4 ms·

With a lifelong auction for individuals, perhaps with an agreed upon inflation agreement (which can also be bid in the auction) and a sufficiently long auction

With a lifelong auction for individuals, perhaps with an agreed upon inflation agreement (which can also be bid in the auction) and a sufficiently long auction cycle for big corporate projects to be worth doing (50 years?), I could see this being feasible. I still don't see a way to condone eviction outside of this period, just because the new land renter A. happened upon unexpected value on the land or B. had more insight to identify the value than other auctioneers. And even with a 50 year cycle, if a business builds a business specific factory, this cycle would discourage more investment into the factory near the end of the "lease" and encourage wastefully leasing some new land and building a new factory on it. There are a lot of theoretical challenges with Georgism, and combined with the impossibility of stripping all existing landowners of their property, it's all just a theoretical exercise. Still an interesting thought experiment though, and could be worth exploring if science opens up new land to divvy up (e.g. on Mars).

snidane 7y ago
To the example of factory and 50 year cycle of auction and potential eviction. If noone else wished to take over the land on which the factory stood, well then the factory owner renews the lease for another 50 years. If there was somebody who wished to own that land and offered higher price, well they'd win the auction. However they wouldn't suddenly own the factory. They would still have to pay the price of the factory to the previous owner, much like it is done today. If they didn't want the factory, only the land under it, and they won the auction but didn't pay for the factory, then that would result in a deadlock situation. The original factory owner would stop production, but the new owner would be prevented from using it either, but would be stuck with the rent payments for the land under the factory. Most likely he would sell it back to the previous owner or just not bid for it in the first place. Only if he really wanted it that much that he would pay for the land rent to the government and price of the factory to the previous owner, he would get it. And that is pretty much how it works today, so nothing really would change.
lmm 7y ago
How many 50-year-old factories are still operating and making the same thing? My guess is hardly any, and those that are are have likely replaced the majority of their equipment by value, probably multiple times over. You'd be able to plan for the 50 year cycle and align equipment lifetimes etc. with that (whereas currently we see blighted areas because a major rebuilding project is planned someday, but there's no clarity about when); yes the factory owners would be encouraged to wind down their equipment and be prepared to move out if it turned out their land could be put to better use a different way, that's kind of the point. If the cost of moving to a new factory is higher than what someone else could gain by using the land differently, that ought to be reflected in their bids for the land.
dodobirdlord 7y ago
> There are a lot of theoretical challenges with Georgism, and combined with the impossibility of stripping all existing landowners of their property, it's all just a theoretical exercise. While the specific auction mechanism and expropriation of all land is obviously fantasy, substantiatively the same effect can be obtained with property taxes assessed based only on the value of the underlying land and updated frequently (land value tax), with the added benefit of avoiding the distortions of worrying that a lease will expire and someone will outbid you to seize the value of the capital you have invested in improving the property.

snidane 7y ago

To the example of factory and 50 year cycle of auction and potential eviction. If noone else wished to take over the land on which the factory stood, well then the factory owner renews the lease for another 50 years. If there was somebody who wished to own that land and offered higher price, well they'd win the auction. However they wouldn't suddenly own the factory. They would still have to pay the price of the factory to the previous owner, much like it is done today. If they didn't want the factory, only the land under it, and they won the auction but didn't pay for the factory, then that would result in a deadlock situation. The original factory owner would stop production, but the new owner would be prevented from using it either, but would be stuck with the rent payments for the land under the factory. Most likely he would sell it back to the previous owner or just not bid for it in the first place. Only if he really wanted it that much that he would pay for the land rent to the government and price of the factory to the previous owner, he would get it. And that is pretty much how it works today, so nothing really would change.

lmm 7y ago

How many 50-year-old factories are still operating and making the same thing? My guess is hardly any, and those that are are have likely replaced the majority of their equipment by value, probably multiple times over. You'd be able to plan for the 50 year cycle and align equipment lifetimes etc. with that (whereas currently we see blighted areas because a major rebuilding project is planned someday, but there's no clarity about when); yes the factory owners would be encouraged to wind down their equipment and be prepared to move out if it turned out their land could be put to better use a different way, that's kind of the point. If the cost of moving to a new factory is higher than what someone else could gain by using the land differently, that ought to be reflected in their bids for the land.

dodobirdlord 7y ago

> There are a lot of theoretical challenges with Georgism, and combined with the impossibility of stripping all existing landowners of their property, it's all just a theoretical exercise. While the specific auction mechanism and expropriation of all land is obviously fantasy, substantiatively the same effect can be obtained with property taxes assessed based only on the value of the underlying land and updated frequently (land value tax), with the added benefit of avoiding the distortions of worrying that a lease will expire and someone will outbid you to seize the value of the capital you have invested in improving the property.