surplus labor value

Oh, ok. Then "bringiton" was wrong you say and it all comes back to the rich who buy up "the right land" when they get insider information on oil exploration reports and government plans that involve land and that will make that land more valuable. Thanks for that confirmation.

 

not true the recent fracking boom was brought to you by numerous small companies. The majors had nothing to do with it.

- - - Updated - - -

Everybody uses the infrastructure and everybody gets richer by using it even retired people and children.

 

Disgraceful.

It's whoever owns the land. That's the landowner. It's usually the rich because the rich own most of the land. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

 

The Voice of Ignorance....

Nope. Everyone else has to pay the landowner full market value for access to the infrastructure. So only the landowner benefits, no one else.

 

Just finished a book called "the Boom" which was a day day account of how fracking happened

- - - Updated - - -

children use the road to get to school. Sorry to rock your world

 

Silly boy, I was working in the oil business at the time.

You're not thinking. Their parents must pay a landowner full market value for access to both the road and the school, which means the kids get no net benefit from either. They have to pay a landowner for everything. So the landowner is the only one who actually benefits from the road or the school, sorry to disprove everything you say.

 

There are only two major nations on earth where mineral rights are not owned by those who obtain surface ownership. The US and Russia*.

In most countries said mineral rights are owned by the nation and leased for exploitation.

See here: Mineral Rights Onership -

Excerpts:

and,

and,

And therein lies the truth behind many great fortunes that were made historically in the US, where the bent for accumulation of riches is amongst the most important of all so-called "freedoms".

And what about the rest of us, who are supposedly "prepared to die for your country". Yeah, right, just like oil rights - some are more prepared than others.

My point: Ask yourself, why did the US adopt mineral rights in such an opposite manner from almost all other nations with whom we share this planet? We know why the Russian plutocrats did.

It was all aboud da muney ...

*See here.

 

I don't know where you got such an idea, but it is certainly not correct.

Right, which contradicts your claim above.

It's the same in many countries. Look at Gina Rinehart in Oz: multibillionaire purely by owning mineral rights.

OK, so the system is rigged to favor those who can afford to take advantage of it. And your point would be....? Oh, here it is:

It's actually a fairly common system, and certainly better than letting the landowner take it all.

 

That's my point. The above in red is an affront to collective rights of a nation's citizens. The exploitation of Mineral rights should be diverse from Surface-rights to exploit the land. This was purposely different in the US from the very beginning - just one more way of assuring that individual rights have a primacy over collective rights (we, the sheeple).

In three words, It's a rip-off. Just like upper-income taxation is today in America.

Anyway, that will change, the sooner we break energy bond with polluting fossil-fuels, the better.

Just one more example how the preserve of collective rights is more important than individual rights - without which the latter exploit the former ...

PS: And when push-comes-to-shove, whose kids go off to die "defending their country" - those of the rich or those of the poor? Answer the question ...

 

the USA created the world with our Revolution against govt, by wining two world wars and recreating the world in our image, by freeing 1.4 billion in China, by being the world's policeman, and by having the most successful economy in human history. Obviously, the issue is to make the world copy us sooner rather than later. Assume if the world does it differently it does it wrong.

 

There is no cause-effect relationship to your equation. Way back you said "Analysis of wealth and income patterns shows that increasing inequality is entirely explained by increasingly unequal landholdings."

If that is true, where do the assets come from that enable a person to accumulate land?

 

Its absurd. He would have us believe that Gates Jobs Brin Musk Bezos are going to sell out and buy land because thats really how you make money!!.

 

And to their individual human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.

But it's far more important that any privilege of excluding others from either surface or subsurface opportunities be justly compensated by payment of the market rent to the community of those excluded, and restoration of individuals' lost rights to liberty by free, secure access to enough of the available opportunities of their choice.

It's not nearly as much of a rip-off as the landowner's privilege of pocketing everyone else's taxes.

It's actually the individual rights of everyone in the community that exclusive use of resources abrogates, not a collective right.

The poor, of course.

 

Of course there is. The landowner gets to pocket everyone else's taxes. The more taxes, the more wealth they pocket.

Yes, that was Rognlie's correction of Piketty.

Mostly the income from already owning land and other privileges. That positive feedback is what makes inequality increase. Many great fortunes have been accumulated by following a simple formula:

1. Collect the rent of your land.
2. Use it to buy more land.
3. Repeat.

You will notice the absence from that formula of any reference to a contribution to production.

 

I have trouble believing that is true unless you distort the number by equating an acre in Midtown as different than an acre in rural Montana. Likewise "the rich are getting richer" is a bait and switch argument. The wealthy's wealth is measured primarily in stocks. Median household income is adjusted for inflation. The NYSE is not. If you adjusted for inflation, the total value of the NYSE in January of this year was pretty much the same as it was in August 2000.

 

It's definitely different: it's worth orders of magnitude more. That is the relevant fact, not a distortion.

No it isn't.

But that includes the value of stocks in companies whose value is largely land value.

But land is worth a lot more.

 

You said the rich own "most of the land". The amount of land is largely static. An acre of land is an acre of land no mater where it is located. An acre of land is exactly the same acre whether its market value is $2K or $2M.

 

Which is true. They own it either directly or through companies they own.

It is in fact fixed.

But that is irrelevant. An acre of land on Mars is also an acre of land. So what?

I see. So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," the owners of land worth $2M/ac won't mind swapping for exactly the same number of acres on Mars.

And people wonder why I get impatient with the opposition.

 

Yes, people pointing out that your positions are flawed is probably very frustrating to you.

 

joke?? and not one got rich through land or imagines owning land is the best way to get rich!!

 

No one has identified any flaw in my positions. They've just denied self-evident and indisputable facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong again. More of the rich got rich by owning land than by all other methods combined, and many know very well it's the easiest and most reliable way to get rich.

 

Oh really? Let's see how that works.....

An "indisputable fact"? Sorta like when you said "The landowner gets to pocket everyone else's taxes. The more taxes, the more wealth they pocket."?? No development of the idea. No documentation to back it up. That is called "opinion" by most people. And certainly these examples are not even self-evident opinions!

Your argument is so full of holes that you seem to be the only advocate for it.

 

What prevents the worker from producing the widget himself without using any of the capitalist's tools, and then selling it, himself, for $20?

 

Is there any method by which land and/or untapped resources in it could be appropriated that you would defend as just?