 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Abstinence from Consumption |
|
Page 5 of 6 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
|
royls@telus.net wrote:
[quote:5f55824e9d]On 14 Oct 2005 14:52:27 -0700, constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
Quirk wrote:
constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
But if you want to become a landlord in a
large city you will have to pay a lot of money,
Pay who? What did they do to earn the money?
Doesn't matter. It's quite possible they earned the money, therefore it
is false to say flatly that they did not earn the money.
?? No one is saying they haven't earned the money. Whether they
earned the money or not is irrelevant to the fact that _buying_ land
does not _contribute_ any land.
[/quote:5f55824e9d]
So what? Buying groceries doesn't contribute groceries. Does it follow
that if I buy groceries and then feed someone with them, I am not
contributing? Of course I am. Similarly, landlords contribute. They buy
land and then rent it.
[quote:5f55824e9d]The land was already there.
[/quote:5f55824e9d]
The groceries were already there.
[quote:5f55824e9d]The
buying just transfers the privilege of collecting something for
nothing (the rent) from A to B.
[/quote:5f55824e9d]
But it's not for nothing, since the land was bought and paid for with
money.
The statement that landlords do not contribute is false, exploded. What
you are left with is some quite different claim, that some landlord,
some time ago, possibly even dead now, did not contribute to somebody.
[quote:5f55824e9d]And so the
theory that the landlord did not contribute is thereby exploded.
It is not a theory. It is an indisputable fact. The land would have
been there anyway, therefore the landowner did not contribute it.
[/quote:5f55824e9d]
And the money that you earn on your job would have been there anyway,
so you did not contribute it. Nevertheless you earned the land you
bought just as you earned the money you were paid. The groceries you
buy with the money you earn, and the rent you receive with the land you
earn.
[quote:5f55824e9d]Case closed.
[/quote:5f55824e9d]
The case you are trying to build against landowners, works equally well
(equally poorly, that is) against anyone who works for money.
[quote:5f55824e9d]The entire community contributes to the growth in land value, yet only
the land owner gets to pocked this increase.
Not if he bought the land when it was already valuable.
It could not matter less how much he paid for it.
[/quote:5f55824e9d]
Yes it matters. It is simple arithmetic. If he paid the price of the
land after it increased, then he did not pocket the increase. This is
basic arithmetic, and you blew it completely. You are at the level of
not being able to add one plus one.
[quote:5f55824e9d]What he bought was
simply the privilege of collecting the rent in return for doing
nothing.
But now you are talking about something that increases in market value
over time. That happens with human capital as well: if you are good at
some field, like some field of math or of physics or whatever, then
market conditions may change which make your knowledge much more
valuable than it was before. You did not create that growth in the
value of your own knowledge: it was the entire community.
?? What are you talking about?
[/quote:5f55824e9d]
If that went over your head, then there's really nothing I can do to
help you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:01 pm |
|
|
|
|
royls@telus.net wrote:
[quote:46641fbf1c]On 14 Oct 2005 14:52:27 -0700, constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
Quirk wrote:
constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
But if you want to become a landlord in a
large city you will have to pay a lot of money,
Pay who? What did they do to earn the money?
Doesn't matter. It's quite possible they earned the money, therefore it
is false to say flatly that they did not earn the money.
?? No one is saying they haven't earned the money. Whether they
earned the money or not is irrelevant to the fact that _buying_ land
does not _contribute_ any land.
[/quote:46641fbf1c]
So what? Buying groceries doesn't contribute groceries. Does it follow
that if I buy groceries and then feed someone with them, I am not
contributing? Of course I am. Similarly, landlords contribute. They buy
land and then rent it.
[quote:46641fbf1c]The land was already there.
[/quote:46641fbf1c]
The groceries were already there.
[quote:46641fbf1c]The
buying just transfers the privilege of collecting something for
nothing (the rent) from A to B.
[/quote:46641fbf1c]
But it's not for nothing, since the land was bought and paid for with
money.
The statement that landlords do not contribute is false, exploded. What
you are left with is some quite different claim, that some landlord,
some time ago, possibly even dead now, did not contribute to somebody.
[quote:46641fbf1c]And so the
theory that the landlord did not contribute is thereby exploded.
It is not a theory. It is an indisputable fact. The land would have
been there anyway, therefore the landowner did not contribute it.
[/quote:46641fbf1c]
And the money that you earn on your job would have been there anyway,
so you did not contribute it. Nevertheless you earned the land you
bought just as you earned the money you were paid. The groceries you
buy with the money you earn, and the rent you receive with the land you
earn.
[quote:46641fbf1c]Case closed.
[/quote:46641fbf1c]
The case you are trying to build against landowners, works equally well
(equally poorly, that is) against anyone who works for money.
[quote:46641fbf1c]The entire community contributes to the growth in land value, yet only
the land owner gets to pocked this increase.
Not if he bought the land when it was already valuable.
It could not matter less how much he paid for it.
[/quote:46641fbf1c]
Yes it matters. It is simple arithmetic. If he paid the price of the
land after it increased, then he did not pocket the increase. This is
basic arithmetic, and you blew it completely. You are at the level of
not being able to add one plus one.
[quote:46641fbf1c]What he bought was
simply the privilege of collecting the rent in return for doing
nothing.
But now you are talking about something that increases in market value
over time. That happens with human capital as well: if you are good at
some field, like some field of math or of physics or whatever, then
market conditions may change which make your knowledge much more
valuable than it was before. You did not create that growth in the
value of your own knowledge: it was the entire community.
?? What are you talking about?
[/quote:46641fbf1c]
If that went over your head, then there's really nothing I can do to
help you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:47 pm |
|
|
|
|
On 15 Oct 2005 17:14:33 -0700, constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
[quote:63956ce357]royls@telus.net wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 14:52:27 -0700, constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
Quirk wrote:
constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
But if you want to become a landlord in a
large city you will have to pay a lot of money,
Pay who? What did they do to earn the money?
Doesn't matter. It's quite possible they earned the money, therefore it
is false to say flatly that they did not earn the money.
?? No one is saying they haven't earned the money. Whether they
earned the money or not is irrelevant to the fact that _buying_ land
does not _contribute_ any land.
So what?
[/quote:63956ce357]
So the landowner's rent income is obtained in return for no
contribution. What he buys is exactly the _privilege_ of getting
income in return for no contribution. To the extent that he has to
make a contribution to get that income, he will pay less for the land.
