RE: OWNERSHIP: Moral principles and Binary Theory of Property

["Ed Dodson" <ejdodson@comcast.net>]

Ed Dodson responding...
John Medaille wrote:

At 11:58 PM 6/28/2005 -0400, Norman G. Kurland wrote:
>Ed,
>
>My problem with your handling of rents on land and natural resources is
>that it cedes too much power to the state, although both Kelso and I would
>agree that there is a difference between that which is contributed by
>nature and that which humans contribute in the form of their labor and
>their non-land form of asset inputs.

But it is not merely that there is a difference, but that capital and land
operate under different economic laws. So what do you do with the law of
rents? It doesn't cease just because we don't like it. At least George
accounted for it, which neither BE nor neo-classicism does.

Ed here:
Yes. This is the case. And, what is most important is that understanding the
role of rent facilitates an understanding of markets and the business cycle.
A new book by Fred Harrison does a great job in presenting this case. His
book, published in London by Shepheard-Walwyn is titled "Boom Bust --
Housing Prices, Banking and the Depression of 2010."

>   (See Kelso's treatment of land in his critique of Marx at
>
<http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/almostcapitalist.htm>http://www.cesj.org/third
way/almostcapitalist.htm).

But Kelso doesn't address the law of rents, and hence his discussion is
incomplete.

Ed here:
And the irony is, Karl Marx did understand the law of rent and its
importance. Economists who call themselves Marxists ignore this aspect of
Marx's work.




To subscribe to this or another of COG's discussion groups register at:
http://cog.kent.edu/register.html
To unsubscribe from this group send a message to majordomo@cog.kent.edu
with a single line in the body of the message that says:
unsubscribe ownership