 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Abstinence from Consumption |
|
Page 6 of 6 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Wm James |
 Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:32:26 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:
[quote:59717ba2a7]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:59717ba2a7]
Apparently no more reasoned or informed than yours, which isn't saying
much for either of you.
[quote:59717ba2a7]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:59717ba2a7]
It is, and that fact isn't affected by your belief in it.
[quote:59717ba2a7]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:59717ba2a7]
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:59717ba2a7]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:59717ba2a7]
Can't follow the discussion, huh?
[quote:59717ba2a7]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:59717ba2a7]
That's what I said.
[quote:59717ba2a7]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:59717ba2a7]
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:59717ba2a7]It doesn't matter why.
Yes, it most certainly does.
[/quote:59717ba2a7]
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:59717ba2a7]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:59717ba2a7]
See above.
[quote:59717ba2a7]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:59717ba2a7]
Irrelevant.
[quote:59717ba2a7]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:59717ba2a7]
Statement of opinion based on ignorance doesn't qualify as proof.
[quote:59717ba2a7]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:59717ba2a7]
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:59717ba2a7]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:59717ba2a7]
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:59717ba2a7]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:59717ba2a7]
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 |
|
|
|
| Rev. 11D Meow |
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
You are sooooooooooooooo last month.
"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
news:lji3o19gq03n5af9gnfb1rt1mv25k7qief@4ax.com...
[quote:912b73baf6]On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:32:26 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:
[/quote:912b73baf6] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rev. 11D Meow |
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
You are so last month!
"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
news:8ji3o1t622qt4ua84l82g941elq86hdn2b@4ax.com...
[quote:58fd8e8ca7]On 26 Oct 2005 05:00:22 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
[/quote:58fd8e8ca7] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quirk |
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Wow, after almost of month of thinking through his reply, Wm responds!
Wm James wrote:
[quote:85065af236]On 26 Oct 2005 05:14:39 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
Value varies with location. When (if) you ever get out of high
school, get a job, and pay your own bills you'll understand that fact.
[/quote:85065af236]
<yawn>
And if these sorts of playground chides are the best you can do, you
will never graduate from disingenuous rightwing shill school. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:56 pm |
|
|
|
|
I have already refuted this crap, but as Wm has chosen to post it
again, I might as well refute it again.
On 1 Nov 2005 22:25:06 -0600, Wm James <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org>
wrote:
[quote:6891eb60eb]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:6891eb60eb]
Yes, as proved below.
[quote:6891eb60eb]but he is apparently among your peers. I passed the real estate
licence test in 1980. How about you, kid?
[/quote:6891eb60eb]
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:6891eb60eb]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:6891eb60eb]
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:6891eb60eb]Does General Motors contribute steel?
[/quote:6891eb60eb]
Yes, because the steel did not exist in nature. So _someone_ had to
contribute it. Conspicuously unlike land.
[quote:6891eb60eb]Does the
water company contribute water?
[/quote:6891eb60eb]
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:6891eb60eb]Are you really too dense to
comprehend this?
[/quote:6891eb60eb]
No. But you are.
[quote:6891eb60eb]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:6891eb60eb]
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:6891eb60eb]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:6891eb60eb]
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:6891eb60eb]In fact it's VERY obvious
that you've never been even remotely associated with real estate.
[/quote:6891eb60eb]
Wrong, as usual. I have worked with major developers as well as
retail real estate sales people.
[quote:6891eb60eb]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:6891eb60eb]
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:6891eb60eb]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:6891eb60eb]
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:6891eb60eb]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:6891eb60eb]
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:6891eb60eb]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:6891eb60eb]
<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:6891eb60eb]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:6891eb60eb]
Hehe. Often enough that insurance companies investigate commercial
building fires _very_ carefully.
[quote:6891eb60eb]Usually the renter losing little or nothing and the landlord
loses a fortune.
[/quote:6891eb60eb]
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:6891eb60eb]That's why the landlord usualy has at least some
insurance and why rentere usualy have little or none.
[/quote:6891eb60eb]
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:6891eb60eb]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:6891eb60eb]
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:6891eb60eb]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:6891eb60eb]
I have identified the facts. You refuse to know them. Simple.
[quote:6891eb60eb]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:6891eb60eb]
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: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 21 Nov 2005 05:57:28 -0800, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
[quote:ddcd670df4]Wow, after almost of month of thinking through his reply, Wm responds!