[quote:63956ce357]Buying groceries doesn't contribute groceries.
[/quote:63956ce357]
?? Yes, of course it does, though indirectly. Buying the products of
labor creates them, by paying their creator _for_ creating them. If
the groceries' producer was not going to be paid for producing them,
he would not have done so. Therefore, those who pay him for the
groceries are effecting the contribution of the groceries, which they
then rightly own. In the first instance, this may be the employer of
the groceries' physical producers; but of course, he would not have
paid his employees to produce those grocerties unless he was sure
someone was going to buy them. The buyer thus effects the groceries'
production (i.e., contributes them), and in return, gets them.
By contrast, no one created the land, and therefore buying land does
not in any sense effect a contribution of land.
[quote:63956ce357]Does it follow
that if I buy groceries and then feed someone with them, I am not
contributing? Of course I am.
[/quote:63956ce357]
Agreed.
[quote:63956ce357]Similarly, landlords contribute. They buy
land and then rent it.
[/quote:63956ce357]
The landlord qua landlord contributes nothing, because the land was
already there with no help from him or any previous owner -- _un_like
the groceries, which had to be produced by labor. And the groceries
were produced by someone's labor _in_order_to_be_sold_ to a buyer.
The land was not produced by anyone's labor, and was there before any
human being even existed. The landowner therefore contributes nothing
whatever, and merely exacts a payment from others for what was already
there with no help from him.
[quote:63956ce357]The land was already there.
The groceries were already there.
[/quote:63956ce357]
?? No, of course they weren't. What on earth do you imagine you
think you might be talking about? Groceries are produced by labor.
Before that labor was performed, they did not exist. I'm not sure
what is so hard to understand about that. They were created by the
labor of people who expected to be paid for performing that labor.
Land was not created by anyone's labor, and its owners simply exact a
payment for not interfering with their tenants' use of what nature
provided for free.
[quote:63956ce357]The
buying just transfers the privilege of collecting something for
nothing (the rent) from A to B.
But it's not for nothing, since the land was bought and paid for with
money.
[/quote:63956ce357]
No, it is exactly for nothing, because the land would have been there
anyway, without any need for buying with money. The fact that the
owner had to pay someone else for the privilege of collecting
something for nothing does not mean it isn't still something for
nothing. The fact that owning the land allows one to collect income
in return for no contribution is exactly what makes the land so
vauable! Duh.
Anyway, 150 years ago, slaves were also bought and paid for with
money. Does that mean their owners were "contributing" something by
buying them? If government were in the business of issuing licenses
to steal (other than land titles, that is...), people would buy and
pay for them with money. Would that mean they were making a
contribution in return for the money they subsequently stole?
[quote:63956ce357]The statement that landlords do not contribute is false, exploded.
[/quote:63956ce357]
No, in fact it is true, self-evident, and indisputable, as proved
(again) above. However, you have so far refused to know the fact that
products of labor must be produced by labor, while land exists without
having to be produced by anyone's labor. You are consequently unable
to know the fact that the landowner is not contributing anything by
buying land that was already there when his ancestors were still
living in trees.
[quote:63956ce357]What
you are left with is some quite different claim, that some landlord,
some time ago, possibly even dead now, did not contribute to somebody.
[/quote:63956ce357]
No. No landowner ever contributes anything qua landowner, because the
land was already there, and was not created by him or any previous
owner. Conspicuously _un_like groceries and other products of labor.
Until you consent to know these self-evident and indisputable facts of
objective reality, you will remain unable to understand anything
whatever of economics.
[quote:63956ce357]And so the
theory that the landlord did not contribute is thereby exploded.
It is not a theory. It is an indisputable fact. The land would have
been there anyway, therefore the landowner did not contribute it.
And the money that you earn on your job would have been there anyway,
so you did not contribute it.
[/quote:63956ce357]
That is correct. I did not contribute the money. The money is paid
to me for what I _do_ contribute, and is nothing but a medium of
exchange created, effectively, by government -- a place-holder for the
goods and services I will buy with the products of my labor. But
government did not create the land. It only issued titles to what was
already there. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that.
[quote:63956ce357]Nevertheless you earned the land you
bought just as you earned the money you were paid.
[/quote:63956ce357]
No. As land is not produced by labor, there is no way to earn it by
labor. The money I am paid for my labor is just a convenient
place-holder for the goods and services (all products of labor) that I
will acquire from others in return for the products of my labor. As
land is not produced by labor, the landowner is not engaged in a
labor-for-labor exchange. He is just buying a license to steal, which
obviously cannot be earned, just as paying for a slave cannot earn
ownership of a slave.
[quote:63956ce357]The groceries you
buy with the money you earn, and the rent you receive with the land you
earn.
[/quote:63956ce357]
You cannot earn land, as you can never acquire it by trading the
products of your labor for the products of another's labor. _Un_like
grocerties. Land therefore cannot be earned. It can only be
appropriated.
[quote:63956ce357]Case closed.
The case you are trying to build against landowners, works equally well
(equally poorly, that is) against anyone who works for money.
[/quote:63956ce357]
Totally disproved above. However, you will be unable to understand
that fact of objective reality as long as you refuse to know the fact
that products of labor are contributed by their producers, but land is
a natural resource that no one produced, that existed long before
anyone owned it, and therefore _cannot_ have been contributed by the
landowner or anyone else.
[quote:63956ce357]The entire community contributes to the growth in land value, yet only
the land owner gets to pocked this increase.
Not if he bought the land when it was already valuable.
It could not matter less how much he paid for it.
Yes it matters.
[/quote:63956ce357]
No, it does not, any more than it matters if you pay $100 for a
license to steal or $1000. You are not contributing anything by
buying the license. You just pay for the privilege of pocketing the
fruits of others' labor without having to make any contribution in
return. It is exactly the same with land.
[quote:63956ce357]It is simple arithmetic. If he paid the price of the
land after it increased, then he did not pocket the increase.
[/quote:63956ce357]
I didn't say he pocketed the increase. Obviously, the former owner
did.
[quote:63956ce357]This is
basic arithmetic, and you blew it completely. You are at the level of
not being able to add one plus one.
[/quote:63956ce357]
<sigh> See above. Say you pay $100 for a government-issued license
to steal in a certain area. There aren't very many people there, they
don't have a lot of stuff worth stealing, and they are ornery, so the
license is only worth $100 on the open market.
