> 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 t

> 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