[Daktoria]

Good thing government doesn't have to assess those. They just need to assess land values, and that will get most of the rent.

You really can't divide land from land improvement. When government conducts land surveys to evaluate property taxes, this is exactly what people complain about all the time.

The value (of centralization) of a piece of land in a society or economy is entirely subjective. I mean say you have two pieces of land. One has a gold deposit, another does not. How are you going to claim that the one with a gold deposit is worth the same as the one without?

Even if you can claim it, society will not likely follow you because it will believe that land is intrinsically more valuable since it's necessary to access the natural resources underneath.

People can still profit from producing goods and services. That doesn't change at all. It does make absentee ownership untenable, but I'd consider that a good thing. Those who want to maintain private ownership of a business had better at least perform management duties(which is still a form of labor). There would also be greater opportunity for co-ops and self-employment.

No, your equation's made it impossible.

R = GR - K * IPF - e (your "n" is a subscript, not a variable)

R = CF - K

Where CF = cash flow = GR - e

GR - e - K = GR - K * IPF - e

This is mathematically unsound, but I see that the goal is to assign profit to the IPF.

In any case, the IPF is a loan which is no different from expenses. You're saying the only income that a capitalist gets to hold onto is enough to afford the rate of interest afforded on the loan.

As far as I can see, the only way a capitalist could ever retain profit is if it created a shell corporation to constantly lend money to itself at an expected return on investment (or you could do something like in Islamic banking where creditors receive a direct proportion of gross or net income).

And? You could have all these things by applying labor to capital, just as before. What you can't have is any unfair advantage over others by seizing upon some scarce resource and holding it for ransom.

This is completely counterintuitive to all semblance of engineering. You're never going to allow people to design and manufacture machinery because it supposedly takes away jobs. That would be an incredibly primitive society where only those physically endowed with strength and dexterity would succeed.

You say this as if capitalism doesn't pair you with people you'd rather not associate with. The scenario I'm talking about would offer a much greater freedom of association than currently exists.

This is just a brutal assertion.

[Paradigm]

You really can't divide land from land improvement.

Completely and utterly false. Real estate assessors do it all the time. The land value is what's left after a fire. I can even give you the equation for land value.

V = a/(i-g), where V = land value, i = interest, and g = growth factor(annual growth rate of rent)

Or, when we factor in taxes(t), we get: V = a/(i -g+t)

The value (of centralization) of a piece of land in a society or economy is entirely subjective.

So is demand. And yet, it can be assessed based on the demand for living there.

Even if you can claim it, society will not likely follow you because it will believe that land is intrinsically more valuable since it's necessary to access the natural resources underneath.

Yes, access to natural resources improves land value just as access to public transportation does. In fact, the primary factor in land value could be described as access.

This is mathematically unsound, but I see that the goal is to assign profit to the IPF.

Kinda, sorta, not really. IPF fuels the interest rate. IPF * K converts K into a level annual flow of the same present value.

In any case, the IPF is a loan which is no different from expenses. You're saying the only income that a capitalist gets to hold onto is enough to afford the rate of interest afforded on the loan.

It is not an expenditure in itself, but rather modifies K to give you an annualized flow of the same value. As such, IPF is a fraction, which can be roughly approximated as 1/(n+.05). This modifier divides K over a number of years n, to convert a point value into a flow value.

As far as I can see, the only way a capitalist could ever retain profit is if it created a shell corporation to constantly lend money to itself at an expected return on investment (or you could do something like in Islamic banking where creditors receive a direct proportion of gross or net income).

This seems to be based on your heretofore addressed confusion over what IPF represents. I will say, however, that it is indeed true that under such a system, the capitalist notion of profit will indeed see its end when even capital yields no surplus value. But it will do so only by making capital abundant that it has no scarcity value, thus achieving what Keynes famously referred to as the "euthanasia of the rentier."

This is completely counterintuitive to all semblance of engineering. You're never going to allow people to design and manufacture machinery because it supposedly takes away jobs. That would be an incredibly primitive society where only those physically endowed with strength and dexterity would succeed.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever.

This is just a brutal assertion.

As is your own.

[Daktoria]

Completely and utterly false. Real estate assessors do it all the time. The land value is what's left after a fire. I can even give you the equation for land value.

