim is, predictably, the exact, diametric opposite of the truth.

[Roy L]

Well, I'm the only one that provided actual authoritative sources and arguments, which you denied, dismissed and poo-poo'ed, but didn't actually refute or provide any sources or authoritative definitions of your own.

Steven, you have ignored the actual economic concept of supply as given in the definition, and substituted your own cretinous notion that it is determined by owners' whims, and need not bear any relation to price or anything else. You are totally confused, your "sources" do not say what you claim they say, and I don't know any way to fix your ignorance.

Pretty much thoroughly destroyed a major part of its pseudo-economics underpinnings, actually. Time well spent, I thought.

LOL! Yeah, right, you have "destroyed a major part of its pseudo-economic underpinnings" with googled material that somehow escaped the attention of all the Nobel laureates in economics who have endorsed land value taxation.

Give me a freakin' break.

[S.Shorland]

Arabs,Dutch and Germans made land.David Beckham bought some.

[Steven Douglas]

Yawn: http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_.../econrent.html:

[INDENT]One unique characteristic of land is its absolutely fixed supply. The land available to society cannot grow even if payments to landowners rise to infinity; the supply is perfectly inelastic at Qs in Figure 1.

That's it? That's your source?! A lone economics professor's pro-Economic Rents and Pure Land Rents propaganda page, trying to pass itself off as an "illustrated encyclopedia" of economics?? Too funny. You couldn't find a non-pro-LVT mainstream economics site for a source?

Why not just cite Prof. Byrn's paper:

The Revenue Adequacy of Site Value Taxation in a Ricardian System of Economic Growth

Excerpt from the abstract:
Land taxes are considered as a source of revenue because of their efficiency aspects. Unfortunately this idea is all too often dismissed because of alleged revenue inadequacy. Thus an analysis is called for of the revenue adequacy of site value taxation in a Ricardian model of economic growth.

That's pathetic. Like quoting "Nobel Prize winning" Krugman on RPF, and expecting anyone to take anything he said with more than a shaker of salt.

[Steven Douglas]

Steven, you have ignored the actual economic concept of supply as given in the definition...

"as given in the definition"? Which "given" definition, the one I gave? Because I don't remember you providing one, except out of your own mind, or altered by you such that it was a Roy L "concept" rather than an actual definition. Would you mind providing an authoritative, concise mainstream definition of supply, as well as a source?

[Roy L]

Arabs,Dutch and Germans made land.

No, they did not. They only built up or diked and drained land that was wet.