Supply and Demand
Land is a different entity from capital. Land is fixed
in supply, while capital, and all the things human
beings can create with their labor and raw materials,
can respond to increased demand with increased supply.
Since we can't create more land, and, more
specifically, can't create an additional building lot
downtown, we need to use what we've got as effectively
as possible, and share its value justly among all of
us. It shouldn't be a private source of income for some
of us — not if we believe that we're all created
equal.
Ted Gwartney: Estimating Land
Values
When considering world-wide economics, most people
think that land rent contributes only a small
insignificant portion of value. But as societies
progress, land has become the predominant force in
determining the progress or poverty of all people within
a community. Land in major or cities is so costly that
people are forced to move further away and travel great
distances in order to get to work and social attractions.
In the more developed countries of the world, land rent
represents more than 40% of gross annual
production.
Since land is fixed in supply, as
more land is demanded by people the rent will increase
proportionally. Demand is the sole determinant of land
rent. Changes in land rent and land taxes have no impact on
the supply of land, because the land supply is fixed and
cannot be significantly expanded. Labor and capital are
variable in supply. A higher price for commodities causes
more labor and capital to make itself available. Labor and
capital are rewarded for their work. A high price is an
incentive to work harder and longer, while a low price is
not an incentive to work harder and longer. ...
Read the
whole article
Louis Post: Outlines
of Louis F. Post's Lectures, with Illustrative Notes and
Charts (1894)
c. The Law of Division of Labor and
Trade
Now, what is it that leads men to conform their
conduct to the principle illustrated by the last chart?
Why do they divide their labor, and trade its products? A
simple, universal and familiar law of human nature moves
them. Whether men be isolated, or be living in primitive
communities, or in advanced states of civilization, their
demand for consumption determines the direction of Labor
in production.67 That is the law. Considered in
connection with a solitary individual, like Robinson
Crusoe upon his island, it is obvious. What he demanded
for consumption he was obliged to produce. Even as to the
goods he collected from stranded ships — desiring
to consume them, he was obliged to labor to produce them
to places of safety. His demand for consumption always
determined the direction of his labor in production.68
And when we remember that what Robinson Crusoe was to his
island in the sea, civilized man as a whole is to this
island in space, we may readily understand the
application of the same simple law to the great body of
labor in the civilized world.69 Nevertheless, the
complexities of civilized life are so likely to obscure
its operation and disguise its relations to social
questions like that of the persistence of poverty as to
make illustration desirable.
67. The term "production" means not
creation but adaptation. Man cannot add an atom to the
universe of matter; but he can so modify the condition
of matter, both in respect of form and of place, as to
adapt it to the satisfaction of human desires. To do
this is to produce wealth.
"Consumption" is the ultimate object of
all production. We produce because we desire to
consume. But consumption does not mean destruction. Man
has no more power to destroy than to create. His power
in consumption, like his power in production, is
limited to changing the condition of things. As by
production man changes things from natural to
artificial conditions to satisfy his desires, so by
consumption he changes things from artificial to
natural conditions in the process of satisfying his
desires.
Production is the drawing forth of
desired things, of Wealth, from the Land; consumption
is the returning back of those things to the Land.
"All labor is but the movement of
particles of matter from one place to another." —
Dick's Outlines, p. 25.
Production consists merely in changing
things — Ely's Intro., part ii, ch. i; Mill's
Prin., book i, ch. i, sec. 2.
"As man creates no new matter but only
utilities, so he destroys no matter, but only
utilities. Consumption means the destruction of a
utility." — Ely's Intro., part v. ch. i., p.
268.
Production means "drawing forth."
— Jevons's Primer, sec. 17.
"Man cannot create material things. . .
His efforts and sacrifices result in changing the form
or arrangement of matter to adapt it better for the
satisfaction of wants." — Marshall's Prin., book
ii, ch. iii, sec. i.
"It is sometimes said that traders do
not produce; that while the cabinet maker produces
furniture, the furniture dealer merely sells what is
already produced. But there is no scientific foundation
for this distinction." — Id.
"As his [man's] production of material
products is really nothing more than a rearrangement of
matter which gives it new utilities, so his consumption
of them is nothing more than a disarrangement of matter
which diminishes or destroys its utilities." —
Id.
"In like manner as by production is
meant the creation not of substance but of utility, so
by consumption is meant the destruction of utility and
not of substance or matter." — Say's Trea., book
ii, ch. i.
"All that man can do is to reproduce
existing materials under another form, which may give
them a utility they did not before possess, or merely
enlarge one they may have before presented. So that in
fact there is a creation not of matter but of utility ;
and this I call production of wealth. . . There is no
actual production of wealth without a creation or
augmentation of utility."— Say's Trea., book i,
ch. i.
68. It is highly significant that while
Robinson Crusoe had unsatisfied wants he was never out
of a job.
69. Demand for consumption is satisfied
not from hoards of accumulated wealth, but from the
stream of current production. Broadly speaking there
can be no accumulation of wealth in the sense of saving
up wealth from generation to generation. Imagine a
man's satisfying his demand for eggs from the
accumulated stores of his ancestors! Yet eggs do not
differ in this respect from other forms of wealth,
except that some other forms will keep a little longer,
and some not so long.
