4 ms·

Weirdly confident and passionate rant here about nonsense. Capital is not defined by non fungibility. Land is not “monopolistic” by nature. Competition can exi

Weirdly confident and passionate rant here about nonsense. Capital is not defined by non fungibility. Land is not “monopolistic” by nature. Competition can exist for land. Monopolies don’t define free markets. Land is not capital but not being capital does not mean it’s unrelated to capitalism. You’ve described land as having inelastic demand but that’s not correct, it’s actually inelastic supply. Demand for land is definitely elastic even if you “must occupy some land”. This is like a puzzle to spot as many factually incorrect claims as you can.

alexb_ 2y ago
> Capital is not defined by non fungibility. Correct. It's defined as wealth in the course of exchange, coming from labor. Whose labor created land? Nobody's. > Land is not "monopolistic" by nature Completely false. By definition, if you own a plot of land, you have a complete monopoly on that location. Nobody else can compete with the price you put on that slice of the Earth. LAND is defined by its non fungibility. A plot of land in the middle of San Francisco is not the same as a plot of land in the middle of Arizona. > You’ve described land as having inelastic demand but that’s not correct, it’s actually inelastic supply. You can clearly see how land has an inelastic supply, yet you continue to think of it as capital which can be produced. The demand to exist in a piece of land has everything to do with the rents of the land. If you can make $30,000 more a year in valuable land than worthless land, using the same labor/capital expenditures, the land rents become $30,000 a year. Land values have nothing to do with the cost of production, but with that value of location.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  > Completely false. By definition, if you own a plot of land, you have a complete monopoly on that location. Nobody else can compete with the price you put on that slice of the Earth. LAND is defined by its non fungibility. A plot of land in the middle of San Francisco is not the same as a plot of land in the middle of Arizona. A plot of land in the middle of San Francisco is very similar to another plot of land in the middle of San Francisco. People don’t describe ownership as a “monopoly over a specific object”. That’s just silly. Monopoly is a descriptor of a market. Not specific assets. > You can clearly see how land has an inelastic supply, yet you continue to think of it as capital which can be produced. … no I was pretty explicit that land is not capital in those exact words > The demand to exist in a piece of land has everything to do with the rents of the land. No, rents (prices) are a function of demand. > If you can make $30,000 more a year in valuable land than worthless land, using the same labor/capital expenditures, the land rents become $30,000 a year. Idk how to parse this sentence. You have a very weird grasp on economic concepts

alexb_ 2y ago

> Capital is not defined by non fungibility. Correct. It's defined as wealth in the course of exchange, coming from labor. Whose labor created land? Nobody's. > Land is not "monopolistic" by nature Completely false. By definition, if you own a plot of land, you have a complete monopoly on that location. Nobody else can compete with the price you put on that slice of the Earth. LAND is defined by its non fungibility. A plot of land in the middle of San Francisco is not the same as a plot of land in the middle of Arizona. > You’ve described land as having inelastic demand but that’s not correct, it’s actually inelastic supply. You can clearly see how land has an inelastic supply, yet you continue to think of it as capital which can be produced. The demand to exist in a piece of land has everything to do with the rents of the land. If you can make $30,000 more a year in valuable land than worthless land, using the same labor/capital expenditures, the land rents become $30,000 a year. Land values have nothing to do with the cost of production, but with that value of location.

jncfhnb 2y ago
> Completely false. By definition, if you own a plot of land, you have a complete monopoly on that location. Nobody else can compete with the price you put on that slice of the Earth. LAND is defined by its non fungibility. A plot of land in the middle of San Francisco is not the same as a plot of land in the middle of Arizona. A plot of land in the middle of San Francisco is very similar to another plot of land in the middle of San Francisco. People don’t describe ownership as a “monopoly over a specific object”. That’s just silly. Monopoly is a descriptor of a market. Not specific assets. > You can clearly see how land has an inelastic supply, yet you continue to think of it as capital which can be produced. … no I was pretty explicit that land is not capital in those exact words > The demand to exist in a piece of land has everything to do with the rents of the land. No, rents (prices) are a function of demand. > If you can make $30,000 more a year in valuable land than worthless land, using the same labor/capital expenditures, the land rents become $30,000 a year. Idk how to parse this sentence. You have a very weird grasp on economic concepts