The community then changes over time: more people arrive, they are
richer and easier to steal from. Now your license is worth $1000 on
the open market, and you sell it to someone else for that amount.
There is no doubt that you have pocketed an asset-value increase
created by the community; but does the fact that the buyer paid the
market price for the license mean he is somehow making a contribution
in return for the stuff he subsequently steals?
Please try to understand:
[quote:63956ce357]What he bought was
simply the privilege of collecting the rent in return for doing
nothing.
[/quote:63956ce357]
Such privileges are valuable; of course they are! But paying A for
the privilege of violating B's rights is not the same as paying B a
mutually agreed amount for the loss he will suffer as a result of that
violation.
[quote:63956ce357]But now you are talking about something that increases in market value
over time. That happens with human capital as well: if you are good at
some field, like some field of math or of physics or whatever, then
market conditions may change which make your knowledge much more
valuable than it was before. You did not create that growth in the
value of your own knowledge: it was the entire community.
?? What are you talking about?
If that went over your head, then there's really nothing I can do to
help you.
[/quote:63956ce357]
ROTFL! That ridiculous bit of drivel didn't go over my head. It hit
my foot and I stomped on it. I notice you snipped, without responding
to it, my total demolition of it.
So I will repeat that demolition, now:
You can't sell your knowledge or collect rent for it. It is only
useful if you use it to _produce_ something of value. By contrast,
the landowner's land yields him rent without his having to produce or
contribute anything.
Capisci?
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:32 pm |
|
|
|
|
On 25 Oct 2005 07:03:01 -0500, Wm James
<wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote:
[quote:b37b09ddb6]On 13 Oct 2005 01:18:19 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
Wm James wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 07:37:23 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
While with perect competion labour may well be able to command it's
entire contribution to production as it's wage, economic Rents on both
natural and artificialy created scarce inputs skews the normal market
price mechanism, allowing Rent seekers to draw unearned income from the
productive cycle.
Unearned? According to who?
According to who? Pretty much every single economist who has considered
the issue, including the likes of David Ricardo.
His opinion matters only when he's selling his labor or spending his
money. Otherwise, it means squat.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
At least, unlike yours, it is a reasoned and informed one...
[quote:b37b09ddb6]Please explain how a landlord in a large city, undertaking identical
toil and trouble as a landlord in a small town, nonetheless collects
far larger Rents, for what is the same effort.
The value is determined by the willing buyer.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
No, it isn't.
[quote:b37b09ddb6]Your taking offense at
reality doesn't change reality.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
<yawn> Back atcha, pal...
[quote:b37b09ddb6]Economic Rent is by definition unearned.
Nonsense.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
Depends on the definition of "economic rent." Certainly classical
rent (the return to ownership of natural resources) is unearned.
[quote:b37b09ddb6]If someone can't get a buyer at the
price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high, he's asking
more than it's value. It doesn't matter why. If you can't get anyone
to pay you more than 10 cents an hour, then your labor is only worth
10 cents per hour.
You appear to be under the delusion that we operate in an environement
of perfect competition. We do not. State intervention in the market
creates barriers to competition in the form of the Land and Money
Monopolies, Intellectual Property, Tarrifs and all sorts of other
barriers to competition.
You are certianly living under the illusion that you are more
qualified to determine the value of something that are those spending
their own money for it.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
That is a lie. He made no such claim for his personal opinion of
value.
[quote:b37b09ddb6]Of course those things affect price! So
what? That doesn't alter value.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
Then you agree that altering the price does not alter the value?
[quote:b37b09ddb6]If someone can't get a buyer at the
price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high, he's asking
more than it's value.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
Wrong. There may be many reasons he can't get a buyer, such as that
buying the item is against the law. That does not mean the item has
no value.
[quote:b37b09ddb6]It doesn't matter why.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
Yes, it most certainly does.
[quote:b37b09ddb6]If you can't get anyone
to pay you more than 10 cents an hour, then your labor is only worth
10 cents per hour.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
False. The law may directly or indirectly forbid paying him more.
[quote:b37b09ddb6]If that's because your work is so poor or because
there are a thousand others willing to work cheap, or because no one
has enough money to pay you any more, that's just tough.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
You have not addressed the relevant cause: government policy.
[quote:b37b09ddb6]That's all
it's worth. The value of anything is determined by the ability to find
a buyer, nothing more.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
False, as proved above.
[quote:b37b09ddb6]If I'm the only person willing to pay you as
much as 10 cents, it doesn't matter what I get for the product. If I
sell the product I paid you 10 cents to produce and I make a million
dollars from it, then that's my money, my business, and you are only
entitled to the 10 cents agreed upon by the seller and the buyer.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
And if government forbids him to sell the item for more than 10 cents,
but allows you to do so....?
[quote:b37b09ddb6]If
I only get 5 cents for it, that's my problem, you are still entitled
to the 10 cents we agree upon. If you don't like the deal, if you
think your labor is worth more, then you are free not to sell to me.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
Free to starve is not free.
[quote:b37b09ddb6]You are free to invest in the tools and put leather to the road making
contacts and make whatever you can without selling your labor to
someone else.
[/quote:b37b09ddb6]
Unless he has the right to use natural resources for his own
productive purposes on the same basis as anyone else, he is _not_ free
to invest, to work, or even to live.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Wm James |
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 14 Oct 2005 09:41:56 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
[quote:8f0d5b1abc]
Quirk wrote:
Ricardo certainly believed it was unearned, as his theory
of Rent illustrates.
Declaring rent to be unearned income is a categorical decision, but
shouldn't have moral weight.
Do you have a quote where he indicates he thinks unearned income
is proper, justified, necessary and not exploitive for us to discuss?
Ricardo says: "It is only, then, because land is not unlimited in
quantity and uniform in quality, and because in the progress of
population, land of an inferior quality, or less advantageously
situated, is called into cultivation, that rent is ever paid for the
use of it."
[/quote:8f0d5b1abc]
Anything rented is of value to the renter only because he has a desire
to use it for the unit of time he's willing to pay. It doesn't have
to be a house or apartment. It's no different for a U-Haul or a motel
room, or a ticket to Disneyland. In that regard, labor is often
rented as well. Not all jobs involve production. A security guard is
often rented, produces nothing tangable of value, and in may cases
doesn't have to actually do anything except on rare occasion other
than spend the alloted time even if only on display for potential
criminals. Prostitutes may only have to be there as well. They are
rented. Any employee working by the hour is renting his time, not his
labor. How many get bonuses or pay deductions based on production?
