alt.politics.economics

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:56:28 -0500, "lysander@ "
wrote:

>forbisgaryg@ wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 10:36 pm, "lysan...@ "
>> wrote:
>>> lysan...@ wrote:
>>
>>> Feldstien is making a different argument than my argument on the tax
>>> changing fixed cost and shifting capital. However, this is noticing the
>>> same thing. We have an effect on profits (income to the owner). Note
>>> again the Rigid assumptions Georgist must make.
>>>
>>> Roy wants to make the distinction between land owner and land user
>>> because the analysis falls apart if he does not. Just as I have shown.
>>
>> You could take it the other way as well. You want to blurr the
>> distinction
>> between a person as land owner and a person as land user because your
>> analysis falls apart if you do not.
>
>A. No it does not.

Ah, yes, actually, it does, stupid, ignorant, lying garbage, as I have
proved to you over and over again.

>B. There is no reason to make an assumption about distinct roles. The
>owner can be the user.

There is a very good reason to assume distinct roles: the roles ARE
distinct. You just choose to confuse yourself by conflating them
because clarity would make the falsity of your claims self-evident.
The fact that the same individual can be owner and user does not
change the separate efficiency calculations (net of transaction
costs).

>> Suppose you make stone statues for a living. You happen to own
>> property
>> that contains the stone you use. You've been able to undercut the
>> prices
>> of other stone artists because your stone is "free" where other
>> artists
>> have to buy their stone at market.
>
>Wrong.

No, he is entirely correct, and you are wrong. And stupid.

>Stone is not free it still cost labor and/or capital to extract.

He was talking about the stone in the ground for which other artists
have to pay an idle landowner, STUPID, IGNORANT, LYING
**__GARBAGE__**.

>There is opportunity cost.

Funny how opportunity cost doesn't get the idle rich to work at
McDonalds...

>> Now let's think about that for a moment. If you're selling the
>> statues
>> below the price of the stone you're actually losing money for your
>> labor.
>> You could sell the raw stone to the artists and use your labor doing
>> something else. The way to analyse the situation is to include the
>> market price of the stone in your calculations when determining your
>> profit from your stone working and in your profit from owning the
>> land.
>
>Yes that is economic profit when you realize using stone in the statue
>has an opportunity cost. Yet this has nothing to do with the discussion.

It just proves you flat wrong.

>> You make a similar mistake in an earlier article when talking about
>> time horizon. You make it sound like some owners won't include an
>> infinite horizon when calculating the value of the land at market
>> unless they intend to use the land for that time period.
>
>That is no mistake.

Yes, of course it is a mistake: it is one of your claims, so it is
known in advance to be a mistake.

>If your time horizion is limited to your life or
>your working life and you plan to sell at some date or do not bequeath
>the land then your time horizon is NOT infinite.

But you can treat it as infinite wrt land because someone else will
want it when you no longer have a use for it (other than as a final
resting place).

-- Roy L