Why I am a geoist-style capitalist and not a rightwing-style capitalist

The problem with the world's population is that people are condensed in areas of arable land, and where industry and commerce can be sustained. Australia is the classic case. Huge landmass with a tiny population, where the majority of the poplation is squeezed into the coastal south east of the country.

Also, due to human intervention, many areas of arable land are shrinking. Areas which were once arable are nothing more than deserts.

 

If you don't like to rent, then buy. And since man created all the wealth that makes that property valuable, man can rightfully claim ownership of that value added. There is nothing immoral at all about the arrangement.

 

If land is in the middle of nowhere, then yeah people won't want to go there, but that's not because of land, it's because of a lack of businesses and resources. My suggestion is to basically dismantle or regulate land renting such that immorally transferring riches from people already barely making it, to unproductive land renters, won't happen and will stop hurting the economy.

 

We also turn vast stretches of desert into arable land. What's your point?

 

There's a difference between owning a house which sits on top of land, and renting millions of square acres of land and raking in a lot of other peoples' wealth for not being productive.

 

The property value in NYC or say Las Vegas has nothing to do with natural resources, I can tell you that.

All of the property value you are talking about is created by man and can rightfully owned by man.

 

I think that being able to walk on land without trespassing is (unless you're a criminal), a right. Just like being allowed to breathe air is a right. Both of them being, indeed, "positive rights". That means that land renters occupying all land in a community and then essentially coercing people to pay way more than it costs to maintain buildings etc. on top of said land, is immoral.

 

Your positive rights only extend as far as another's rights. The value of that property is created by man and thus rightfully owned by man and use of that property is determined by the owner.

 

Ok. But if you can't even walk or go to any location (which exists near businesses and resources) without trespassing, then that is the point where land owners have people who don't own land by the balls, and immorally so IMO. EDIT: I didn't ask land renters to build big fancy apartments over the top of land just to be unproductive and sit in an office and do nothing but paperwork and then charge me most of my paycheck for it. Now granted, it does actually require labor, time and resources to maintain the place, but not nearly as much as the unproductive profiteers charge for. They get rich (which means that they are making a big surplus from being unproductive), for being..unproductive. Take them out of the equation, and private sector employment, due to freed up resources, would skyrocket.

 

That depends on where you live of course. Out where I live, you will barely break even renting as most rental units will cover gas, water/sewage/garbage, property taxes, and all repairs and rent is just a little above all those combined. Renting is actually a great deal. It makes a lot of sense to rent over getting tied down with a mortgage for a lot of people, especially if you aren't planning on living in the same area for long.

Then of course if you are renting out some cheap apartment, you have to deal with the risk that you'll rent to some child that thinks like you do, that you are just some rent seeking immoral prick, and damage the property. That risk gets added into the price.

Most people I know with money aren't putting it into rental properties, that's for (*)(*)(*)(*) sure.

But no one is forcing anyone to rent. If you don't want to rent, buy.

 

Where do you live?

I wouldn't be an immoral land renter in the first place. The only possible reason why I would ever want to become a land renter is to get rich by NOT being productive.

Again, in geoist capitalism, people are awarded for being truly productive, and not simply for owning things. Awarding people simply for owning things (rightist style capitalism) is very destructive and dangerous. Geoist style capitalism awards you for your actions (be it investment, innovation, or labor).

 

They're probably putting it into gold and the other popular buzz-commodities, despite the fact that gold, like anything else, follows a bubble-burst cycle.

 

For awhile they were putting it into ethanol to take advantage of government stupidity and making a killing on it. I know some people who made millions on that. I'm not sure what the talk is about today.

 

Well it's ******** investors like that who make the prices of things go into bubbles and then bursts..sigh.

 

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

There are a lot of people becoming very rich because of the Obama administration right now. Direct your ire squarely at DC.

 

I also direct it towards immoral Big Land Rent, and always will. If land renters actually did things which required enough skill, intelligence etc. to be in proportion to their riches, that'd be one thing, but they don't. They get awarded merely for owning land. Being awarded merely for owning things is not productive, it's quite destructive and dangerous. It's ultimately what causes wealth to be bottled up at the "top", immorally, and this is one major cause of the fall of societies.

 

Ehh, renters provide a valuable service to society. It sounds to me like you just got evicted or some such.

 

No, I've never been evicted because I'm not a troublemaker. That's just an ad hom.

But the actual people who DO things that I NEED, such as repairing the AC and plumbing and basically the maintenance, are people who are tyrannically ruled by land renters; I know people who've been involved with apartment maintenance and land renters treat (especially for big land renting companies) treat them like total (*)(*)(*)(*), despite the fact that the only reason why they make a red cent off of apartments is because the maintenance makes sure to clean up and repair the apartments when needed.

The land renters are just DICKHEAD LEECHES, is what they are!! I say that with zero regret nor hesitation!! The maintenance people are the ones doing all the work..and oh yeah, us tenets who fuel their disproportionate paychecks.

 

So then buy.

 

The entire "housing market" is economically destructive for similar reasons as big land renting. Land is an obviously absolutely necessary resource that is usually lowered in value by building things over it, which make it harder to grow crops in and attain resources from said land.

 

Ok, I'm not even going to point out what's wrong here. I'm just going to end this conversation with this.

 

And yet you don't understand that land =/= shelter or buildings etc. Shelter and buildings, factories etc. (things that are built on top of land, but themselves are NOT land), are what require productivity to..produce. Land does not. And building things over land does not improve land itself.

The only reason why we need land is because of gravity; we have to sit big things on top of something so that it won't free fall into Earth's core. But that function of land will not be "improved" due to anyone building things and putting them on top of land. That cannot "improve" the function (stopping gravity) of land.

 

Land distribution...sounds slightly socialist...BTW, not everyone goes around reading about 3rd world agricultural policies, it's not exactly exciting...but also you have to have "good" water, not stuffed with pollutants which might be difficult to find in some backward countries.

 

Being rewarded for owning the idea for the iPad (for instance) is not productive?

 

This is nonsense. The supposed "leeches" had to risk their own capital to purchase the land; they also employ people to maintain it (if they do not do so themselves, as many landlords in fact do).

The maintenance people get paid to do what they are doing; they could choose to walk away if they could improve their lot elsewhere.

Your rant is irrational. Plenty of landowners went bankrupt doing what they did - and you have every opportunity to buy land yourself to do likewise: it isn't some exclusive private club.

If you claim that you cannot buy land because it's too expensive (or whatever excuse you offer), you would have taken BOTH SIDES of the argument: on the one hand, you claim that the landholder is making a fortune. Then - on the other - you contradict that by saying that the land is too expensive to buy (meaning, there is no fortune to be made).

Or is there a 3rd reason you'll offer?