alt.politics.economics

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:47:14 -0500, professorchaos
wrote:

>Andy F. wrote:
>> "professorchaos" wrote in message
>> news:46d7195b$0$18936$4c368faf@ ...
>>> Andy F. wrote:
>
>>Since they aren't making any more land, the
>> elasticity is exactly zero. (Provided that the tax isn't more than 100% of
>> the rental value.)
>
>A. Tell that to the people in Dubai. They are making land.

No, stupid, lying filth, they are improving land that was already
there, stupid, lying filth. I have proved that to you over and over
and over and over and over again, and the next time it comes up, you
just lie about it again.

>Tell that to
>San Fransisco. Over the twentith century the bay got smaller as San
>Fransisco burned several times. They piled up the remnants and covered
>them with dirt. This actually claimed land from the sea. Usable can and
>is made. Swamps are drained. Levies are built to claim land for the sea
>(New Orleans). We certainly can make more land.

Because you are infinitely and immutably stupid, ignorant and
dishonest, you always try to pretend that IMPROVING pre-existing wet
land by draining it or building it up creates land, when it is
self-evident and indisputable that the land being IMPROVED by being
built up or drained had to exist before such efforts could improve it.

No matter how many times this self-evident and indisputable fact of
objective reality is proved to you, you invariably lie about it the
instant the opportunity presents itself.

You are therefore despicable, lying garbage: a putrescent mass of
disgusting, fungated, suppurating filth in vaguely human form.

>B. Land is not a produced good so think of the supply curve as cost is
>not applicable. The elasticity of supply of land is not likely to be
>zero.

OTC, it is CERTAIN to be zero.

>Why because land has different levels of desirability.

Ignoratio elenchi. Desirability defines demand, not supply.

Stupid.

>An owner of
>land in the swamps of Louisiana will sell at a lower price than an owner
>of land on the Ocean front in California. Different grades of land mean
>people have different willingness to sell. This will cause quantity
>supplied changes as price changes.

Except that it never has, and never will.

>The Gulf coast land owner in Louisiana may not sell for $75 an acre
>while the inland swamp land owner will gladly sell at that price. The
>Gulf Coast land owner may not sell until the prices is $150. In this
>case the supply curve is highly inelastic 1/75 but not perfectly
>inelastic. It is a fallacy and a bad thought habit that because
>something is in fixed supply that the elasticity of supply is zero.

Because you are infinitely stupid, ignorant and dishonest, you always
have to lie about what elasticity of supply is.

>I know Greg Mankiw has a not very well thought out panel in his textbook
>that makes the same argument you just made but it is wrong.
>
>>> B. There is every reason to think that the demand for rental units is
>>> inelastic. Living space is a necessity and there are few close
>>> substitutes. As far as elasticity of supply of rental units. I would need
>>> some data or to see if any papers have calculated. New construction of
>>> rental units does not necessiarly mean new land needs to bought. The
>>> buildings on the land can be modified.
>>
>> I think it's definitely land prices are high people are more
>> likely to live with their parents , share apartments and live in small
>> houses rather than big ones.
>
>Rental markets are what I am referring to land prices HAVE ZERO EFFECT
>ON RENTAL MARKETS.

Thank you for proving again that you are infinitely and immutably
stupid, ignorant and dishonest.

>The cost of the land is a sunk cost.

No. You are stupid.

>Land available
>has little effect on apartments or office buildings available.

You are really stupid.

>Owners
>can always elect to build upward.

You are really, REALLY stupid.

>Trump didn't much land in Chicago to
>start his massive multi-story office building.

How much did he pay for it, Stupid?

>Smaller structures on
>existing land can be torn down to make skyscrapers. You don't have to
>have empty unused land in the wilderness to make rental property.

If you were not infinitely stupid, you would understand how irrelevant
that is. But you are infinitely stupid, so there is little point in
talking about it.

-- Roy L