Cuckoo economics


Ad

Advertisements

M

matthew.robb1


This is first-rate bollocks

1) Firstly there is no such clear definition of land-like and
house-like. Plenty of assets have characteristics of both. Take for
example a developer than builds a new town; the value of the land and
the assets are inter-dependent and so the development has
characteristics of both
2) It is not true to say that land-like assets can not be improved -
they can. Drainage, infrastructure etc can change the value of land
3) 'Natural monopolies' mostly don't exist - especially
telecommunications

As these errors are made in paras 1-4, I stopped reading
 
M

mjt95

Oh my god, it's *awful*!

It is indeed first-rate bollocks.

Linear Marxism in all but name!

This is first-rate bollocks

1) Firstly there is no such clear definition of land-like and
house-like. Plenty of assets have characteristics of both. Take for
example a developer than builds a new town; the value of the land and
the assets are inter-dependent and so the development has
characteristics of both
2) It is not true to say that land-like assets can not be improved -
they can. Drainage, infrastructure etc can change the value of land
3) 'Natural monopolies' mostly don't exist - especially
telecommunications

As these errors are made in paras 1-4, I stopped reading
--

mjt

A supporter of http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/, fighting to stop the
government ripping off the taxpayer.

Tax cuts v public services? No! Tax cuts *for* better public services.
 
S

S G

On 28 Jul (e-mail address removed) wrote:

[ Cuckoo economics
http://www.lvrg.org.au/Text/1131513121651-5817/Cuckoo-economics ]
This is first-rate bollocks

1) Firstly there is no such clear definition of land-like and
house-like. Plenty of assets have characteristics of both. Take for
example a developer than builds a new town; the value of the land and
the assets are inter-dependent and so the development has
characteristics of both
2) It is not true to say that land-like assets can not be improved -
they can. Drainage, infrastructure etc can change the value of land
3) 'Natural monopolies' mostly don't exist - especially
telecommunications

As these errors are made in paras 1-4, I stopped reading
It might be better if you could temper your 'knee-jerks' a little.
Read what is /there/ rather than what your automatic associating
mechanism feeds you.

"The assets known as the "means of production" fall into two
categories:

* Assets that taxpayers can neither create nor destroy nor move
out of the taxing jurisdiction may be called land-like assets or
site-like assets (where a site means a piece of ground or airspace,
including any attached rights to erect buildings on that ground or
into that airspace, but excluding any actual buildings).

* The rest ™ that is, assets that taxpayers can move and/or destroy
and/or refrain from creating ™ may be called house-like assets.

"By this terminology, house-like assets used as means of production
include not only buildings and other fixed structures, but also industrial
and commercial equipment of all kinds (fixed or movable) and stock in
trade. The great classical economists from Adam Smith (1723-1790) to
Max Hirsch (1853-1909) called such assets capital. Because the
production of house-like assets adds to the total wealth of humanity,
and because the profits from such assets are an incentive to produce the
assets, capitalists advocate the private ownership of house-like assets
and the private appropriation of profits derived therefrom.

"Land-like assets include not only sites, but other natural resources
(which cannot be created by human effort), statutory monopolies and
limited licenses (which can be created only by governments), and the
so-called natural monopolies enjoyed by providers of networked
services such as electricity, gas, water, railways, and (at the time of
writing) telecommunications [1]. Returns on land-like assets, net of the
demands of labor and capital, are known as economic rent [2]; owners
of such assets constitute the rentier class. The term "rentier" should be
understood as functional rather than personal, because the same person
may perform more than one economic role. (For example, one man
may be a worker and a capital owner and a rentier ™ and, under present
arrangements, may lose more in the first two roles than he gains in the
third.)

"From the viewpoint of taxpayers, land-like assets cannot be produced,
but can only be acquired. Such acquisitions do not add to the total
assets of humanity. Furthermore, while the returns on labor and capital
applied to a land-like asset are incentives to apply that labor and
capital, the return on the asset itself (net of the demands of labor and
capital) is not an incentive to do anything except acquire the asset;
indeed, the party acquiring the asset need not be the one applying the
labor or capital. Therefore the argument by which capitalists rightly
defend the private ownership of house-like assets and the private
appropriation of the returns on house-like assets is not applicable to
land-like assets. But they apply it anyway!"
 