Virtually none. They rent their time, and their time is of value to
the renter only because they agree to spend it being at least some
minimum level of productivity.
What's the problem with renting anyway? Why do kooks think it's a
problem? Because they buy the nonsense that all value comes from
labor? Such silliness would mean that gold has no value, clean water,
fresh air, and all used products have none either? We might as well
hunt bald egal and spotted owl, huh? It's not like wildlive is worth
anything! :)
William R. James |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Wm James |
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 14 Oct 2005 11:34:06 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
[quote:2c7b92f974]The question was "Who says it's unearned?"
I am saying that rent and interest are commonly held to be unearned
because they aren't a result of labor. But, I think that you are
implying that rent is also undeserved (an alternative definition of
unearned).
[/quote:2c7b92f974]
When labor is traded for something, the value doesn't disappear into
the air, it's represented by the object traded. If I save the fruiot
of my labor and buy a house, then that house represents the labor
traded for it, and it can be traded as well. It doesn't matter if the
labor was traded direct for cash or labor transfered to an object like
a home and then traded for cash or even for a unit of time for cash.
It doesn't even matter if it's passed on to someone else to when
trades it in such ways. It's earned by labor not wasted, but turned
into increasingly valueable units.
William R. James |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Wm James |
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:07:23 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:
[quote:290f995735]On 12 Oct 2005 21:47:07 -0500, Wm James
wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 07:37:23 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
Wm James wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 13:35:33 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
Doesn't this mean that the Financial system is inherently at odds with
wage levels? Is it wise to systemicaly model Capital formation in such
a way that personal income reduction is more profitable to the
financial elite than personal savings?
You are thinking of wages as if there's something special
about the price of labor placing it outside the relm of
supply and demand. There isn't.
While with perect competion labour may well be able to command it's
entire contribution to production as it's wage, economic Rents on both
natural and artificialy created scarce inputs skews the normal market
price mechanism, allowing Rent seekers to draw unearned income from the
productive cycle.
Unearned? According to who?
Benefits obtained in return for no contribution are by definition
unearned.
[/quote:290f995735]
If nothing is contributed, what is rented? If I have a house, and
instead of using it myself, I contribute it to your benefit for a unit
of time, I have earned the price of the rent.
[quote:290f995735]If someone can't get a buyer at the
price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high, he's asking
more than it's value. It doesn't matter why. If you can't get anyone
to pay you more than 10 cents an hour, then your labor is only worth
10 cents per hour. If that's because your work is so poor or because
there are a thousand others willing to work cheap, or because no one
has enough money to pay you any more, that's just tough.
Or because government effectively forbids a higher wage....?
-- Roy L
[/quote:290f995735]
Not quite, but that's a good point. Government price controls are
really little more than a ban on sales. If I have something and am not
willing to part with it for under $100, and government sets a maximum
price at $50, then I don't part with it. It's still valued at $100 by
me, and perhaps a willing buyer, those conditions set the value, but
the trade is not allowed. Would you go to work tomorrow if government
set your allowed wage to 10 cents an hour? I doubt that you would.
Same thing. Having said that, price controls generally do not stop
all sales, but they do have other effects. Look at the silly nonsense
faced by landlords in New York, for example. It might have seemed
like a good idea when it started to prevent familied of soldiers
fighting in WWII from being evicted, but it's turned into a farce.
But it all boils down to the two parties being willing to trade or
not. If either is not willing then the trade doesn't happen. Why they
aren't willing might be important, but it's another issue.
William R. James |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Wm James |
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 14 Oct 2005 15:43:46 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
[quote:091df298b2]That the current big city landlord bought the rights to this
unearned income fromsome previous landlord, doesn't make this
income any more earned.
[/quote:091df298b2]
If you ever owned a property then you'd know better. A landlord
provides ("contributes", if you wish) land, a building, maintainance,
pays the taxes, deals with the headaches, the BS from nutcases
including some of the renters and their families, and has to deal with
problems like utilities, parking spaces, and a thousand other things
the owner of a building has to worry with including the crime rates.
More important that perhaps all that, the landlord accepts the risk
the renter doesn't want. If the place loses value, the landlord takes
the loss. If some idiot falls on the sidewalk and wants someone else
to blame, the landlord gets sued, not the renter. If a hurricane or
earthquake or fire destroys the building, the landlord loses his
building while the renter walks away. If criminals take over the
neighborhood making the problerty undesirable then it's the landlord
who gets stuck holding the bill while the renter moves to a better
neighborhood. Rental property is a business like any other. The
landlord ears his money like any other working stiff, working a lot
harder and longer than some whining socialist who goes home at 5
o'clock.
William R. James |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quirk |
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Wm James wrote:
[quote:d8b3956e5a]If I have something and am not
willing to part with it for under $100, and government sets a maximum
price at $50, then I don't part with it. It's still valued at $100 by
me, and perhaps a willing buyer, those conditions set the value, but
the trade is not allowed.
[/quote:d8b3956e5a]
ROTFL!
And how does this relate to your earlier claim: "If someone can't get a
buyer at the price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high,
he's asking more than it's value."
These pro-exploitation trolls are really getting more and more
hillarious.
When a seller of goods or capital is unable to get the value for his
product, "the trade is not allowed" but the property retains it's value
because of an imaginary willing buyer at the "real" price.
But a worker being unable to earn the value of his labour is a
situation that is denied out of hand, because the price of labour is
deemed to be the value of labour!
In otherwords, market inefficiencies can only be considered when they
negatively impact a return to Land or Capital.
Rightard doublethink in a nutshell. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Wm James |
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 26 Oct 2005 05:00:22 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
[quote:ac3143e82f]Wm James wrote:
If I have something and am not
willing to part with it for under $100, and government sets a maximum
price at $50, then I don't part with it. It's still valued at $100 by
me, and perhaps a willing buyer, those conditions set the value, but
the trade is not allowed.
ROTFL!
And how does this relate to your earlier claim: "If someone can't get a
buyer at the price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high,
he's asking more than it's value."
[/quote:ac3143e82f]
If someone can't get the price they want then they are asking more
than the value. If they can, but aren't allowed to, then that's a
different issue. Sorry I posted without considering your
comprehension problems.
[quote:ac3143e82f]These pro-exploitation trolls are really getting more and more
hillarious.
