3 ms·
> All wealth (which is definitionally excess productive power) ultimately accrues to land value, so this is the only point of intervention you need. that was
by ffgjgf1 3y ago
> All wealth (which is definitionally excess productive power) ultimately accrues to land value, so this is the only point of intervention you need.
that was generally accurate prior to the mid 1800s. I don’t see at all how this would be particularly (or at all) effective on its own these days.
- ethanbond 3y agoDo people no longer pay high prices to be near locations of high productivity?
- ffgjgf1 3y agoThey do. What about the remaining 50-98% of wealth? This would do barely anything to solve the current problems related to inequality. The 99 years would just be priced in and everything would more or less stay the same. All of that Georgism stuff makes about as much sense in the context of modern economies as the gold standard.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ethanbond 3y agoYou oughta read the book :) People were already making the same argument in the late 1800s since even then wealth appeared to be detached from land. But it turns out it's not.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago> But it turns out it's not. Right. That’s certainly a very convincing argument.. > People were already making the same argument in the late 1800s And they were already partially correct. > You oughta read the book :) What book?
- notahacker 3y agoIf you're an average early-mid career person you pay more than your net worth to be near locations of high productivity. If you're a billionaire, you pay a small fraction of your net worth. If your wealth is hereditary and you don't actually produce anything yourself, you don't even need to live in a high productivity location Depends on who you think should be paying the most, I guess...