3 ms·

I worry about it because unlike most other things, land is a zero sum game. To my mind, corporations are only good if they 1. provide value 2. capture some fra

I worry about it because unlike most other things, land is a zero sum game. To my mind, corporations are only good if they 1. provide value 2. capture some fraction of that value, because you have a win-win situation on your hands. This applies well to production of products, which is obviously not zero-sum. Land is, however, so whenever a corporation is making a profit off of land ownership, it means an individual (or government) is not.

xxpor 6y ago
land is zero sum, but the economic value of land isn't. Farming actual food or other commodities provides value, and the better techniques allows you to provide more value. I basically agree about pure land ownership though. Obviously this is one of the main leftist critiques of capitalist societies. I'm not sure if state ownership is any better on net though (in general, I'm fine with national parks or whatever), mostly for logistical reasons. There's a lot of external factors to consider with land too. You don't want people to do whatever and poison said land via poor management or irresponsible resource extraction.
OscarCunningham 6y ago
Doesn't the parent comment already anticipate this argument? They're saying that the corporation does provide value because it gets more from the land than individuals would.
- fastball 6y ago
  But this is only true of running the land. I feel that it would be better for land to be owned by real people (preferably citizens of whichever country it is) given that there is a finite amount of it. If corporations are better farmers, they will still be keen to rent it / run it for the owner. The alternative is probably a future where all land is owned by corporations and all people are just renting, which to me sounds like a recipe for disaster.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    I guess it'd help to explain why I, Joe Farmer, would care if I'm renting land from Acme Inc or Bob Gentry. Basically, it sounds like you believe there's differnet incentives for individuals vs corporations here, and I'm not entirely sure there is.
    - fastball 6y ago
      The incentives don't need to be different, it just goes back to my underlying philosophy of business. People will always exist. Corporations do not need to. I only believe corporations / companies should exist in situations where 1. they are providing value 2. capturing a portion of that value. Basically any corporation that is managing to do 2 without first doing 1 (or is managing to capture more value in step 2 than they are creating in step 1) is a business that should not exist. As such, companies should not exist in spaces where they are not providing added value, and it is impossible for them to do so as a land-owner, because the owner is not providing any value, the land was always there. They didn't create it. Yes, Bob Gentry is not providing any value either, but again people will always exist, companies should not unless they serve a distinct purpose from what a person can. But on top of that I do actually think the incentives are different. Companies and people are fundamentally different beasts. For starters, companies are effectively amoral.
holtalanm 6y ago
I wouldn't worry that much about it. It isn't entirely uncommon for a farm or ranch to be registered as an LLC even if it is a small family operation. That land ownership would count as 'corporation owned', but in practice, it is just a normal family farm/ranch. source: I grew up in, and live in Nebraska. Family ranch was registered as an LLC, but we were just a small family operation, and by this point nonexistent (parents sold out and retired).
- kickout 6y ago
  Always good to see NE residents on HN...one of maybe < 100 i'd guess.
hntrader 6y ago
You have a point that land is a scarce and excludable good and there's an opportunity cost to a corporation owning land. The initial purchase of the land by the corporation wasn't zero sum, however. The previous landowner and the corporation both gained subjective utility from the transaction (otherwise they wouldn't have engaged in it), so the transaction itself was positive sum.

xxpor 6y ago

land is zero sum, but the economic value of land isn't. Farming actual food or other commodities provides value, and the better techniques allows you to provide more value. I basically agree about pure land ownership though. Obviously this is one of the main leftist critiques of capitalist societies. I'm not sure if state ownership is any better on net though (in general, I'm fine with national parks or whatever), mostly for logistical reasons. There's a lot of external factors to consider with land too. You don't want people to do whatever and poison said land via poor management or irresponsible resource extraction.

OscarCunningham 6y ago

Doesn't the parent comment already anticipate this argument? They're saying that the corporation does provide value because it gets more from the land than individuals would.

fastball 6y ago
But this is only true of running the land. I feel that it would be better for land to be owned by real people (preferably citizens of whichever country it is) given that there is a finite amount of it. If corporations are better farmers, they will still be keen to rent it / run it for the owner. The alternative is probably a future where all land is owned by corporations and all people are just renting, which to me sounds like a recipe for disaster.
- xxpor 6y ago
  I guess it'd help to explain why I, Joe Farmer, would care if I'm renting land from Acme Inc or Bob Gentry. Basically, it sounds like you believe there's differnet incentives for individuals vs corporations here, and I'm not entirely sure there is.
  - fastball 6y ago
    The incentives don't need to be different, it just goes back to my underlying philosophy of business. People will always exist. Corporations do not need to. I only believe corporations / companies should exist in situations where 1. they are providing value 2. capturing a portion of that value. Basically any corporation that is managing to do 2 without first doing 1 (or is managing to capture more value in step 2 than they are creating in step 1) is a business that should not exist. As such, companies should not exist in spaces where they are not providing added value, and it is impossible for them to do so as a land-owner, because the owner is not providing any value, the land was always there. They didn't create it. Yes, Bob Gentry is not providing any value either, but again people will always exist, companies should not unless they serve a distinct purpose from what a person can. But on top of that I do actually think the incentives are different. Companies and people are fundamentally different beasts. For starters, companies are effectively amoral.

holtalanm 6y ago

I wouldn't worry that much about it. It isn't entirely uncommon for a farm or ranch to be registered as an LLC even if it is a small family operation. That land ownership would count as 'corporation owned', but in practice, it is just a normal family farm/ranch. source: I grew up in, and live in Nebraska. Family ranch was registered as an LLC, but we were just a small family operation, and by this point nonexistent (parents sold out and retired).

kickout 6y ago
Always good to see NE residents on HN...one of maybe < 100 i'd guess.

hntrader 6y ago

You have a point that land is a scarce and excludable good and there's an opportunity cost to a corporation owning land. The initial purchase of the land by the corporation wasn't zero sum, however. The previous landowner and the corporation both gained subjective utility from the transaction (otherwise they wouldn't have engaged in it), so the transaction itself was positive sum.