> We know that because he sold them at a profit. That means buyers valued the output more than the cost of the inputs. That is good. This is a very naive inter

> We know that because he sold them at a profit. That means buyers valued the output more than the cost of the inputs. That is good. This is a very naive interpretation. Perhaps (maybe even more likely) the value of the land skyrocketed according to rising demand, regardless of the capital invested in building flats. They could have built single-family homes, or a parking lot, or even nothing at all and still profited handsomely. Please read up on Georgism, land value tax (LVT) and ground-rents: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/16/the-power-of-the-land-value-tax https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/16/the-power-of-t...