all 12 comments

[–]green_meklarpublic rent-capture 10 points11 points  (5 children)

The whole idea of land as an 'investment' is completely stupid. The point of investing capital in something is to contribute to the production of something by providing tools and equipment to use in that production. But buying land doesn't contribute to the production of anything, because the land was there anyway and is just as useful whether it's owned by somebody or not.

[–]autoeroticassfxationNew Zealand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The solution to that is LVT. Takes the profiteering out of just landholding. Makes it only feasible to hold the land if you're using it productively.

[–]cognitivesimulance 0 points1 point  (3 children)

People generally don’t want to invest in building a nice house or building a productive farm on land they don’t own.

[–]green_meklarpublic rent-capture 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Not if they can do it on land they do own.

But if all land is publicly owned, then that's the only kind of land available. So they'd do it anyway.

[–]cognitivesimulance 0 points1 point  (1 child)

How do you decide who gets what land?

[–]green_meklarpublic rent-capture 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We don't. We rent out the land and distribute its value back to society in the form of government programs and/or universal income. Compared to the near-impossible task of carving up the world's real estate for an ever-changing population, this is a far simpler way of accomplishing the same practical ends.

[–]Soul-Burn 8 points9 points  (0 children)

LVT can't come quick enough.

[–]election_info_bot 4 points5 points  (0 children)

California 2018 Election

Primary Election Registration Deadline: May 16, 2018

Primary Election: June 5, 2018

General Election Registration Deadline: October 22, 2018

General Election: November 6, 2018

[–]rinnip 2 points3 points  (2 children)

They won't be much of an investment if the homeless move in.

[–]TiV3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's just like with the ~40% of food getting thrown away. Rather have redundancy for the people who can continually pay more and more, and dispose of food if it could potentially lead to the people with money spending less money. As long as income inequality is growing over time, we'll see more and more redundancy for paying customers at the cost of those who can pay relatively less.

That said, these houses would still be an investment if the homeless had more money to pay for em. In capitalism, the goods and services are there for the money after all.

[–]smegko 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's why bitcoin and virtual investments are superior to messy physical assets. Sell your land, buy virtual land!