The notion that a saving instinct must
be aroused before the great and more lasting forms of
wealth can be brought forth is a mistake. Houses and
locomotives, for example, are built not because of any
desire to accumulate wealth, but because we need houses
to live in and locomotives to transport us and our
goods. It is not the saving, but the serving,, instinct
that induces the production of these things; the same
instinct that induces the production of a loaf of
bread.
Artificial things do not save. No sooner
are the processes of production from land complete than
the products are on their way back to the land. If man
does not return them by means of consumption, then
through decay they return themselves. Mankind as a
whole lives literally from hand to mouth. What is
demanded for consumption in the present must be
produced by the labor of the present. From current
production, and from that alone, can current
consumption be satisfied.
"Accumulated wealth" is, in fact, not
wealth at all in any great degree. It is merely titles
to wealth yet to be produced. A share in a mining
company, for example, is but a certificate that the
owner is legally entitled to a proportion of the wealth
to be produced in the future from a certain mine.
Titles to future wealth may be both
morally and legally valid. This is so when they
represent past labor or its products loaned in free
contract for future labor or its products; for example,
a contract for the delivery of goods of any kind today
to be paid for next week. or next month, or next year,
or in ten years, or later.
They may be legally but not morally
valid. This is so when they represent the product of a
franchise (whether paid for in labor or not) to exact
tribute from future labor; for example, a franchise to
confiscate a man's labor through ownership of his body,
as in slavery, or a franchise to confiscate the
products of labor in general through ownership of
land.
Or they may be both legally and morally
invalid, as when they are obtained by illegal force or
fraud from the rightful owner.
The following chart classifies about every kind of
wealth that man requires, and also "personal services,"
which, though as useful as wealth, do not crystallize in
material products — such services as those of
lawyers, barbers, doctors, teachers, actors, and so on:
[chart]
The circle of variegated colors represents the
commercial reservoir into which Wealth is poured by
production, and from which it is drawn for consumption,
each color typifying the kind of wealth or service named
in it. Now, let us suppose that Personal Servants tap the
commercial reservoir for food.70 They do it by applying
at retail stores for what will relieve their poverty as
to food, and food flows out to them" as indicated by the
blue arrow, which we now insert in the chart: [chart]
70. If it be asked how Personal Servants
can draw this food out of the retail stores unless they
have money, let the questioner inform himself as to the
ways in which business is done. No man, unless he be a
notorious cheat, needs money in order to obtain goods
at retail stores, provided he has or can presently get
profitable employment. All he needs is employment, or
an early prospect of employment, and a reputation for
honesty. There is therefore no unwarranted assumption
in the example, even if we exclude the use of money
from consideration. See post, note 72.
How would the outflow of food affect managers of
retail stores? Every merchant's office-boy knows. It
would admonish them to order further supplies from
wholesalers. Wholesalers would fill these orders, and
replenish their stock by ordering from manufacturers.
Manufacturers would thereupon send all over the world for
materials; would call for new machinery and better
machinery; would order new buildings and repair old ones,
and would scour the country for workingmen to come into
their factories and renew their lowered stock of goods.
Thus all kinds and grades of labor that could assist in
producing food, from farm hands to inventors, from
bookkeepers to sailors, would feel the influence of the
demand for food in a demand for their labor. What
Personal Servants really do in demanding food is to
direct the expenditure of labor to the production of food
and food-producing implements and materials. ... read the book
Gaffney - Landlord
Fred E. Foldvary — The Ultimate Tax Reform: Public
Revenue from Land Rent
It is widely understood that when something is taxed,
we get less of it. As discussed above, this reduction in
labor, production, and investment is called the
“excess burden” or “deadweight
loss” of taxation. Income taxation discourages
work, sales and value-added taxes discourage consumption,
capital gains taxes discourage investment, and real
property taxes discourage building and improving
property. Those taxes make the asset or activity more
costly, which then reduces the quantity bought of the
thing being taxed.
What makes land different is that its supply is fixed,
and it is independent of human action. When land value or
rent is tapped for public revenue, the land does not
shrink, flee, or hide.
Recall the definition above, that land means natural
resources. Real estate sites consist of the three
dimensional space within some boundary of title or
jurisdiction. We cannot import land to expand the amount
of space. There can be no land factories to produce more
space. Chopping down trees, leveling inclined slopes, and
draining and filling in water only change the material
contents of the space, not the extent or location of the
space. Building taller just makes more space usable; the
three-dimensional space does not expand. ...
Another source of confusion is the claim that since
the rent of land depends on demand, which is done by
human beings, this makes the supply of land variable.
This view confuses supply with demand. Demand is the
willingness of buyers to pay. This is independent of the
quantity that is available. If there are three specimens
of a rare stamp, the bids of those wanting to buy it do
not change the number of stamps in existence.
Another error made even by academic economists is to
confuse the supply of land for a particular use, such as
housing, with the overall supply of land. Of course the
supply for a particular use can vary, since, for example,
we can convert farmland to housing land. But the total
area available for all uses does not change, and that is
the relevant supply. ... read the whole
document
|
To share this page with a friend:
right click, choose "send," and add your
comments.
|
|
Red links have not been
visited; .
Green links are pages you've seen
|
Essential Documents pertinent
to this theme:
|
|