10 ms·

That pushes towards the most profitable use of the land. Not sure why that would generally be desirable.

by RandomLensman 2y ago

scld 2y ago
Because the most profitable use of private land is, almost by definition, the most desirable.
- RandomLensman 2y ago
  Sarcasm?
  - scld 2y ago
    Why would it be? Price is simply the best information we have about the interaction millions of various desires, distilled into one number.
    - RandomLensman 2y ago
      Things having a price isn't same as profit maximizing on everything. People don't purely profit maximize. Are you maximizing profit in your primary residence? You might derive pleasure from having a large garden instead of building an industrial plant of same sort there, for example, or not rent out rooms, or have more shirts than you need instead of investing those monies into a business.
      - scld 2y ago
        When you said generally desirable, I assumed you meant to the general public and society at large. Absent some other very convincing information, the price of a plot of land is going to be the best analogue for how much society values that land. Obviously the private land owner (in general) would prefer that the cost of owning land was as near zero as possible so that they could use it how they saw fit, regardless of the opportunity cost to society. And that's how it spirals into the mess we have today.
        RandomLensman 2y ago
        Why would it be most desirable for society if the only thing done with land was to maximize profit? Society also values museums, parks, etc. - but those are not a profit maximization things. You keep bringing up price, but price and use of the land are not the same. A price (if transacted on) also only really speaks towards the parties involved, not society as a whole. The mess we have today is not because we don't maximize profits from landownership enough.
        rocqua 2y ago
        The mess we have is because landowners can squeeze the users of the land for all of their profit. Really what should be maximized is the productivity (in a broad sense) of the land. Profit is a pretty good stand in for productivity, especially if you can't trivially extract rent.
        RandomLensman 2y ago
        If landowners already maximize profit, why would you expect any change if you tax landowners in a way that encourages profit maximization from land? Or do you mean things like more industry and less housing? Smaller, high density and expensive housing instead of larger housing?
        rocqua 2y ago
        Landowners can now maximize profits by renting it out and speculating on land value increase. They are getting value for free, at the expense of the renters and people who can't find land. They are nothing but a drag on society if they take this approach. Note that a landlord who builds and maintains a nice house isn't freeloading and not part of the problem. The problem to solve here is vacant lots, land speculation, and, slumlords. Anyone who makes their money off their land from it just being there, rather than by working on improving or using the land. Put differently, anyone who makes their money purely by virtue of people who have no other way to access land.
- kaashif 2y ago
  Not quite. There is information that's not part of the price system. National defense isn't going to be priced in by markets. And food security is national security, even if it's "more efficient" to ship food in from your geopolitical rivals.
  - scld 2y ago
    Fair, but none of that has anything to do with the most efficient and desirable use of a particular plot of land for 99.9% of a town/state/country.
rocqua 2y ago
The earlier invisible hand of the market is obviously the worst guiding principles for an economy, except for all the other ones. Really, the point is to push the land to be used deliberately. And for acess to land no longer being a differentiating factor between people. That does mean you get some side effects.
- RandomLensman 2y ago
  Deliberate forcing of high profit land use will be bad for all but the few landowners.
  - rocqua 2y ago
    It will be bad for the landowners who don't actually use the land. Landowners who make their money either renting out the land to others who actually use it well, or who just leave it vacant for 10 years until the value spiked. Those landowners are nothing but a drag. All the other landowners will have some more tax, but the more they invested in improving the land, the lower the taxes will proportionately be.
    - RandomLensman 2y ago
      Not having any lots vacant is unlikely to be optimal overall.
      - rocqua 2y ago
        An LVT won't prevent vacant lots. It will just make it unprofitable, where currently it can easily be profitable to leave a lot vacant.
        RandomLensman 2y ago
        If it is always and with certainty unprofitable, why would there be vacant lots?

That pushes towards the most profitable use of the land. Not sure why that would generally be desirable.

scld 2y ago

Because the most profitable use of private land is, almost by definition, the most desirable.

RandomLensman 2y ago
Sarcasm?
- scld 2y ago
  Why would it be? Price is simply the best information we have about the interaction millions of various desires, distilled into one number.
  - RandomLensman 2y ago
    Things having a price isn't same as profit maximizing on everything. People don't purely profit maximize. Are you maximizing profit in your primary residence? You might derive pleasure from having a large garden instead of building an industrial plant of same sort there, for example, or not rent out rooms, or have more shirts than you need instead of investing those monies into a business.
    - scld 2y ago
      When you said generally desirable, I assumed you meant to the general public and society at large. Absent some other very convincing information, the price of a plot of land is going to be the best analogue for how much society values that land. Obviously the private land owner (in general) would prefer that the cost of owning land was as near zero as possible so that they could use it how they saw fit, regardless of the opportunity cost to society. And that's how it spirals into the mess we have today.
      - RandomLensman 2y ago
        Why would it be most desirable for society if the only thing done with land was to maximize profit? Society also values museums, parks, etc. - but those are not a profit maximization things. You keep bringing up price, but price and use of the land are not the same. A price (if transacted on) also only really speaks towards the parties involved, not society as a whole. The mess we have today is not because we don't maximize profits from landownership enough.
        rocqua 2y ago
        The mess we have is because landowners can squeeze the users of the land for all of their profit. Really what should be maximized is the productivity (in a broad sense) of the land. Profit is a pretty good stand in for productivity, especially if you can't trivially extract rent.
        RandomLensman 2y ago
        If landowners already maximize profit, why would you expect any change if you tax landowners in a way that encourages profit maximization from land? Or do you mean things like more industry and less housing? Smaller, high density and expensive housing instead of larger housing?
        rocqua 2y ago
        Landowners can now maximize profits by renting it out and speculating on land value increase. They are getting value for free, at the expense of the renters and people who can't find land. They are nothing but a drag on society if they take this approach. Note that a landlord who builds and maintains a nice house isn't freeloading and not part of the problem. The problem to solve here is vacant lots, land speculation, and, slumlords. Anyone who makes their money off their land from it just being there, rather than by working on improving or using the land. Put differently, anyone who makes their money purely by virtue of people who have no other way to access land.
kaashif 2y ago
Not quite. There is information that's not part of the price system. National defense isn't going to be priced in by markets. And food security is national security, even if it's "more efficient" to ship food in from your geopolitical rivals.
- scld 2y ago
  Fair, but none of that has anything to do with the most efficient and desirable use of a particular plot of land for 99.9% of a town/state/country.

rocqua 2y ago

The earlier invisible hand of the market is obviously the worst guiding principles for an economy, except for all the other ones. Really, the point is to push the land to be used deliberately. And for acess to land no longer being a differentiating factor between people. That does mean you get some side effects.

RandomLensman 2y ago
Deliberate forcing of high profit land use will be bad for all but the few landowners.
- rocqua 2y ago
  It will be bad for the landowners who don't actually use the land. Landowners who make their money either renting out the land to others who actually use it well, or who just leave it vacant for 10 years until the value spiked. Those landowners are nothing but a drag. All the other landowners will have some more tax, but the more they invested in improving the land, the lower the taxes will proportionately be.
  - RandomLensman 2y ago
    Not having any lots vacant is unlikely to be optimal overall.
    - rocqua 2y ago
      An LVT won't prevent vacant lots. It will just make it unprofitable, where currently it can easily be profitable to leave a lot vacant.
      - RandomLensman 2y ago
        If it is always and with certainty unprofitable, why would there be vacant lots?