4 ms·
This statement seems to be fundamentally incorrect or untrue. Land is valuable for its many uses: * To grow on * To live on * To collaborate on * To b
by bufordsharkley 11y ago
This statement seems to be fundamentally incorrect or untrue.
Land is valuable for its many uses:
* To grow on
* To live on
* To collaborate on
* To build on
* To travel on
etc and etc and etc.
What do you possibly mean that it "has no value"?
- ghaff 11y agoThis is in the context of a discussion of a tax on land value which is presumably a function of the monetary value placed on that land--i.e. how much someone is willing to pay for it. But, sure, pay a land value tax of 10 percent of the sheep grazing on it or whatever.
- bufordsharkley 11y agoLand has usages that create demand, which creates a market value for it. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
- dragonwriter 11y agoThose are reasons that people become willing to give up something else for it, and, as such, reasons why it has value. The value of a thing is what someone is willing to give up in exchange for it, not the reason they are willing to do so. That's just what value is.
- bufordsharkley 11y agoAgreed; I never said anything otherwise: "Land is valuable for its many uses"