Thanks for sharing this it's interesting. The first thing I've noticed is that his estimate of the tax revenue is far lower than other far more detailed estimat

Thanks for sharing this it's interesting. The first thing I've noticed is that his estimate of the tax revenue is far lower than other far more detailed estimates I've seen by economists. But by far my biggest objection to his arguments is that he ignores the way density impacts land value over time. If we build huge skyscrapers in the countryside it's reasonable that businesses will spring up around them. Various economists have modelled this and land value increases in proportion to the income of its occupants. It's one of the reasons cities need to pay developers to get affordable housing. The allocation of people into housing that was once affordable in the market sense will naturally result in rising land values and rising rents. In no time and no place in history has density made land cheap. If we choose to dot the countryside in huge towers the land on which those huge towers are built and the land of the shops immediately beside those huge towers will have a high value that tapers off quickly as you head further into the now empty countryside. You end up with a strange peaky distribution. In practice, the increasing land rents of the building and the decreased land rents of the countryside would encourage occupants to leave for greener pastures. And the developers would know this would happen before even building a huge building in the countryside because it is economically well understood. He also makes far too big a deal out of the need for a negative land market. You can keep abandonment if you just have a 95% LVT instead of a 100% LVT and you now have a market where land values are overwhelmingly positive.