4 ms·

Rents are "unearned" in the same way all appreciation is unearned. You spend your money on something, anybody else could also have spent that money on it, but t

Rents are "unearned" in the same way all appreciation is unearned. You spend your money on something, anybody else could also have spent that money on it, but the person who does spend the money on it enjoys the appreciation, if any, because they pay the opportunity cost. > because land value always goes up Tell that to the people who left urban St. Louis and Detroit and Cleveland in droves over the last 75 years. Their land didn't just go down in value; it went to less than zero. You'd literally have to pay somebody to take it and it's a huge burden on those municipalities. The problem with Georgism is that, yes, land is different than other things in that you can't make more of it, but it's also the same as most things in most ways that matter.

at_compile_time 2y ago
So someone who buys and empty piece of land, and holds it while everyone else around them invests money in the neighbourhood, deserves the gain they realize. That's an interesting worldview. >Tell that to the people who left urban St. Louis and Detroit and Cleveland in droves over the last 75 years. Tell them that I was speaking in general? If the value of your home can explode or crater for reasons outside your control, perhaps it would be wiser for housing to not be so expensive so that families need to have everything invested in their home. >The problem with Georgism is that, yes, land is different than other things in that you can't make more of it, but it's also the same as most things in most ways that matter. That isn't really an argument that the fixed supply of land doesn't matter, you're just asserting that it doesn't. It also doesn't suggest anything we should be doing instead, so what are you contributing here?
- dionidium 2y ago
  > It also doesn't suggest anything we should be doing instead We should just simply allow a free market in housing and housing construction. That's the obvious solution on the table and the one we should try before we bother revisiting eccentric tax schemes from the 19th Century.

at_compile_time 2y ago

So someone who buys and empty piece of land, and holds it while everyone else around them invests money in the neighbourhood, deserves the gain they realize. That's an interesting worldview. >Tell that to the people who left urban St. Louis and Detroit and Cleveland in droves over the last 75 years. Tell them that I was speaking in general? If the value of your home can explode or crater for reasons outside your control, perhaps it would be wiser for housing to not be so expensive so that families need to have everything invested in their home. >The problem with Georgism is that, yes, land is different than other things in that you can't make more of it, but it's also the same as most things in most ways that matter. That isn't really an argument that the fixed supply of land doesn't matter, you're just asserting that it doesn't. It also doesn't suggest anything we should be doing instead, so what are you contributing here?

dionidium 2y ago
> It also doesn't suggest anything we should be doing instead We should just simply allow a free market in housing and housing construction. That's the obvious solution on the table and the one we should try before we bother revisiting eccentric tax schemes from the 19th Century.