[/quote:ac3143e82f]
As is your inability to folow a simple discussion.
[quote:ac3143e82f]When a seller of goods or capital is unable to get the value for his
product, "the trade is not allowed" but the property retains it's value
because of an imaginary willing buyer at the "real" price.
[/quote:ac3143e82f]
The value is determined by the ability to find a willing buyer.
Whether of not the willing buyer and or seller is allowed to make the
trade is an important but unrelated issue. Have your legal guardian
explain it to you.
[quote:ac3143e82f]But a worker being unable to earn the value of his labour is a
situation that is denied out of hand, because the price of labour is
deemed to be the value of labour!
[/quote:ac3143e82f]
The value is determined by finding a willing buyer. If no one is
willing to trade more than 10 cents an hour for your labor, than
that's all your labor is worth. It doesn't matter what you are asking
unless it's under 10 cents an hour.
[quote:ac3143e82f]In otherwords, market inefficiencies can only be considered when they
negatively impact a return to Land or Capital.
Rightard doublethink in a nutshell.
[/quote:ac3143e82f]
Learn to read and stop making a fool of yourself... if you can.
William R. James |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Wm James |
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:58:25 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:
[quote:5ff96ae86a]On 25 Oct 2005 17:55:03 -0500, Wm James
wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 15:43:46 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
That the current big city landlord bought the rights to this
unearned income fromsome previous landlord, doesn't make this
income any more earned.
If you ever owned a property then you'd know better.
Quirk is much more knowledgeable about this issue than you.
[/quote:5ff96ae86a]
No, but he is apparently among your peers. I passed the real estate
licence test in 1980. How about you, kid?
[quote:5ff96ae86a]A landlord
provides ("contributes", if you wish) land,
How can he be contributing what was already there, with no help from
him?
[/quote:5ff96ae86a]
How can a jeweler contribute gold which existed since the supernova
which created it? Does General Motors contribute steel? Does the
water company contribute water? Are you really too dense to
comprehend this?
[quote:5ff96ae86a]See? As I said, Quirk understands this issue much better than you.
Until you are willing to know that fact, you will be unable to learn
anything about it.
[/quote:5ff96ae86a]
You are unqualified to teach.
[quote:5ff96ae86a]a building, maintainance,
pays the taxes, deals with the headaches, the BS from nutcases
including some of the renters and their families, and has to deal with
problems like utilities, parking spaces, and a thousand other things
the owner of a building has to worry with including the crime rates.
The landlord contributes the building, and services such as you
describe. But the majority of the money his tenants give him is
typically (not always) for use of the land, which was already there
with no help from the landlord or any previous owner.
[/quote:5ff96ae86a]
Never been a landlord, huh? It's obvious. In fact it's VERY obvious
that you've never been even remotely associated with real estate.
Most landlords are investors, they buy and pay notes which are less
than the rent they take in after taxes, and after insurance and after
maintainance, and after hiring anyone they have to hire to worry with
all the crap landlords have to handle. If you can buy a house at 6%
then the investment is only good if you can get better than other
investments on the return AFTER paying all those bills AND AFTER
accounting for the time and trouble you have to put into it. What
that means is simple. If you have $1,000,000 dollars then you can put
it into a VERY safe mutual fund and make 5% or better. That's a cool
$50K per year with no work for life. Or you can use it as a down
payment of 5% on a $20,000,000 property. The notes would be around
$6,320 if the mortgage is 7% So make a profit at all you'd have to
take in a minimum of $6,320 PLUS all the expenses including
depreciation, inclusing maintainance, and including paying any
management. But that's just the begining! To make it worth the
trouble, you have to make that taking into account the 5% you'd make
doing nothing. If you can make 5% doing nothing vs 6% putting up with
the crap and higher risk, then the 5% is the better investment.
[quote:5ff96ae86a]More important that perhaps all that, the landlord accepts the risk
the renter doesn't want.
Garbage. Landowning is one of the least risky things he can do with
his money:
[/quote:5ff96ae86a]
Nonsense! And further proof that you are clueless.
[quote:5ff96ae86a]"The most comfortable, but also the the most unproductive, way for a
capitalist to increase his fortune is to put all his monies in sites
and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has
to pay his price." -- Andrew CArnegie
If the place loses value, the landlord takes
the loss.
??? Land appreciates.
[/quote:5ff96ae86a]
Sometimes. And sometimes not. That's one risk. Buildings more often
depreciate.
[quote:5ff96ae86a]If some idiot falls on the sidewalk and wants someone else
to blame, the landlord gets sued, not the renter. If a hurricane or
earthquake or fire destroys the building, the landlord loses his
building while the renter walks away.
The renter loses his belongings and even if insured, suffers a major
disruption of his life, possibly his income, etc. The owner almost
certainly has insurance, and suffers hardly at all. He my even profit
by it.
[/quote:5ff96ae86a]
Rarely. Usually the renter losing little or nothing and the landlord
loses a fortune. That's why the landlord usualy has at least some
insurance and why rentere usualy have little or none.
[quote:5ff96ae86a]If criminals take over the
neighborhood making the problerty undesirable then it's the landlord
who gets stuck holding the bill while the renter moves to a better
neighborhood.
After his wounds heal, that is....
[/quote:5ff96ae86a]
Your cluelessness is noted.
[quote:5ff96ae86a]Rental property is a business like any other.
No it is not, because the bulk of its revenue is obtained in return
for use of a natural resource that the business owns, but does not
contribute.
[/quote:5ff96ae86a]
Your cluelessness is noted.
[quote:5ff96ae86a]The
landlord ears his money like any other working stiff, working a lot
harder and longer than some whining socialist who goes home at 5
o'clock.
Flat false:
"The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed
seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy
whereby he will extract from her the third nettle, and call it rent."
-- Thomas Carlyle
-- Roy L
[/quote:5ff96ae86a]
Your sily irrelevant nonsense is noted.
William R. James |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
|
On 1 Nov 2005 22:25:06 -0600, Wm James <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org>
wrote:
[quote:05a1d4acc3]On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:58:25 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005 17:55:03 -0500, Wm James
wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 15:43:46 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
That the current big city landlord bought the rights to this
unearned income fromsome previous landlord, doesn't make this
income any more earned.
If you ever owned a property then you'd know better.
Quirk is much more knowledgeable about this issue than you.
No,
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
Yes, as proved below.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]but he is apparently among your peers. I passed the real estate
licence test in 1980. How about you, kid?
