3 ms·

> The landlord magically pulls a home out of thin air and some group of people maintain for them for free? The building-lord should receive some return for the

> The landlord magically pulls a home out of thin air and some group of people maintain for them for free? The building-lord should receive some return for their investment, as they have created value and added to it through maintenance. The land-lord receives return for doing no work, no addition of value, and only through extracting the excess economic rent from their tenants. Unfortunately, conversations around property investment and land taxes and so on tend to derail because the land-lord and building-lord are often the same person. The response to "the landlord is a leech on society" is "no, he built a house and maintains it!", but in reality it is "the land-lord is a leech on society, the building-lord is a contributor to society".

kamaal 4y ago
Yeah, land, like college seats, and gym memberships come in limited quantities. There is no infinite supply of land, college seats, or gym memberships. So whoever acquires a hold on a resource of this nature stands to benefit a better return on investment. Also note the limited nature of time in these things, you are basically in a race condition. Note these extend to things like 401k, or a retirement savings scheme in the same way. You feel like you are salty that you couldn't get a hold on such a resource in time.
- BirdieNZ 4y ago
  The difference between land (and natural resources) and gym memberships, 401ks etc. is that you can make more gyms and companies and investment fhnds, but the supply of locations and natural resources is limited. This means that land functions as a monopoly (hence the board game!) whereas 401ks and gyms are non-monopolistic. Owners of monopolies stand to benefit from not just a reasonable return on investment, but an excessive return on investment proportion to their contribution to society. Many countries and societies have handled this in different ways, such as the idea of the commons, or Norway's taxation of oil extraction, or land value taxes and land leases. > You feel like you are salty that you couldn't get a hold on such a resource in time. I am a software developer, and as such am able to comfortably acquire land in a good location and provide for my family. However, many of my generation are unable to, unlike previous generations, because the good locations have all been taken by the previous generations. This is why we see enormous poverty next to enormous progress, because late comers to the party are so far behind as to be basically unable to "get on the ladder". The ladder is being pulled up before their eyes. A great solution to this is to tax the excess economic rents that monopolies create, rather than taxing labour and capital. Henry George is the most famous proponent of such a system, and you can find out more here: https://www.gameofrent.com/ https://www.gameofrent.com/ or at astralcodexten's book review of Progress and Poverty. This means that those who contribute to society through labour and capital are not discouraged from doing so, but those who leech off others through monopoly rent extraction return that rent to the society that created it in the first place. This is a far more just and equitable solution. Of course, many existing monopoly owners (e.g. landowners, and particularly property investors) hate the idea, because people tend to act in their own self-interest to the disadvantage of others.

kamaal 4y ago

Yeah, land, like college seats, and gym memberships come in limited quantities. There is no infinite supply of land, college seats, or gym memberships. So whoever acquires a hold on a resource of this nature stands to benefit a better return on investment. Also note the limited nature of time in these things, you are basically in a race condition. Note these extend to things like 401k, or a retirement savings scheme in the same way. You feel like you are salty that you couldn't get a hold on such a resource in time.

BirdieNZ 4y ago
The difference between land (and natural resources) and gym memberships, 401ks etc. is that you can make more gyms and companies and investment fhnds, but the supply of locations and natural resources is limited. This means that land functions as a monopoly (hence the board game!) whereas 401ks and gyms are non-monopolistic. Owners of monopolies stand to benefit from not just a reasonable return on investment, but an excessive return on investment proportion to their contribution to society. Many countries and societies have handled this in different ways, such as the idea of the commons, or Norway's taxation of oil extraction, or land value taxes and land leases. > You feel like you are salty that you couldn't get a hold on such a resource in time. I am a software developer, and as such am able to comfortably acquire land in a good location and provide for my family. However, many of my generation are unable to, unlike previous generations, because the good locations have all been taken by the previous generations. This is why we see enormous poverty next to enormous progress, because late comers to the party are so far behind as to be basically unable to "get on the ladder". The ladder is being pulled up before their eyes. A great solution to this is to tax the excess economic rents that monopolies create, rather than taxing labour and capital. Henry George is the most famous proponent of such a system, and you can find out more here: https://www.gameofrent.com/ https://www.gameofrent.com/ or at astralcodexten's book review of Progress and Poverty. This means that those who contribute to society through labour and capital are not discouraged from doing so, but those who leech off others through monopoly rent extraction return that rent to the society that created it in the first place. This is a far more just and equitable solution. Of course, many existing monopoly owners (e.g. landowners, and particularly property investors) hate the idea, because people tend to act in their own self-interest to the disadvantage of others.