V = a/(i-g), where V = land value, i = interest, and g = growth factor(annual growth rate of rent)

Or, when we factor in taxes(t), we get: V = a/(i -g+t)...

...So is demand. And yet, it can be assessed based on the demand for living there...

...Yes, access to natural resources improves land value just as access to public transportation does. In fact, the primary factor in land value could be described as access.

Yes, demand is subjective. The problem with tax assessment is you're projecting your subjectivity (of appropriate interest, growth factor, initial rent, and natural resource access) upon others. You're objectifying who they are by putting your subjectivity first.

Kinda, sorta, not really. IPF fuels the interest rate. IPF * K converts K into a level annual flow of the same present value...

...It is not an expenditure in itself, but rather modifies K to give you an annualized flow of the same value. As such, IPF is a fraction, which can be roughly approximated as 1/(n+.05). This modifier divides K over a number of years n, to convert a point value into a flow value.

That ".05" factor is very soft and can be manipulated at a whim by government.

It's no different from choosing an alpha level when conducting a statistical survey or setting target interest, inflation, and/or unemployment rates.

This seems to be based on your heretofore addressed confusion over what IPF represents. I will say, however, that it is indeed true that under such a system, the capitalist notion of profit will indeed see its end when even capital yields no surplus value. But it will do so only by making capital abundant that it has no scarcity value, thus achieving what Keynes famously referred to as the "euthanasia of the rentier."

OK.

Why should anyone ever do anything then? You're enslaving everyone to a community people don't necessarily identify with.

(I'm saying this because if I'm wrong about IPF, then I don't see how your equation allows for profit at all. Unless your goal is to bring society to a standstill, I don't see what you could possibly be trying to achieve.)

I mean you have to understand that attention is VERY VERY VERY difficult for some people to acquire, and at that, some people don't realize anywhere close to satisfactory dividends for political capital.

Also, the thing about political capital is it's imaginary. You can't live on it. Only direct equity in industrial capital will guarantee that people will be able to survive and thrive. Otherwise, everything is always on the line, and people can never have any certainty in their projects. Socialism just becomes primitivism.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever.

Well your original statement was, "And? You could have all these things by applying labor to capital, just as before. What you can't have is any unfair advantage over others by seizing upon some scarce resource and holding it for ransom."

Engineering involves creating automated capital where labor does not have to be persistently applied. In turn, that destroys jobs. Also, certain engineering mechanisms require installing scarce resources.

As is your own.

Well how does capitalism impose upon freedom of association?

As far as I see, the problem isn't capital intensity. The problem is population density. Capital doesn't create noise. People create noise.

It's like the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Sorry about the delay btw. I forgot where this thread was in the forum.

[Paradigm]

Yes, demand is subjective. The problem with tax assessment is you're projecting your subjectivity (of appropriate interest, growth factor, initial rent, and natural resource access) upon others. You're objectifying who they are by putting your subjectivity first.

Sorry, but no. We're not just talking about one person's subjectivity, but the dynamics of the market. There are a number of factors which allow one to assess the market demand for the land in a particular area.

That ".05" factor is very soft and can be manipulated at a whim by government.

It's no different from choosing an alpha level when conducting a statistical survey or setting target interest, inflation, and/or unemployment rates.

The ".05" is simply an approximation of interest. I was just trying to simplify something that you're obviously having trouble understanding.

OK.

Why should anyone ever do anything then? You're enslaving everyone to a community people don't necessarily identify with.

WTF are you talking about? How am I enslaving people?

I mean you have to understand that attention is VERY VERY VERY difficult for some people to acquire, and at that, some people don't realize anywhere close to satisfactory dividends for political capital.

Also, the thing about political capital is it's imaginary. You can't live on it. Only direct equity in industrial capital will guarantee that people will be able to survive and thrive. Otherwise, everything is always on the line, and people can never have any certainty in their projects. Socialism just becomes primitivism.

Again, you are making no sense whatsoever. Who said anything about political capital?

Well your original statement was, "And? You could have all these things by applying labor to capital, just as before. What you can't have is any unfair advantage over others by seizing upon some scarce resource and holding it for ransom."

Engineering involves creating automated capital where labor does not have to be persistently applied. In turn, that destroys jobs. Also, certain engineering mechanisms require installing scarce resources.