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
ROTFL!! And you think that qualifies you to discuss land economics?
Think again.
Quirk knows far more about this subject than you, and I know far more
about it than he.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]A landlord
provides ("contributes", if you wish) land,
How can he be contributing what was already there, with no help from
him?
How can a jeweler contribute gold which existed since the supernova
which created it?
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
The gold ore in the ground existed already, not the gold mined and
refined by human labor. The jeweler pays the refined gold's producer
_for_ producing it, and thus is effecting its production
("contributing" it).
[quote:05a1d4acc3]Does General Motors contribute steel?
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
Yes, because the steel did not exist in nature. So _someone_ had to
contribute it. Conspicuously unlike land.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]Does the
water company contribute water?
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
It purifies and transports pre-existing water. The _improvement_ of
the resource is what it contributes. Not the resource itself.
Likewise, the improvements are what the landowner contributes, not the
land.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]Are you really too dense to
comprehend this?
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
No. But you are.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]See? As I said, Quirk understands this issue much better than you.
Until you are willing to know that fact, you will be unable to learn
anything about it.
You are unqualified to teach.
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
See above. I am very well qualified to teach, and have done so
professionally. You are not yet qualified to learn, because you are
unwilling to know any facts of objective reality that contradict your
false beliefs.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]a building, maintainance,
pays the taxes, deals with the headaches, the BS from nutcases
including some of the renters and their families, and has to deal with
problems like utilities, parking spaces, and a thousand other things
the owner of a building has to worry with including the crime rates.
The landlord contributes the building, and services such as you
describe. But the majority of the money his tenants give him is
typically (not always) for use of the land, which was already there
with no help from the landlord or any previous owner.
Never been a landlord, huh? It's obvious.
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
Please explain how my having been a landlord could change the facts of
objective reality so that the landowner somehow contributed land that
was there before any human being existed.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]In fact it's VERY obvious
that you've never been even remotely associated with real estate.
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
Wrong, as usual. I have worked with major developers as well as
retail real estate sales people.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]Most landlords are investors, they buy and pay notes which are less
than the rent they take in after taxes, and after insurance and after
maintainance, and after hiring anyone they have to hire to worry with
all the crap landlords have to handle.
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
Irrelevant. The fact that owning rent collection privileges is a
business with all the usual financial trappings does not change the
fact that buying and owning land does not increase the amount of it in
existence.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]If you can buy a house at 6%
then the investment is only good if you can get better than other
investments on the return AFTER paying all those bills AND AFTER
accounting for the time and trouble you have to put into it. What
that means is simple. If you have $1,000,000 dollars then you can put
it into a VERY safe mutual fund and make 5% or better. That's a cool
$50K per year with no work for life. Or you can use it as a down
payment of 5% on a $20,000,000 property. The notes would be around
$6,320 if the mortgage is 7% So make a profit at all you'd have to
take in a minimum of $6,320 PLUS all the expenses including
depreciation, inclusing maintainance, and including paying any
management. But that's just the begining! To make it worth the
trouble, you have to make that taking into account the 5% you'd make
doing nothing. If you can make 5% doing nothing vs 6% putting up with
the crap and higher risk, then the 5% is the better investment.
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
All this song and dance means is that landowning must compete with
other investment vehicles. It does not change the fact that the
landowner is merely paying for a privilege, and qua landowner is not
contributing anything whatever. All the same sorts of calculations
would go on if the business was based on, say, licenses to steal
instead of land titles (that is what economists mean by "rent seeking
behavior"). And in fact, a land title is nothing more than a
government-granted and -enforced license to steal by depriving others
of their liberty to use a natural resource.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]More important that perhaps all that, the landlord accepts the risk
the renter doesn't want.
Garbage. Landowning is one of the least risky things he can do with
his money:
Nonsense! And further proof that you are clueless.
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
It is fact. You are completely ignorant. Unlike you, Andrew Carnegie
understood something about the real estate "industry":
"The most comfortable, but also the the most unproductive, way for a
capitalist to increase his fortune is to put all his monies in sites
and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has
to pay his price." -- Andrew Carnegie
Learn it, or continue to be an ignoramus.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]If the place loses value, the landlord takes
the loss.
??? Land appreciates.
Sometimes. And sometimes not. That's one risk. Buildings more often
depreciate.
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
<sigh> No. Land almost _always_ appreciates over the long term (the
only significant exceptions are cases where it subsides into the
ocean, etc.), and buildings _almost_ always depreciate.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]If some idiot falls on the sidewalk and wants someone else
to blame, the landlord gets sued, not the renter. If a hurricane or
earthquake or fire destroys the building, the landlord loses his
building while the renter walks away.
The renter loses his belongings and even if insured, suffers a major
disruption of his life, possibly his income, etc. The owner almost
certainly has insurance, and suffers hardly at all. He my even profit
by it.
Rarely.
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
Hehe. Often enough that insurance companies investigate commercial
building fires _very_ carefully.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]Usually the renter losing little or nothing and the landlord
loses a fortune.
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
That is just a flat-out lie. The landlord rarely loses any
significant amount of money, while tenants often suffer a severe
financial blow that takes them years to recover from.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]That's why the landlord usualy has at least some
insurance and why rentere usualy have little or none.
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
ROTFL!! Your claims continue to be idiotic.
The fact is, the landlord's losses are more _insurable_ than the
tenant's. The tenant's loss of personal effects, social network in
the neighborhood, etc. are not insurable. Buildings are often
over-insured and land under-assessed, so the landowner pockets the
insurance settlement, sells the land, and walks away with a tidy
profit.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]If criminals take over the
neighborhood making the problerty undesirable then it's the landlord
who gets stuck holding the bill while the renter moves to a better
neighborhood.
After his wounds heal, that is....
Your cluelessness is noted.
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
Uh, Captain Clueless? What is it that would make the property
undesirable, hmmmm? Think hard. Take a couple of months off work.
You'll need them.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]Rental property is a business like any other.
No it is not, because the bulk of its revenue is obtained in return
for use of a natural resource that the business owns, but does not
contribute.
Your cluelessness is noted.
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
I have identified the facts. You refuse to know them. Simple.
[quote:05a1d4acc3]The
landlord ears his money like any other working stiff, working a lot
harder and longer than some whining socialist who goes home at 5
o'clock.