A

abelard

This is first-rate bollocks

1) Firstly there is no such clear definition of land-like and
house-like. Plenty of assets have characteristics of both. Take for
example a developer than builds a new town; the value of the land and
the assets are inter-dependent and so the development has
characteristics of both
2) It is not true to say that land-like assets can not be improved -
they can. Drainage, infrastructure etc can change the value of land
3) 'Natural monopolies' mostly don't exist - especially
telecommunications

As these errors are made in paras 1-4, I stopped reading
your patience and persistence is homeric......

regards....

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Ad

Advertisements

T

Tim

"The assets known as the "means of production"
fall into two categories:

* Assets that taxpayers can neither create nor destroy nor move
out of the taxing jurisdiction may be called land-like assets
or site-like assets (where a site means a piece of ground or
airspace, including any attached rights to erect buildings on that
ground or into that airspace, but excluding any actual buildings).

* The rest T that is, assets that taxpayers can move and/or destroy
and/or refrain from creating T may be called house-like assets.
OK then - into which of these two types would you place those islands
being created off the coast of Dubai? ["Palm" islands + the "World"]
 
S

S G

S G wrote
"The assets known as the "means of production"
fall into two categories:

* Assets that taxpayers can neither create nor destroy nor move
out of the taxing jurisdiction may be called land-like assets
or site-like assets (where a site means a piece of ground or
airspace, including any attached rights to erect buildings on that
ground or into that airspace, but excluding any actual buildings).

* The rest - that is, assets that taxpayers can move and/or destroy
and/or refrain from creating - may be called house-like assets.
OK then - into which of these two types would you place those islands
being created off the coast of Dubai? ["Palm" islands + the "World"]
Please note: I did not write the above: it is a quotation from the
article at: www.lvrg.org.au/Text/1131513121651-5817/Cuckoo-economics

Yes, I've seen a documentary on this.
You know that some of the simplest organisms share some of the
characteristics of both plants and animals but that does not stop the
classification being a useful one and in most cases the distinction is
easily made. For instance, if I were to say 'whale' or 'herring gull'
or 'giant redwood', you would have no trouble at all in categorising
each and all.

In the above example (as in similar cases where land is reclaimed from
the sea and the converse -- where, through human action, land is made
less utilisable) the case seems less clear cut, but if I say to you
'Boeing 747' or 'Pentium IV' or 'the middle of the Atlantic Ocean' or
'that site that's been mouldering at the end of the road for the best
part of thirty years' you'll know immediately into which category to
place each. (Perhaps no so clearly with the last, if it has some
buildings on it, but then to a developer -- if he can get his hands on
it -- the buildings are usually a detraction rather than a bonus.)
Valuers readily and regulary make a distinction between a building and
the site upon which it stands -- they ask "What would this site fetch if
it were clear?"

The difference between your example above, and the last cited is that
whereas, in the last, the site owner has nothing to do with the value of
the site itself -- it being dependant on the surrounding infrastruture
and population, etc. ("Landlords grow richer in their sleep without
working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land,
arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should
belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title."
-John Stuart Mill) -- your Dubai example seems to suggest that the
developer -- Prince wotsisname -- has produced what looks like what Mr
Putland calls 'land-like assets'. That seems to be it - eh!?

--------------

A 1997 Nature article* by Robert Costanza and others, "The value
of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," estimated
that natural assets contribute between $16 and $54 trillion of
economic value per year worldwide.
* http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Nature_Paper.pdf

Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many
cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground
rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which can best
bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them.
- Adam Smith

Mr Putland is daring to suggest that we move the burden of taxation
from where it currently, largely falls - on all productive activity
- onto what is called 'economic rent'.
 
M

mjt95

Yes, I spotted the Marxism at about the same time. I read on for a bit
longer, enjoying the red mist get redder...!