That's fine, and it may even be that the automation of some industries will help create jobs in other industries. Nothing I'm saying here is opposed to that. What I'm talking about is labor-intensity relative to land-intensity.

Well how does capitalism impose upon freedom of association?

Have you ever had a job where you had to work with people you don't like?

[Daktoria]

Sorry, but no. We're not just talking about one person's subjectivity, but the dynamics of the market. There are a number of factors which allow one to assess the market demand for the land in a particular area.

You're a philosophy scholar.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "ceteris paribus"?

Economics is always begging the question, Paradigm. Yes, you can construct rational choice models with general equilibrium Walrasian Auctioneers based on behavioral or game theory studies.

However, you're always assuming that actors want what you believe they want. You're also assuming they have information and decision making complexity.

The factors in your model: interest, expected rent growth, and natural resource access all fall under this. They assume that people are who you believe they are, and that is something we can never know for certain.

The ".05" is simply an approximation of interest. I was just trying to simplify something that you're obviously having trouble understanding.

No, I understand it perfectly. What you don't understand is you can't just "approximate" things like this because it's hardly simple. Time value of money (or wealth) is completely subject to the internal mental whims of economic actors.

Demand comes from within, not beyond, perspective. Supply comes from beyond, but supply is only realized if it's demanded.

You could flip this around and say demand is only realized if it's supplied, but if you do that, you're begging the question over the existence of people as a discernible set of entities in the universe. The very perspective of sight out of your own eyes would not make sense.

WTF are you talking about? How am I enslaving people?

Do you know why libertarians say taxation = theft and blame it on coercion?

It has to do with everything I've said above about time value of money and approximation. By projecting rates of interest and rent growth, you're forcing people to live certain ways.

This is why where marginalist economics comes in and Marxist theory fails. It isn't average utility, but marginal utility that determines the rates of substitution where people decide to pursue certain opportunities over others.

By playing with these factors, you're forcing marginal utility into certain directions. In particular, you're forcing people's marginal utilities to converge to normalcy, but everyone doesn't want to be normal.

Again, you are making no sense whatsoever. Who said anything about political capital?

Without political capital, community approximation of interest, rent growth, etc. is impossible. Somehow, people's opinions have to matter in defining appropriate parameters.

That's fine, and it may even be that the automation of some industries will help create jobs in other industries. Nothing I'm saying here is opposed to that. What I'm talking about is labor-intensity relative to land-intensity.

Mmmmm....

...in the other thread you referred to how labor intensity is subject to capital turnover.

This is where time value of money comes into play because in defining interest, you're defining an appropriate rate of capital turnover.

I'll get back to you about consumerism in the other thread tomorrow.

Have you ever had a job where you had to work with people you don't like?

Yes, but my employer didn't create my demand for income. My ancestors did. Unless we're talking about when I worked for a family business, how could a third party capitalist be associated with the emotional impulsiveness of my ancestors?

[Paradigm]

You're a philosophy scholar.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "ceteris paribus"?

Economics is always begging the question, Paradigm. Yes, you can construct rational choice models with general equilibrium Walrasian Auctioneers based on behavioral or game theory studies.

However, you're always assuming that actors want what you believe they want. You're also assuming they have information and decision making complexity.

The factors in your model: interest, expected rent growth, and natural resource access all fall under this. They assume that people are who you believe they are, and that is something we can never know for certain.

The problem with your argument is that there is actually a feedback loop here, namely how many people actually choose to live in an area. If your assessments are off, you will see the results and can thereby correct it. And the fact is that real estate assessors are able to make these kind of assessments all the time, with the same kind of data. So no, your argument just doesn't mesh with the facts on the ground.

No, I understand it perfectly. What you don't understand is you can't just "approximate" things like this because it's hardly simple.

No, I understand that perfectly. I was giving a simplistic approximation of what is in reality a more complex formula.

Do you know why libertarians say taxation = theft and blame it on coercion?

As a former right-libertarian(and current left-libertarian), yes, I understand the argument. It is a weak argument given the role of government in creating the nation's money supply, but even if I were to accept it, what the hell does it have to do with this current discussion?

It has to do with everything I've said above about time value of money and approximation. By projecting rates of interest and rent growth, you're forcing people to live certain ways.

Oh, for fuck's sake! These are factors that can be re-assessed on an annual basis, based on the actions of the market. No one is "forcing" you to live in certain ways.