Wm James wrote:
On 26 Oct 2005 05:14:39 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
Value varies with location. When (if) you ever get out of high
school, get a job, and pay your own bills you'll understand that fact.
yawn
And if these sorts of playground chides are the best you can do, you
will never graduate from disingenuous rightwing shill school.
[/quote:ddcd670df4]
So you still come up with anything to argue with what I said? As
predicted.
William R. James |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Wm James |
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:56:22 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:
[quote:3e246b3800]I have already refuted this crap, but as Wm has chosen to post it
again, I might as well refute it again.
On 1 Nov 2005 22:25:06 -0600, Wm James <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org
wrote:
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,
Yes, as proved below.
[/quote:3e246b3800]
Obviously, you can't tell mindless rants from proof.
[quote:3e246b3800]but he is apparently among your peers. I passed the real estate
licence test in 1980. How about you, kid?
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:3e246b3800]
You know less than I did in high school. It shows.
[quote:3e246b3800]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?
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:3e246b3800]
Irrelevant. It already existed. It was claimed and inproved, and sold
and can be rented, just like land. And like land, no gold exists
today that didn't exist 1000 years ago.
[quote:3e246b3800]Does General Motors contribute steel?
Yes, because the steel did not exist in nature. So _someone_ had to
contribute it. Conspicuously unlike land.
[/quote:3e246b3800]
Iron would have been a better term. But dodging the point doesn't
address the question.
[quote:3e246b3800]Does the
water company contribute water?
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:3e246b3800]
Wrong. The land is owned. Like bottled water as oppsed to a water
system, it's claimed and sold. I suppose one could rent a bottle of
water...
[quote:3e246b3800]Are you really too dense to
comprehend this?
No. But you are.
[/quote:3e246b3800]
So you don't comprehend it.
[quote:3e246b3800]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.
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:3e246b3800]
Having had the position hardly indicates qualification. Must have been
a public school, huh? Union too, right?
[quote:3e246b3800]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.
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:3e246b3800]
Had you been associated with it, you'd have a little grasp of it.
You'd understand what you were talking about.
[quote:3e246b3800]In fact it's VERY obvious
that you've never been even remotely associated with real estate.
Wrong, as usual. I have worked with major developers as well as
retail real estate sales people.
[/quote:3e246b3800]
Training Walmart greeters doesn't make you a corporate executive. :)
[quote:3e246b3800]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.
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:3e246b3800]
Same for gold, iron, water, etc...
[quote:3e246b3800]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.
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:3e246b3800]
Buying land is like buying anything else of value. The fact they
aren't making any more isn't even relevant. They aren't making any
more Picassos either but that doesn't mean they should be socialised,
that someone renting one to a gallery isn't contributing anything, or
back any other nonsense you are peddling.
[quote:3e246b3800]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.
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
[/quote:3e246b3800]
No need to keep proving you are clueless. Carnegie was right, but
it's certianly not universal, partularly regarding developed land,
partilarly in cities. And right now, buying property is pretty risky.
The housing bubble is close to bursting.
[quote:3e246b3800]Learn it, or continue to be an ignoramus.
[/quote:3e246b3800]
Take your own advise and stop making a fool of yourself.
[quote:3e246b3800]If the place loses value, the landlord takes
the loss.
??? Land appreciates.
Sometimes. And sometimes not. That's one risk. Buildings more often
depreciate.
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:3e246b3800]
ROTFLMAO! Try a typical inner city slum. Or land in annexation
targets of big cities, or even small cities these days. I can take
you to large areas around Memphis where property values took a nose
dive in 1969 and never recovered, some homes abandoned after
construction had already begun. Other areas which have taken similar
dives as the city expanded trying to grab more tax dollars. It's the
same story in many parts of the country. Sure, land apprecietes over
all, but while some rises, others fall. Long term, even what goes up
is falling if it can't keep up with inflation and or other
investments.
[quote:3e246b3800]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.
Hehe. Often enough that insurance companies investigate commercial
building fires _very_ carefully.
[/quote:3e246b3800]
It happens, but isn't the norm by any stretch.
[quote:3e246b3800]Usually the renter losing little or nothing and the landlord
loses a fortune.
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:3e246b3800]
What a crock! When a business burns, insyrance almost never covers the
full costs, which include the business lost while rebuilding.
[quote:3e246b3800]That's why the landlord usualy has at least some
insurance and why rentere usualy have little or none.
ROTFL!! Your claims continue to be idiotic.