Flat false:
"The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed
seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy
whereby he will extract from her the third nettle, and call it rent."
-- Thomas Carlyle
Your sily irrelevant nonsense is noted.
[/quote:05a1d4acc3]
You seem to be becoming uncomfortable with the fact that you are a
servant of Evil. Good.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Wm James |
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 1:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:32:26 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:
[quote:b536aefdb6]On 25 Oct 2005 07:03:01 -0500, Wm James
wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote:
On 13 Oct 2005 01:18:19 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
Wm James wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 07:37:23 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
While with perect competion labour may well be able to command it's
entire contribution to production as it's wage, economic Rents on both
natural and artificialy created scarce inputs skews the normal market
price mechanism, allowing Rent seekers to draw unearned income from the
productive cycle.
Unearned? According to who?
According to who? Pretty much every single economist who has considered
the issue, including the likes of David Ricardo.
His opinion matters only when he's selling his labor or spending his
money. Otherwise, it means squat.
At least, unlike yours, it is a reasoned and informed one...
[/quote:b536aefdb6]
Apparently no more reasoned or informed than yours, which isn't saying
much for either of you.
[quote:b536aefdb6]Please explain how a landlord in a large city, undertaking identical
toil and trouble as a landlord in a small town, nonetheless collects
far larger Rents, for what is the same effort.
The value is determined by the willing buyer.
No, it isn't.
[/quote:b536aefdb6]
It is, and that fact isn't affected by your belief in it.
[quote:b536aefdb6]Your taking offense at
reality doesn't change reality.
yawn> Back atcha, pal...
Economic Rent is by definition unearned.
Nonsense.
Depends on the definition of "economic rent." Certainly classical
rent (the return to ownership of natural resources) is unearned.
[/quote:b536aefdb6]
In the opinion of the ignorant, perhaps. But here in the real world,
property doesn't get defined by whether marxist kooks think the owner
should own it.
[quote:b536aefdb6]If someone can't get a buyer at the
price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high, he's asking
more than it's value. It doesn't matter why. If you can't get anyone
to pay you more than 10 cents an hour, then your labor is only worth
10 cents per hour.
You appear to be under the delusion that we operate in an environement
of perfect competition. We do not. State intervention in the market
creates barriers to competition in the form of the Land and Money
Monopolies, Intellectual Property, Tarrifs and all sorts of other
barriers to competition.
You are certianly living under the illusion that you are more
qualified to determine the value of something that are those spending
their own money for it.
That is a lie. He made no such claim for his personal opinion of
value.
[/quote:b536aefdb6]
Can't follow the discussion, huh?
[quote:b536aefdb6]Of course those things affect price! So
what? That doesn't alter value.
Then you agree that altering the price does not alter the value?
[/quote:b536aefdb6]
That's what I said.
[quote:b536aefdb6]If someone can't get a buyer at the
price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high, he's asking
more than it's value.
Wrong. There may be many reasons he can't get a buyer, such as that
buying the item is against the law. That does not mean the item has
no value.
[/quote:b536aefdb6]
Already covered that. Do try and keep up. If the law sets a price
unacceptable to either party then the trade is not made or it's made
in opposition to the law on the black market. If the trade is made
then both parties are agreeing on the value.
[quote:b536aefdb6]It doesn't matter why.
Yes, it most certainly does.
[/quote:b536aefdb6]
To you, perhaps. But if you aren't a party in the trade then your
opinion is irrelevant. If you are a party in the trade, then you can
refuse to trade if you dispute the price. Again, it doesn't matter
why.
[quote:b536aefdb6]If you can't get anyone
to pay you more than 10 cents an hour, then your labor is only worth
10 cents per hour.
False. The law may directly or indirectly forbid paying him more.
[/quote:b536aefdb6]
See above.
[quote:b536aefdb6]If that's because your work is so poor or because
there are a thousand others willing to work cheap, or because no one
has enough money to pay you any more, that's just tough.
You have not addressed the relevant cause: government policy.
[/quote:b536aefdb6]
Irrelevant.
[quote:b536aefdb6]That's all
it's worth. The value of anything is determined by the ability to find
a buyer, nothing more.
False, as proved above.
[/quote:b536aefdb6]
Statement of opinion based on ignorance doesn't qualify as proof.
[quote:b536aefdb6]If I'm the only person willing to pay you as
much as 10 cents, it doesn't matter what I get for the product. If I
sell the product I paid you 10 cents to produce and I make a million
dollars from it, then that's my money, my business, and you are only
entitled to the 10 cents agreed upon by the seller and the buyer.
And if government forbids him to sell the item for more than 10 cents,
but allows you to do so....?
[/quote:b536aefdb6]
Irrelevant. If he's not willing to sell than I can't buy. If he is
willing to sell, then he has agreed on the value.
[quote:b536aefdb6]If
I only get 5 cents for it, that's my problem, you are still entitled
to the 10 cents we agree upon. If you don't like the deal, if you
think your labor is worth more, then you are free not to sell to me.
Free to starve is not free.
[/quote:b536aefdb6]
Quite the contrary. Freedom comes with no guarentees. Wild animals
starve all the time. They aren't as safe as a bird in a comfy cage
like socialists want us all to be. Freedom is indeed freedom to
starve. In a free society, no one has to feed you, no one has to pay
you more than you are worth, no one has to support you, pay your
medical bills, make sure you have a roof over your head or wipe your
butt. Free people are responsible for their own well being.
[quote:b536aefdb6]You are free to invest in the tools and put leather to the road making
contacts and make whatever you can without selling your labor to
someone else.
Unless he has the right to use natural resources for his own
productive purposes on the same basis as anyone else, he is _not_ free
to invest, to work, or even to live.
-- Roy L
[/quote:b536aefdb6]
Typical marxist drivle, void of logic, absent reason, just mindless
parroting of failed doctrine. In the real world no two people are
ever equal. There's always someone bord richer, smarter, better
looking, healthier, and or happening to have better opportunities for
a host of reasons. Perhaps instead of wasting your life whining and
moaning about how unfair it is for some other kid to have a bigger
piece of pie, you should just work a little and save and invest so you
and your kid can be hated by the next generation of whiny socialists.
William R. James |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Wm James |
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 26 Oct 2005 05:00:22 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
[quote:1da4d34d3d]Wm James wrote:
If I have something and am not
willing to part with it for under $100, and government sets a maximum
price at $50, then I don't part with it. It's still valued at $100 by
me, and perhaps a willing buyer, those conditions set the value, but
the trade is not allowed.
