4 ms·

If not for land ownership, why would anyone improve it? If I take out a mortgage on 40 acres, I might log it to generate revenue, and then plant it in hay gras

If not for land ownership, why would anyone improve it? If I take out a mortgage on 40 acres, I might log it to generate revenue, and then plant it in hay grass to make (or help make) the mortgage payments, which in turn lets me build equity that I can leverage to acquire additional capital. That's a lot of work. Why would I ever go log, plant, and harvest public land when I don't substantially benefit from it?

s73ver_ 9y ago
Why are you assuming you wouldn't benefit?
jacknews 9y ago
The current situation is that you can own land (and pass it on to countless generations), and even if you do nothing to it, the value of the land may increase due to the rest of the economy, or if the people next to you build skyscrapers, etc. That's doesn't seem fair, or productive, so I think the land itself should be owned collectively to some degree, but you would still own your improvements, and even 'own' the land in the form of a lease or whatever.
uhhhhhhh 9y ago
You most likely wouldn't log it, you'd sign away rights to a company that wants to log it, and they pay you a percentage of profit, or more likely stumpage fees. This would mean that public land would work the same, companies want to use those resources to turn a profit and the fees would pay out to the public for using public land. The profit one stands to make of improving the land is always going to be the driver to do it in any system. The difference is this is taking "public land" and making it pay out to the "public" directly (supposedly). Unless one veers too far into socialist territory and removes property ownership completely, none of this precludes private property owners from continuing to profit off fees for land use, or even profiting off developing the land they own same as before. If one does take private ownership off the table, you're dealing with a much larger social change and impact than this particular discussion.

s73ver_ 9y ago

Why are you assuming you wouldn't benefit?

jacknews 9y ago

The current situation is that you can own land (and pass it on to countless generations), and even if you do nothing to it, the value of the land may increase due to the rest of the economy, or if the people next to you build skyscrapers, etc. That's doesn't seem fair, or productive, so I think the land itself should be owned collectively to some degree, but you would still own your improvements, and even 'own' the land in the form of a lease or whatever.

uhhhhhhh 9y ago

You most likely wouldn't log it, you'd sign away rights to a company that wants to log it, and they pay you a percentage of profit, or more likely stumpage fees. This would mean that public land would work the same, companies want to use those resources to turn a profit and the fees would pay out to the public for using public land. The profit one stands to make of improving the land is always going to be the driver to do it in any system. The difference is this is taking "public land" and making it pay out to the "public" directly (supposedly). Unless one veers too far into socialist territory and removes property ownership completely, none of this precludes private property owners from continuing to profit off fees for land use, or even profiting off developing the land they own same as before. If one does take private ownership off the table, you're dealing with a much larger social change and impact than this particular discussion.