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

Anything that increases the utilization of the land improves the land. You're going to have to do a LOT better than that if you want to support the claim that building on land doesn't improve it. That's why property taxes includes a line item for 'improvements'.

Ok...I lol'd at the hilarious perceived need on your part to post this.

Ok...time to borrow from jfhhmn:

 

"Georgism" and "Geoism" are synonyms.

The issue here is that there is no way to create fixed capital without using society's resources; by definition fixed capital is just a set of resources invested into the means of production. Under the geoist perspective, if the land belongs to society, so do the resources, and hence the fixed capital--the means of production.

It doesn't really make any sense to free up the land without freeing up capital at the same time. There's no point in having access to land if you have no access to the means of production.

But an artificial scarcity for labor is okay? An artificial scarcity of capital is okay? If you think that land is the common right of all human beings, then there's absolutely no reason not to extend that to fixed capital as well.

 

It is entirely socialist. It's also a fundamental requirement for economic development. Literally every economically successful country has engaged in agrarian land reform at some point in their history. Land reform is the single greatest method of building demand in a developing economy. The trend there is extremely clear; the developing economies that use land reform and ISI policies develop into economic powerhouses. Those that avoid land reform and open themselves to international markets become economic basket cases dependent on foreign capital and handouts. It's an extremely strong relationship.

I mean, even capitalist powerhouses like 19th century America and 20th century South Korea have used land reform as a tool to develop their economies.

It's actually fairly interesting reading. I don't think a person can really understand third world political processes and positions without studying agricultural policy.

Yes, for a variety of reasons--if they had a bit more socialism, they wouldn't be in that boat. They would at least be able to organize public works projects to be able to mitigate the impact of the extreme environmental damage they've suffered by being exposed to international markets.

 

Correction; landlords are leeches on society. They are nothing more than vile rent-seekers, not productive members of society.

 

Well people do not get rewarded "for" ideas, but instead, producing ideas. People produce ideas. They cannot and never will produce nor improve land. (Well, it'd be theoretically possible to cause a volcanic eruption in the sea which resulted in creating land, or something, but that's beside the point).

 

I simply prefer to call something by it's general direct meaning rather than naming it after a person, because an idea itself is not actually tied to any individual; it's independent of perception by any particular individual.

I have thought about this before, but the means of production of something are not necessarily non-reproducible, which is (one of the) necessary the criteria for being a public good IMO.

 

You cannot "increase the utilization of land". Land only exists as a support system/gravity stopper. You cannot "increase the utilization" of how well land supports or stops the gravity of something, or at least, that usually doesn't happen. If businesses, homes etc. are built on land, then that's not improving land, that's..making businesses, homes etc. The land already existed there and had every bit of it's original ability to support buildings before they were built on it, as after they were built on said land. Land's ONLY function is to stop gravity and support weight, that's it.

But would you say anyone, including private companies, should be allowed to take control of Earth's oxygen supply, even if no one else were to claim any oxygen as being their private property? That's actually quite comparable to land, because like breathable oxygen, you cannot improve land's function, which is to stop gravity. You can only occupy it and make it inaccessible to others, immorally.

 

I've rented before. I found having that option to be very beneficial. The alternative is purchasing a house/condo/apartment.

There is an old joke, if it flies, floats, or f^&ks lease don't buy. Sometimes it makes more sense to rent over purchasing. Have you ever rented a car or rented a hotel room? It often makes more economic sense to rent over purchasing and the individual providing that option is benefiting the economy.

Anyway, thanks for contributing your economic illiteracy to a thread already awash with it.

 

The main problem is actually, IMO, the fact that Big Land Rent employees and owners don't actually do actions which I myself couldn't do, yet make a huge part of my paycheck doing it, simply because they "own land".

 

You cannot "rent" land. You can only rent houses, apartments etc.

 

groan... again, all the value of land is value added by human development. Land out in the middle of nowhere is worthless. The land only has value because of it's relationship to houses and apartments etc.

 

NO!! AGAIN, the ONLY function that land itself has is to provide a system for physical support OF buildings and everything else. It has ZERO function other than that. Building buildings and whatnot on top of land, is well, the production of buildings etc.; it has nothing to do with land, other than that they obviously require land to support them (until we invent flying/hovering buildings).

 

Aww man, I was hoping you'd go off on another tangent about gravity and falling through the earth again.

 

If you can't understand the simple point, which obviously you do NOT, then I'm ashamed to be a human being..even more.

 

Ease up man...he's from the south...

 

Utter tosh.

Obviously you have never been to an agriculture based country.

Mate, come to Vientiane, drive a mere 20 kilometres from the city centre where large tracts of land are leased out for agricultural purposes.