This is why where marginalist economics comes in and Marxist theory fails. It isn't average utility, but marginal utility that determines the rates of substitution where people decide to pursue certain opportunities over others.

By playing with these factors, you're forcing marginal utility into certain directions. In particular, you're forcing people's marginal utilities to converge to normalcy, but everyone doesn't want to be normal.

Pure gibberish. You are totally misconstruing the assessment process.

Without political capital, community approximation of interest, rent growth, etc. is impossible. Somehow, people's opinions have to matter in defining appropriate parameters.

Again, nonsense. Real estate assessors manage to do this all the time. Nothing that exists is impossible.

Mmmmm....

...in the other thread you referred to how labor intensity is subject to capital turnover.

This is where time value of money comes into play because in defining interest, you're defining an appropriate rate of capital turnover.

I don't need to define an appropriate rate of capital turnover. All that needs to be done is tax the rent, and capital turnover will automatically adjust to its appropriate market level. The one thing we can predict is that it will be more rapid than what exists today.

Yes, but my employer didn't create my demand for income. My ancestors did. Unless we're talking about when I worked for a family business, how could a third party capitalist be associated with the emotional impulsiveness of my ancestors?

Eh...what?

[Daktoria]

The problem with your argument is that there is actually a feedback loop here, namely how many people actually choose to live in an area. If your assessments are off, you will see the results and can thereby correct it. And the fact is that real estate assessors are able to make these kind of assessments all the time, with the same kind of data. So no, your argument just doesn't mesh with the facts on the ground.

Nobody chooses to be born.

Also, you don't know how many people will live in an area in the future. You're condemning people to tolerate your margin of error on historical forecasts.

No, I understand that perfectly. I was giving a simplistic approximation of what is in reality a more complex formula.

Why didn't you read my explanation for this the last time?

As a former right-libertarian(and current left-libertarian), yes, I understand the argument. It is a weak argument given the role of government in creating the nation's money supply, but even if I were to accept it, what the hell does it have to do with this current discussion?

As a Keynesian, at the very least, you have to acknowledge the IS-LM curve.

Proscribing interest rate equilibrium is a form of projection. You're forcing people to accept money supply growth at a certain level.

Who's to say whether or not there should be 5 trillion or 10 trillion Dollars in circulation? Who's to say what an appropriate rate of money supply growth is?

You're forcing people to develop at certain rates. What you believe to be appropriate interest could be too fast or too slow for others.

There's also the fact that money supply skews information costs. If you grow the money supply too slowly, people will be condemned to stupidity. If you grow the money supply too quickly, people will be condemned for making the effort to become intelligent.

Oh, for fuck's sake! These are factors that can be re-assessed on an annual basis, based on the actions of the market. No one is "forcing" you to live in certain ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

^ You're changing it "just because". It's no different from might makes right.

You're just ignoring the classic economic calculation problem. There's no need to believe your or anyone else's supposed interest rate is universally appropriate.

I mean if we were in private negotiations, I'd consider your suggestions personally, but this is public policy we're talking about.

Pure gibberish. You are totally misconstruing the assessment process.

How else could community assessment take place aside from political capital?

Again, nonsense. Real estate assessors manage to do this all the time. Nothing that exists is impossible.

Real estate assessors consider community reputation first and foremost when evaluating properties, yes.

It all goes back to what you were saying about centralized land. The reason centralized land is important is because of the attention economy behind it.

I don't need to define an appropriate rate of capital turnover. All that needs to be done is tax the rent, and capital turnover will automatically adjust to its appropriate market level. The one thing we can predict is that it will be more rapid than what exists today.

Why are you so short sighted...

...your taxes are based upon interest and rent growth as we've been talking about.

Eh...what?

What's the problem? You think employers are holding you hostage into working a job?

[Paradigm]

Nobody chooses to be born.

This is not an argument.

Also, you don't know how many people will live in an area in the future. You're condemning people to tolerate your margin of error on historical forecasts.

What, for like a year? This is a bunch of sandbagging. Land can be assessed on a number of factors that are based on actual market interactions. In fact, I was having a discussion with a fellow Georgist about the possibility of a computer program to calculate land values. I was skeptical about the possibility, but he pointed out all the market information that could be tracked, such as prices, number of market transactions, house purchases, etc., so that the assessor doesn't even need to be there to be able to come up with his assessment. I'm not sure if that might be leaving something out, but there are plenty of objective variables that an assessor is able to take into account which can accurately assess the value of land, especially since such value is always relative to other land.