ROTFL!
And how does this relate to your earlier claim: "If someone can't get a
buyer at the price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high,
he's asking more than it's value."
[/quote:1da4d34d3d]
If someone can't get the price they want then they are asking more
than the value. If they can, but aren't allowed to, then that's a
different issue. Sorry I posted without considering your
comprehension problems.
[quote:1da4d34d3d]These pro-exploitation trolls are really getting more and more
hillarious.
[/quote:1da4d34d3d]
As is your inability to folow a simple discussion.
[quote:1da4d34d3d]When a seller of goods or capital is unable to get the value for his
product, "the trade is not allowed" but the property retains it's value
because of an imaginary willing buyer at the "real" price.
[/quote:1da4d34d3d]
The value is determined by the ability to find a willing buyer.
Whether of not the willing buyer and or seller is allowed to make the
trade is an important but unrelated issue. Have your legal guardian
explain it to you.
[quote:1da4d34d3d]But a worker being unable to earn the value of his labour is a
situation that is denied out of hand, because the price of labour is
deemed to be the value of labour!
[/quote:1da4d34d3d]
The value is determined by finding a willing buyer. If no one is
willing to trade more than 10 cents an hour for your labor, than
that's all your labor is worth. It doesn't matter what you are asking
unless it's under 10 cents an hour.
[quote:1da4d34d3d]In otherwords, market inefficiencies can only be considered when they
negatively impact a return to Land or Capital.
Rightard doublethink in a nutshell.
[/quote:1da4d34d3d]
Learn to read and stop making a fool of yourself... if you can.
William R. James |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Wm James |
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:58:25 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:
[quote:dc72d6550a]On 25 Oct 2005 17:55:03 -0500, Wm James
wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 15:43:46 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
That the current big city landlord bought the rights to this
unearned income fromsome previous landlord, doesn't make this
income any more earned.
If you ever owned a property then you'd know better.
Quirk is much more knowledgeable about this issue than you.
[/quote:dc72d6550a]
No, but he is apparently among your peers. I passed the real estate
licence test in 1980. How about you, kid?
[quote:dc72d6550a]A landlord
provides ("contributes", if you wish) land,
How can he be contributing what was already there, with no help from
him?
[/quote:dc72d6550a]
How can a jeweler contribute gold which existed since the supernova
which created it? Does General Motors contribute steel? Does the
water company contribute water? Are you really too dense to
comprehend this?
[quote:dc72d6550a]See? As I said, Quirk understands this issue much better than you.
Until you are willing to know that fact, you will be unable to learn
anything about it.
[/quote:dc72d6550a]
You are unqualified to teach.
[quote:dc72d6550a]a building, maintainance,
pays the taxes, deals with the headaches, the BS from nutcases
including some of the renters and their families, and has to deal with
problems like utilities, parking spaces, and a thousand other things
the owner of a building has to worry with including the crime rates.
The landlord contributes the building, and services such as you
describe. But the majority of the money his tenants give him is
typically (not always) for use of the land, which was already there
with no help from the landlord or any previous owner.
[/quote:dc72d6550a]
Never been a landlord, huh? It's obvious. In fact it's VERY obvious
that you've never been even remotely associated with real estate.
Most landlords are investors, they buy and pay notes which are less
than the rent they take in after taxes, and after insurance and after
maintainance, and after hiring anyone they have to hire to worry with
all the crap landlords have to handle. If you can buy a house at 6%
then the investment is only good if you can get better than other
investments on the return AFTER paying all those bills AND AFTER
accounting for the time and trouble you have to put into it. What
that means is simple. If you have $1,000,000 dollars then you can put
it into a VERY safe mutual fund and make 5% or better. That's a cool
$50K per year with no work for life. Or you can use it as a down
payment of 5% on a $20,000,000 property. The notes would be around
$6,320 if the mortgage is 7% So make a profit at all you'd have to
take in a minimum of $6,320 PLUS all the expenses including
depreciation, inclusing maintainance, and including paying any
management. But that's just the begining! To make it worth the
trouble, you have to make that taking into account the 5% you'd make
doing nothing. If you can make 5% doing nothing vs 6% putting up with
the crap and higher risk, then the 5% is the better investment.
[quote:dc72d6550a]More important that perhaps all that, the landlord accepts the risk
the renter doesn't want.
Garbage. Landowning is one of the least risky things he can do with
his money:
[/quote:dc72d6550a]
Nonsense! And further proof that you are clueless.
[quote:dc72d6550a]"The most comfortable, but also the the most unproductive, way for a
capitalist to increase his fortune is to put all his monies in sites
and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has
to pay his price." -- Andrew CArnegie
If the place loses value, the landlord takes
the loss.
??? Land appreciates.
[/quote:dc72d6550a]
Sometimes. And sometimes not. That's one risk. Buildings more often
depreciate.
[quote:dc72d6550a]If some idiot falls on the sidewalk and wants someone else
to blame, the landlord gets sued, not the renter. If a hurricane or
earthquake or fire destroys the building, the landlord loses his
building while the renter walks away.
The renter loses his belongings and even if insured, suffers a major
disruption of his life, possibly his income, etc. The owner almost
certainly has insurance, and suffers hardly at all. He my even profit
by it.
[/quote:dc72d6550a]
Rarely. Usually the renter losing little or nothing and the landlord
loses a fortune. That's why the landlord usualy has at least some
insurance and why rentere usualy have little or none.
[quote:dc72d6550a]If criminals take over the
neighborhood making the problerty undesirable then it's the landlord
who gets stuck holding the bill while the renter moves to a better
neighborhood.
After his wounds heal, that is....
[/quote:dc72d6550a]
Your cluelessness is noted.
[quote:dc72d6550a]Rental property is a business like any other.
No it is not, because the bulk of its revenue is obtained in return
for use of a natural resource that the business owns, but does not
contribute.
[/quote:dc72d6550a]
Your cluelessness is noted.
[quote:dc72d6550a]The
landlord ears his money like any other working stiff, working a lot
harder and longer than some whining socialist who goes home at 5
o'clock.
Flat false:
"The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed
seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy
whereby he will extract from her the third nettle, and call it rent."
-- Thomas Carlyle
-- Roy L
[/quote:dc72d6550a]
Your sily irrelevant nonsense is noted.
William R. James |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:37 pm
|
|