"Linear Marxism": this is where the Marixst - deluded as ever - attempts
to operate his dogma into a cause-and-effect analysis, or a system
flowchart. Typically, the Marxist fails to account for *all* of the
consequences from a single action, cherry-picking the ones that best
illustrate his bigotry and ignoring the rest.

Unfortunately for him, the consequences he chooses to ignore are the
very consequence that render his predict absolute rubbish.

"Linear Marxism", more succinctly, is just another form of denialism.
For example, the UK Treasury operates "Linear Marxism" in its tax
policy. It wants to increase tax yields, but avoids the very thing that
would make it happen: simplification of the tax system and reduction of
the rate of tax. It doesn't understand that reducing rates of tax also
reduce the benefit of tax avoidance and increases profit that business
will invest (thus creating more taxable profit next year).

The power of denial... If you deny something often enough, people
believe it. I think.


S said:
On 29 Jul, mjt95 wrote:

[ Cuckoo economics
http://www.lvrg.org.au/Text/1131513121651-5817/Cuckoo-economics ]
Oh my god, it's *awful*!
It is indeed first-rate bollocks.
Linear Marxism in all but name!
Stopped reading when the red mist induced by seeing the phrase
"means of production" hit you - did you?

Perhaps you could define "Linear Marxism" for us?
--

mjt

A supporter of http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/, fighting to stop the
government ripping off the taxpayer.

Tax cuts v public services? No! Tax cuts *for* better public services.
 
M

mjt95

Utter garbage. If you can't see the absurdity of this argument (snippet
below), then the discussion has no point.

No knee-jerk about it at all. Seen this stuff more times than I've had
hot dinner. It's bullshit.

S said:
It might be better if you could temper your 'knee-jerks' a little.
Read what is /there/ rather than what your automatic associating
mechanism feeds you.
"From the viewpoint of taxpayers, land-like assets cannot be produced,
but can only be acquired. Such acquisitions do not add to the total
assets of humanity. Furthermore, while the returns on labor and capital
applied to a land-like asset are incentives to apply that labor and
capital, the return on the asset itself (net of the demands of labor and
capital) is not an incentive to do anything except acquire the asset;
indeed, the party acquiring the asset need not be the one applying the
labor or capital. Therefore the argument by which capitalists rightly
defend the private ownership of house-like assets and the private
appropriation of the returns on house-like assets is not applicable to
land-like assets. But they apply it anyway!"
--

mjt

A supporter of http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/, fighting to stop the
government ripping off the taxpayer.

Tax cuts v public services? No! Tax cuts *for* better public services.
 
M

matthew.robb1

[ Cuckoo economics
http://www.lvrg.org.au/Text/1131513121651-5817/Cuckoo-economics ]
This is first-rate bollocks

1) Firstly there is no such clear definition of land-like and
house-like. Plenty of assets have characteristics of both. Take for
example a developer than builds a new town; the value of the land and
the assets are inter-dependent and so the development has
characteristics of both
2) It is not true to say that land-like assets can not be improved -
they can. Drainage, infrastructure etc can change the value of land
3) 'Natural monopolies' mostly don't exist - especially
telecommunications

As these errors are made in paras 1-4, I stopped reading
It might be better if you could temper your 'knee-jerks' a little.
Read what is /there/ rather than what your automatic associating
mechanism feeds you.
Er... I did. All you seem to have done is repeat the original. Which
is in error as I pointed out above.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

matthew.robb1

* Assets that taxpayers can neither create nor destroy nor move
out of the taxing jurisdiction may be called land-like assets
or site-like assets (where a site means a piece of ground or
airspace, including any attached rights to erect buildings on that
ground or into that airspace, but excluding any actual buildings).

