Frank on Mars

[Kat Kanning]

What say you?  Set up the Georgist paradise?

[FrankChodorov]

there will probably be no land rent on mars...the surface is uniform in quality and because you will have to be isolated from the elements it won't matter how close to the poles you locate yourself.

[Minsk]

The top of a mountain on a planet that gets massive dust storms is probably a little below average desirability. As such the Mars Global Surveyer should be filched to evalute potential economic worth of each area of land, to ensure an accurage analysis before human modifications to the landscape introduce artificial elements (which can not be charged for). Unfortunately, NASA will get first grab at any good spots by parking one of their two very expensive claim stakes on it. And IIRC there have been a few US and international landers that were, well, forcefully staked into the martian surface...

Further, as Earth fills up, anyone purchasing land on Mars will be permitted to bill Earth-dwellers economic rent for occupying a better piece of space. And once Mars is full, free-floating colonies in space will get to bill everyone, which should help to offset the difficulty of maintaining a habitat in hard vacuum. So start breeding people: space travel won't be subsidized until we fill up this rock.

[FrankChodorov]

The top of a mountain on a planet that gets massive dust storms is probably a little below average desirability

why?

the Mars Global Surveyer should be filched to evalute potential economic worth of each area of land

"potential economic worth" of an land area can only be objectively determined by a market mechanism.

if there is a market for locations there is economic rent...

under what conditions would a market for locations develop on Mars?

[Follow]

Assume one colony becomes known for it's high class hotels and luxurious accomodations.  We'll call it the 5-star colony.  Naturally, the real estate on that colony and usually the ones around it will increase in value regardless of geographical location.

Geography and weather are only some of the concerns when discussing the property of real estate.  Remove one of the variables (geography) and the others will just become that much more valuable.

Unless you plan to outlaw any improvements on neighborhoods and make sure everyone has the same, comrade.




Follow 

[FrankChodorov]

Assume one colony becomes known for it's high class hotels and luxurious accomodations.  We'll call it the 5-star colony.  Naturally, the real estate on that colony and usually the ones around it will increase in value regardless of geographical location.

Geography and weather are only some of the concerns when discussing the property of real estate.  Remove one of the variables (geography) and the others will just become that much more valuable.

as I said - the surface of the mars is essentially uniform in quality and since you will have to be isolated from 'weather" elements it won't matter what the weather is "outside" the colony...the only reason then to locate near others is because of the synergistic effect as it relates to commerce (same here on earth).

so the locational value of where you choose to locate is based not on your labor but on the labor and mere presence of others who have potential needs you might be able to fulfill.

[Minsk]

the Mars Global Surveyer should be filched to evalute potential economic worth of each area of land

"potential economic worth" of an land area can only be objectively determined by a market mechanism.

if there is a market for locations there is economic rent...

Having your weatherproof shelter sandblasted continually, and being unable to use any flying vehicles for the storm is definitely going to hurt the viability of a settlement. Similarly some areas would be much better for building underground settlements (old lava tubes and such). If that does not affect the market worth when people are negotiating for land, what would?

Am I mixing your arguments with BenTucker's, or was there not a "economic rent on limited and consumed natural resources only" clause therein? Or more to the point, if I am the one that makes land more valuable to the market, why in the heck should I have to pay more rent to keep it? And does that not create a disincentive to actually improving the market value of land?

And I was rather assuming people actually started building on Mars. Hence there being an active market in which ye'ol economic rent would supposedly be needed. It seems about as imminent as Earth being so completely full of people that we need to bill landowners for using all the good stuff, so you'll have to forgive my leap.

[Braddogg]

   How did Frank manage to hijack THIS thread?

[Fluff and Stuff]

No, if the government does it.  Yes, if a private group does it.

[Lex]

No, if the government does it.  Yes, if a private group does it.

What if it's just Frank?

[FrankChodorov]

if I am the one that makes land more valuable to the market, why in the heck should I have to pay more rent to keep it?

you aren't "making land more valuable"...what I am talking about is the unimproved land value which by definition is not the result of your labor but rather those neighbors who labor to improve their property creates a positive externality for you.

[Minsk]

if I am the one that makes land more valuable to the market, why in the heck should I have to pay more rent to keep it?

you aren't "making land more valuable"...what I am talking about is the unimproved land value which by definition is not the result of your labor but rather those neighbors who labor to improve their property creates a positive externality for you.

Ah, okay, I think I now see what you are defining as "land value". So you are only assessed net economic rent if you have improved your property less than the surrounding neighbors? Obviously assuming some objective and uncorruptable metric of "improved" rather than "wasted money on" -- negative externalities are hard enough to measure, I really would not want to be in charge of trying to justify positive ones well enough to talk money out of my neighbors.

If so, my earlier impression was backwards. This way around, if you can't afford to upgrade your property enough, you get hit up for "economic rent" by your wealthier neighbors. I thought this whole scheme was supposed to reduce abusive monopolies on land ownership? It seems more like the best way to get emminent domain up and running in a decentralized economy?

So an anarcho-capitalist just refuses to improve his property much (say, running a B&B in an urban downtown), and tells the highrise neighbors to bugger off. The only market pressure I see is in the favor of the freeloader: the neighbors would not want to spend more than the rent to attack him, so he could spend less than the rest to defend himself. Unless you are condoning a state monopoly on force, which I don't think is part of the platform, how on earth is this system supposed to remain stable?

<edit>Okay, nevermind. I was under the mistaken impression that Frank's scheme has a point. Thankfully I have now been corrected in that misconception, so won't be washing more bandwidth on it.</edit>

[BaRbArIaN]

Just do what the govt. committe on land rent says and nobody will be hurt.

[d_goddard]

I, for one, welcome my new Frank overlord

[FrankChodorov]

So you are only assessed net economic rent if you have improved your property less than the surrounding neighbors?

you are only assessed economic rent if it attaches to your the location you have exclusive use of as two or more people naturally compete for access to scarce locations...

typically what this means is that if you and your neighbor have the exact same size lot contiguous to each other your economic rent will be the same - NO MATTER HOW YOU HAVE IMPROVED THE LOCATION WITH LABOR.

I thought this whole scheme was supposed to reduce abusive monopolies on land ownership?

no - to protect the absolute right to labor and hence self-ownership of those excluded by exclusive use by eliminating the monopoly the landowners have to the economic rent which is socially created.