From: Erik Aronesty (erik@zoneedit.com)
Date: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 10:23:17 MST
"Should the landlords be coerced by law (threat of force)
to pay for these benefits? How is that fair?"
It's just as fair as tenants being forces to pay rent. Land is only owned by landlords because a consensus of people agree that our "money system" works. of course the end result of a completely feree market is tyranny by the few who happen to control the capital. Of course, the reverse is also true - too much socialism stifles innovation. What is needed is a balance between the two.
"rent subsidies paid for by tax revenues to at
least spread the cost across society?"
I agree that this is a far better distribution model. Rent subsidies can be given out based on some sliding income scale - a fine socialist correction for overcapitalization.
What is "overcapitalization" ? That's when resources (land) are capitalized on (rented) to the point where they become controlled by a disproportinate few (land "lords") and result in an artificial scarcity. For example, many landlords in NY keep buildings empty in order to keep prices high. This can only occur when a landlord owns a high percentage of buildings in. Agiven area. For example, trinity church owns 60 pct of the real estate on the lower/west side... Many of then are left empty.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 28 2003 - 10:23:23 MST