[/quote:3e246b3800]
Over your head again, huih?
[quote:3e246b3800]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:3e246b3800]
Yeah, going out of business is so profitable! That's why all the
Walmarts do it, huh?
[quote:3e246b3800]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.
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:3e246b3800]
Usually government. One doesn't have to look or think hard...Well, you
might. Section 8 housing, publc housing, legal action by governments
and by bums preventing landlords from geting rid of problem tenents,
police not doing their job and or not being allowed to do their job
resulting in problem areas, high taxes, overregulation, rent control,
mostly government.
[quote:3e246b3800]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.
I have identified the facts. You refuse to know them. Simple.
[/quote:3e246b3800]
You have yet to even notice a fact or a clue.
[quote:3e246b3800]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.
You seem to be becoming uncomfortable with the fact that you are a
servant of Evil. Good.
-- Roy L
[/quote:3e246b3800]
No, just noting silliness where it's posted.
William R. James |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quirk |
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Wm James wrote:
[quote:7fb1f5081c]So you still come up with anything to argue with what I said? As
predicted.
[/quote:7fb1f5081c]
You didn't say anything. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:40 pm |
|
|
|
|
On 27 Nov 2005 19:12:02 -0600, Wm James
<wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote:
[quote:74d1e43da1]On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:56:22 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:
I have already refuted this crap, but as Wm has chosen to post it
again, I might as well refute it again.
On 1 Nov 2005 22:25:06 -0600, Wm James <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org
wrote:
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:
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?
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).
Irrelevant.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
No, it is central. The gold had to be mined and refined. Unlike
landowners, those who performed that labor made a contribution that
earned their product.
[quote:74d1e43da1]It already existed.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
No. Only the _resource_ existed. The product of labor that the
jeweler contributes most definitely did not, repeat, _not_ already
exist. And the gold ore those products were fashioned from
consequently no longer exists.
Could you explain to me how you are able to prevent yourself from
knowing these self-evident and indisputable facts?
[quote:74d1e43da1]It was claimed
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
"Claiming" contributed absolutely nothing, of course. Claiming is
indeed not much different from stealing.
[quote:74d1e43da1]and inproved, and sold
and can be rented, just like land.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
No, it is not like land, because unlike land, the gold products that
can be rented had to be mined, refined, etc. Gold ore in the ground
is like land, because it is not a product of labor. But the gold a
jeweler contributes to production _is_ a product of labor.
[quote:74d1e43da1]And like land, no gold exists
today that didn't exist 1000 years ago.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
All the gold products that have been produced in the last 1000 years,
including the gold the jeweler contributes, did not exist 1000 years
ago. They had to be contributed by labor.
[quote:74d1e43da1]Does General Motors contribute steel?
Yes, because the steel did not exist in nature. So _someone_ had to
contribute it. Conspicuously unlike land.
Iron would have been a better term. But dodging the point doesn't
address the question.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
The iron GM uses had to be mined, refined, smelted, etc. It is
therefore, unlike land, a product of labor, and has been contributed
by those who were paid for it.
[quote:74d1e43da1]Does the
water company contribute water?
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.
Wrong. The land is owned.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
That is completely irrelevant. Owning land does absolutely nothing to
contribute to production. And demanding money from the productive for
doing nothing is obviously pure parasitism.
[quote:74d1e43da1]Like bottled water as oppsed to a water
system, it's claimed and sold.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
Labor is required to bottle water and to create a water system. No
labor is required to claim or own land.
[quote:74d1e43da1]Are you really too dense to
comprehend this?
No. But you are.
So you don't comprehend it.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
I comprehend it; I also comprehend that you will say absolutely
anything and deny absolutely everything in order to avoid knowing the
self-evident and indisputable fact that products are produced by labor
and natural resources like land are not.
[quote:74d1e43da1]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.
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.
Having had the position hardly indicates qualification. Must have been
a public school, huh? Union too, right?
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
Wrong, like everything else you believe without a shred of evidence.
I've taught in private as well as public schools, and have never
belonged to a union.
[quote:74d1e43da1]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.
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.
Had you been associated with it, you'd have a little grasp of it.
You'd understand what you were talking about.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
You still haven't explained how being a landlord can change the
self-evident and indisputable facts of objective reality to make land
that has existed for millions of years a product of human labor. I'm
waiting. There must be some explanation. You seem to be a landlord,
and being one seems somehow to have convinced you that landlords
produce land that has been there for millions of years. So, how does
being a landlord erase one's knowledge of self-evident and
indisputable facts?