* The rest - that is, assets that taxpayers can move and/or destroy
and/or refrain from creating - may be called house-like assets.
OK then - into which of these two types would you place those islands
being created off the coast of Dubai? ["Palm" islands + the "World"]
Please note: I did not write the above: it is a quotation from the
article at: www.lvrg.org.au/Text/1131513121651-5817/Cuckoo-economics

Yes, I've seen a documentary on this.
You know that some of the simplest organisms share some of the
characteristics of both plants and animals but that does not stop the
classification being a useful one and in most cases the distinction is
easily made. For instance, if I were to say 'whale' or 'herring gull'
or 'giant redwood', you would have no trouble at all in categorising
each and all.
So the theory isn't very sound, but you're arguing it is useful in
practice. OK

So let's test that. According to the definitions, nearly everything is
'house-like' - in which case capitalist stuff applies. If you include
only the clearly 'land-like' assets, then you're really only talking
about undeveloped land, or land on which no large scale development or
change of use can ever take place.

And the examples of this in the real world are?
 
S

S G

(quoting "Cuckoo economics"
www.lvrg.org.au/Text/1131513121651-5817/Cuckoo-economics )
Utter garbage. If you can't see the absurdity of this argument [above]
then the discussion has no point.

No knee-jerk about it at all. Seen this stuff more times than I've had
hot dinner. It's bullshit.
We'll leave you there then! and expect you to take no further part in the
ensuing discussion (if there is one).

Taxes operate upon energy, and industry, and skill, and thrift, like
a fine upon those qualities. If I have worked harder and built
myself a good house while you have been contented to live in a
hovel, the tax gatherer now comes annually to make me pay a penalty
for my energy and industry, by taxing me more than you. If I have
saved while you wasted, I am mulct, while you are exempt. If a man
builds a ship we make him pay for his temerity, as though he has
done injury to the state; if a railroad be opened, down comes the
tax collector upon it, as though it were a public nuisance; if a
factory be erected we levy upon it an annual sum which would go far
toward making a handsome profit. We say we want capital, but if
anyone accumulates it, we charge him for it as though we were giving
him a privilege. We punish with a tax the man who covers barren
fields with ripening grain, we fine him who builds machinery, and
him who drains a swamp.
- Henry George
 
A

abelard

Thanks. I particularly appreciated the guy coming back to tell me I
didn't read it.
i'll bet :)

regards....

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
S

S G

According to the definitions, nearly everything is 'house-like'
!!! When was the planet manufactured then?
- in which case capitalist stuff applies. If you include only the
clearly 'land-like' assets, then you're really only talking about
undeveloped land, or land on which no large scale development or
change of use can ever take place.
And the examples of this in the real world are?
If you would but read the text:

"Land-like assets include not only sites, but other natural resources
(which cannot be created by human effort), statutory monopolies and
limited licenses (which can be created only by governments), and the
so-called natural monopolies enjoyed by providers of networked
services such as electricity, gas, water, railways, and (at the time
of writing) telecommunications [1]."

So that's: sites, other natural resources, statutory monopolies and
limited licenses, and the so-called "natural monopolies" (but, for
the time being, in order to simplify matters, we can confine ourselves
to sites + other natural resources, if you like).

Would you like examples of sites and so on, or can you find exemplars
for yourself?
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

matthew.robb1

!!! When was the planet manufactured then?
You are not concentrating. Very little land actually is 'land-like'
using this definition
If you would but read the text:

"Land-like assets include not only sites, but other natural resources
(which cannot be created by human effort),
Again, this is nonsense. Oil in the ground is a natural resource, but
you can certainly add value to it by removing it efficiently, and a
market in oil reserves allows capitalism to efficiently allocate the
reserve to the company that can most efficiently extract it
statutory monopolies and
limited licenses (which can be created only by governments), and the
Again, capitalism works fine here if the licences are auctioned
so-called natural monopolies enjoyed by providers of networked
services such as electricity, gas, water, railways, and (at the time
of writing) telecommunications [1]."
Again, total rubbish. Privatising electricity production and
distribution has allowed more investment in more efficient means
So that's: sites, other natural resources, statutory monopolies and
limited licenses, and the so-called "natural monopolies" (but, for
the time being, in order to simplify matters, we can confine ourselves
to sites + other natural resources, if you like).

Would you like examples of sites and so on, or can you find exemplars
for yourself?
It's total rubbish. Utter, utter rubbish.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top