benj wrote:Did human effort create the laws of geometry? So without humans a2 + b2 = c2 for a right angled triangle wouldn't be true?
?? So, you are saying that when an engineer uses the laws of mathematics to calculate a safe structural design, it is not his labor that contributes to the success of the construction project, but the "land" of mathematical law?
Please.
No, that's false. It would not exist but for the efforts of the people who made the network possible, who created the social, intellectual, and physical infrastructure it relies on, etc.
That is right out of the Frank Knight school of thought:)
Please provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to support your claim. Thank you.
For sure it takes human effort to exploit the efficiencies we get from networks and markets, but we didn't create the fact that networks and markets create economies of scale.
We also don't create the fact that chickens lay eggs. So, by your "logic," the farmer who feeds and protects the chickens is just an idle landowner, charging rent for eggs that were produced by facts he did not create.
Please.
They just do, like a2+b2=c2 for a right angled triangle. Or Super Nova creates all the elements we call natural resources. Or something to do with Quantum Mechanics gave us our version of the Universe that makes life possible at all. (or God if you are that way inclined)
Point being the Universe, and the Laws that make it what it is, were not created by men.
Land is the whole physical universe aside from people and the products of their labor.
Discovered and used as Capital,
A law of the universe is not capital, as explained above. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on this subject permanently.
like the efficiencies of networking, but not created.
The efficiencies of a network are created by those who create the network just as surely as a dozen eggs are created by the farmer who brings together all the factors needed for their production. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on this subject permanently.
Ignoratio elenchi.
Probably what Frank Knight thought about Georgism for the same reason.
Incomprehensible.
Metabolism is consumption, production, distribution. Base economics.
No, because metabolism does not involve arm's-length exchange between distinct agents.
Doesn't matter if they are at arm's length,
Of course it does. That exchange is at arm's length is the defining quality of economic activity, which sets it apart from the mutual aid and social contribution seen even among the lower animals.
although arguably the Sun is, there is economy to life as there is to human endeavors.
Gibberish.
Humans are not the only animals to live in societies and create capital.
Yes, they are. Capital is defined as products of labor devoted to production. Labor is defined as human effort devoted to production. Therefore, it is logically impossible for any non-human animal to create capital. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on this subject permanently.
At the base level, life and therefore all human activity relies on the economy of metabolism.
I'm just trying to imagine how you imagine such a banality could be relevant or interesting....
Nope. Can't do it.
Funny how agglomerating humans in socialist China stayed poor, but when they allowed private ownership of capital, they got rich...
But they are above nuts and berries.
Another miracle of banality and irrelevance.
Their form of Capital (communism)
Communism is not a form of capital. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on this subject permanently.
tapped into Land (agglomeration)
Agglomeration is not land. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on this subject permanently.
very inefficiently. Because it was inherently unfair.
Life is unfair. You need to explain how, specifically, Chinese communist unfairness caused inefficiency. I could do that, but I'm not sure you can:
It's like comparing two oil companies drilling for oil. One (communism) using bamboo while the other (capitalism) uses computer controlled diamond bits.
See?
Agglomeration like all Land, can be efficiently or inefficiently utilised.
Agglomeration is not land.
What do you consider the basic tenets of geoism? Because I consider myself a geoist, and while I understand that left and right are both wrong -- they both tell the same lie, though for opposite reasons -- and life requires land, I certainly don't think land is the primary source of wealth. Labor is also needed.
I say primary, because without Land, there is not Labour. Without Labour there is still Land.
Banality. I repeat: what do you consider the basic tenets of geoism?
Also, it is possible for humans to live without Capital. So, for me personally, Capital not a factor of production, rather a sub category.
Of what? Some have called capital "stored labor," but that is not strictly true. Capital that took one hour of labor to produce can save 1000 hours of future labor. So it is much more than that one hour of labor stored up.
Not that it really matters.
Confusion and error matter.
Oh? You can get land in the center of Detroit almost for free, while pasture land in Switzerland will set you back millions.
As we know, free markets are not necessarily efficient markets,
What we know is that what some call "free" markets are anything but free, as they take for granted that people's rights to liberty have been removed by force and made the private property of landowners.
and Detroit shows an inefficient use of agglomeration effects.
It shows inefficient use of almost everything.
Nevertheless, easily observable fact shows that in the vast majority of cases, land in city centres is the most valuable, whereas that is places of no/low population is worthless.
Chicken and egg. People don't gather in those places in the first place precisely
because the land is not advantageous.
?? That's a very bad simile, as the value of such deposits is more dependent on the physical qualities nature gave them.
No, the value of natural resources depends on demand and scarcity.
Another banality designed to evade the fact I identified. WHAT DO YOU INCORRECTLY IMAGINE DEMAND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES IS BASED ON, OTHER THAN THE PHYSICAL QUALITIES NATURE GAVE THEM, HMMMMMMMMMMM??
Oil was once a worthless pollutant after all.
And...? Land was once all worthless, too.
For sure land where NYC stands now was once a worthless swamp I believe. Only when it became populated, and due to agglomeration, that population produced a surplus above subsistence, that resulted in wages and amenities did that land obtain a scarcity value.
Garbage. If agglomeration produced land value, then land in Calcutta would be worth as much as land in NYC. It isn't.
But it's even more important actually to understand that land value is nothing but the value of what the landowner expects to take from the community in return for nothing.
Of course. It's pure ransom money. Even in a landowner builds a whole city with all the very best amenities, roads, telecommunications etc, without the agglomeration of people wanting to use that capital, the land underneath is still worthless.
Again, you are apparently just trying to prevent yourself from knowing the fact that the city, with its amenities, etc. will MAKE people want to use that land.
As Shakespeare said, a city is nothing without people.
Shakespeare was wrong. As WP Kinsella said, "Build it and they will come."
And without the economies of scale we get from being close to one another, people wouldn't want to live in cities.
Meaningless.
I strongly recommend that if you have an interest in economics you watch that lecture on youtube a linked on the previous page.
I watched it. It was a waste of time, packed with the kind of deep-sounding banalities you seem to favor. What do you think is interesting or informative about it?