[quote:74d1e43da1]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.
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.
Same for gold, iron, water, etc...
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
The same goes for gold ore in situ, iron ore in situ, water in a
natural lake or river, etc. Right. But not the _products_: refined
gold, pig iron, bottled water, etc.
[quote:74d1e43da1]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.
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.
Buying land is like buying anything else of value.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
No, it is not. If you buy a gold coin or any other product, you are
paying the people who produced it _for_ producing it. You are thus
_adding_ it to the total in existence. When you buy land, by
contrast, you are _not_ paying anyone who produced it, because no one
did. You are therefore not, repeat, _not_ adding it to the total in
existence.
_Capisci_?
[quote:74d1e43da1]The fact they
aren't making any more isn't even relevant.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
The relevant and central fact, which you will obviously do absolutely
anything to evade, is that whoever "they" are, they never made any in
the first place.
[quote:74d1e43da1]They aren't making any
more Picassos either but that doesn't mean they should be socialised,
that someone renting one to a gallery isn't contributing anything, or
back any other nonsense you are peddling.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
The current owner of a Picasso has (possibly very indirectly) paid
Picasso himself for painting it, and the chain of custody can usually
be reconstructed. By contrast, no one has ever, no matter how
indirectly, paid anyone for making land. (In fact, of course, older
artifacts very often _are_ "socialized," and the appropriateness of
doing so is well recognized in both national and international law.)
[quote:74d1e43da1]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.
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
No need to keep proving you are clueless. Carnegie was right,
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
Which proves that _you_ are the clueless one.
[quote:74d1e43da1]but
it's certianly not universal, partularly regarding developed land,
partilarly in cities.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
"Developed" land is not "sites." Developed land has improvements that
will depreciate.
[quote:74d1e43da1]And right now, buying property is pretty risky.
The housing bubble is close to bursting.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
That's right now.
[quote:74d1e43da1]If the place loses value, the landlord takes
the loss.
??? Land appreciates.
Sometimes. And sometimes not. That's one risk. Buildings more often
depreciate.
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.
ROTFLMAO!
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
It is of course fact.
[quote:74d1e43da1]Try a typical inner city slum.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
How much was that land worth 100 years ago?
Fool.
[quote:74d1e43da1]Or land in annexation
targets of big cities, or even small cities these days. I can take
you to large areas around Memphis where property values took a nose
dive in 1969 and never recovered, some homes abandoned after
construction had already begun.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
Oh, really? Tell me about these lots that are worth less now than in
1969. And while you're at it, tell me how much they were going for in
1869...
[quote:74d1e43da1]Other areas which have taken similar
dives as the city expanded trying to grab more tax dollars. It's the
same story in many parts of the country. Sure, land apprecietes over
all, but while some rises, others fall.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
And then rise.
[quote:74d1e43da1]Long term, even what goes up
is falling if it can't keep up with inflation and or other
investments.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
Land far outstrips inflation, and is the most profitable major class
of asset.
[quote:74d1e43da1]Usually the renter losing little or nothing and the landlord
loses a fortune.
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.
What a crock! When a business burns, insyrance almost never covers the
full costs, which include the business lost while rebuilding.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
That's for a _productive_ business. Unlike landowning.
[quote:74d1e43da1]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.
Yeah, going out of business is so profitable!
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
When you sell the land under a long-held business, going out of
business is almost always _very_ profitable.
[quote:74d1e43da1]That's why all the
Walmarts do it, huh?
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
WalMart is the recipient of immense, multi-billion-dollar land value
gifts from gullible and corruptible civic governments. WalMarts can
thus often go out of business and sell out at a profit.
[quote:74d1e43da1]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.
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.
Usually government.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
Nope. Nothing other than unpleasantness inflicted on tenants.
[quote:74d1e43da1]One doesn't have to look or think hard...Well, you
might. Section 8 housing, publc housing, legal action by governments
and by bums preventing landlords from geting rid of problem tenents,
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
Problem tenants are most often an even bigger problem for other
tenants.
[quote:74d1e43da1]police not doing their job and or not being allowed to do their job
resulting in problem areas, high taxes, overregulation, rent control,
mostly government.
[/quote:74d1e43da1]
Nope. Mostly the fact that the place is undesirable _to_tenants_.
_They_ are the ones getting aggravation on the front lines, _not_ the
landlord.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 8:44 am
|
|