4 ms·

The key thing to understand from the Wikipedia article mattgibson links to: Ricardo noticed that the bargaining power of laborers can never dip below the produ

The key thing to understand from the Wikipedia article mattgibson links to: Ricardo noticed that the bargaining power of laborers can never dip below the produce obtainable on the best available rent-free land, because whenever rent leaves them with less than they could get on that free land, they can simply move to the new location. The produce obtainable on the best available rent-free land is known as the margin of production. Since landlords have a monopoly over a given location, the only limiting factor for rent is the margin of production. Thus, rent is a differential between the productive capacity of the land and the margin of production. In the U.S. today, there is no free land. This changes everything. Landowners as a group have an effective monopoly: those who can't afford land have no choice but to rent from them, for one needs a place to sleep, grow food, and to just stand! Please read http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html, or as ethanbond recommends in another comment, Progress and Poverty by Henry George.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Landowners as a group are a monopoly No, because a group can't be a monopoly, only a single actor can. A group can be an oligopoly, which is a different thing, but which can act a lot like a monopoly if the cooperate either formally (i.e., as a cartel) or informally. But, while the group of all suppliers of any given good will always have 100% marketshare for that good, by definition, they do not therefore automatically constitute a monopoly or even oligopoly. > those who can't afford land have no choice but to buy from them, for one needs a place to sleep, grow feed, and to just stand! That's irrelevant to the "land is a monopoly" claim, and more relevant to the conclusion that land is a good where there are market features reducing elasticity of demand in certain ranges, which is very different. (Though it magnifies the attractiveness of establishing a monopoly or oligopoly on the good in question, since it increases the rents that can, thereby, by extracted.)
- eevilspock 11y ago
  Fair enough. My use of "monopoly" is a poor articulation of what I'm trying to express. In all your comments you seem to be acting as an arbiter of logical correctness, which is good, but where do you actually stand on the notion of land as private property, philosophically and morally? If you favor it, is it as human right, as some libertarians argue, or just a pragmatic social contract? What is your reply to the essay I link to[1], or to Henry George? -- [1] I agree with its critique of Royal Libertarianism, but not entirely with its prescription.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Landowners as a group are a monopoly No, because a group can't be a monopoly, only a single actor can. A group can be an oligopoly, which is a different thing, but which can act a lot like a monopoly if the cooperate either formally (i.e., as a cartel) or informally. But, while the group of all suppliers of any given good will always have 100% marketshare for that good, by definition, they do not therefore automatically constitute a monopoly or even oligopoly. > those who can't afford land have no choice but to buy from them, for one needs a place to sleep, grow feed, and to just stand! That's irrelevant to the "land is a monopoly" claim, and more relevant to the conclusion that land is a good where there are market features reducing elasticity of demand in certain ranges, which is very different. (Though it magnifies the attractiveness of establishing a monopoly or oligopoly on the good in question, since it increases the rents that can, thereby, by extracted.)

eevilspock 11y ago
Fair enough. My use of "monopoly" is a poor articulation of what I'm trying to express. In all your comments you seem to be acting as an arbiter of logical correctness, which is good, but where do you actually stand on the notion of land as private property, philosophically and morally? If you favor it, is it as human right, as some libertarians argue, or just a pragmatic social contract? What is your reply to the essay I link to[1], or to Henry George? -- [1] I agree with its critique of Royal Libertarianism, but not entirely with its prescription.