Why didn't you read my explanation for this the last time?

Perhaps you could repeat your explanation. I don't see any explanation here which is relevant to my point.

As a Keynesian, at the very least, you have to acknowledge the IS-LM curve.

Yes, I am aware of this inaccurate distortion of Keynes' thought.

Proscribing interest rate equilibrium is a form of projection. You're forcing people to accept money supply growth at a certain level.

No one's proscribing anything. We're talking about using existing interest and growth rates, and then adjusting them with each annual assessment.

Who's to say whether or not there should be 5 trillion or 10 trillion Dollars in circulation? Who's to say what an appropriate rate of money supply growth is?

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING I SAID??!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

^ You're changing it "just because". It's no different from might makes right.

Straw man is straw

You're just ignoring the classic economic calculation problem. There's no need to believe your or anyone else's supposed interest rate is universally appropriate.

Again with the interest rate nonsense. No. Just, no. There is no proscription of interest rate going on here. Only a description of it.

How else could community assessment take place aside from political capital?

How is that relevant to what I said?

Real estate assessors consider community reputation first and foremost when evaluating properties, yes.

It all goes back to what you were saying about centralized land. The reason centralized land is important is because of the attention economy behind it.

Correct. And there is no reason that tax assessors can't use the same methods as real estate assessors.

Why are you so short sighted...

...your taxes are based upon interest and rent growth as we've been talking about.

They are based on land values, yes. And land values are based on current rates of interest and growth. This is not, as you foolishly suppose, a proscription, but a description. I'm afraid I don't see what's so "short-sighted" about all this.

What's the problem?

The problem is I'm having trouble following your barrage of straw men and non-sequitors. You're obviously not stupid, but you seem to have a lot of trouble stringing your thoughts together in a way that makes any kind of coherent sense.

[TropicalK]

Current land taxes in most areas of America are currently greater than the short-term federal funds rate. I would argue that we currently have land value taxation, and the taxes are too high.

[Paradigm]

Current land taxes in most areas of America are currently greater than the short-term federal funds rate. I would argue that we currently have land value taxation, and the taxes are too high.

Bollocks. Property tax rates in the US range from 0.2 to 4%, and many municipalities deliberately under-assess land. On top of that, people can write off part of it on their federal taxes with the mortgage interest tax deduction.

[Daktoria]

This is not an argument.

...

How can you say that?

Look, I'm not going to continue discussing with you if you keep making brutal assertions.

how many people actually choose to live in an area

Nobody chooses to be born.

Your premise isn't consistent, so how can you have justification for essential services that deserve tax revenues for support?

I'll address the rest of your response after you show a willingness to engage here. This is really the foundation of libertarian opposition to social contracts/national interests/popular sovereignty. You don't pop out of the womb with an understanding (nevermind agreement) with community.

[Paradigm]

How can you say that?

Because I have a rational mind that can string thoughts together.

Look, I'm not going to continue discussing with you if you keep making brutal assertions.

With all your non-sequitors, you accuse ME of brutal assertions? Get the hell out of here.

Your premise isn't consistent, so how can you have justification for essential services that deserve tax revenues for support?

Wait...so, because both statements contain the word "choose," I'm being inconsistent? I don't follow.

I'll address the rest of your response after you show a willingness to engage here.

I can't engage with gibberish. I will be glad to engage with your arguments as soon as they start making enough sense to understand them.

This is really the foundation of libertarian opposition to social contracts/national interests/popular sovereignty.

And like much of the rest of libertarianism, it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Daktoria]

Wait...so, because both statements contain the word "choose," I'm being inconsistent? I don't follow.

Do you know what a predicate is?

[TropicalK]

Bollocks. Property tax rates in the US range from 0.2 to 4%, and many municipalities deliberately under-assess land. On top of that, people can write off part of it on their federal taxes with the mortgage interest tax deduction.

Current interest rates are about 0.2%

V = a/(i-g), where V = land value, i = interest, and g = growth factor(annual growth rate of rent)

Or, when we factor in taxes(t), we get: V = a/(i -g+t)

What does "a" stand for?