As said before Mao is government ownership of land. He and Stalin caused about a 100 million to starve to death. Government dual ownership of land in the United States will eventually cause millions to starve to death. Land is already rented in every county in Iowa, the only difference is the land owners living in California collect the rent subsidies and rents. The farmer and landlord split the profits of farming about 50-50. Probably 25-25-50 with 50% going to government.

=====

Was at the poker table again and some guy owned section 8 housing apartments. He was complaining he could not kick the tenants out and was only limited to 2% annual increases in rent. If he did kick them out it would cost him $15,000.

That is the problem the land is free but the building and foundation represent labor. The tenants are correct in that they should get real estate to stay on. The landlord is correct in that he owns the capital, the apartment.

The government and private landlords set up a system of dual ownership. Does the government represent the poor? Definitely not! Many wanting Section 8 housing can not get it. Many that work for these housing authorities make 200K a year.

The system is simple auction the lots and everyone would have a lot to live on rent free. The apartment owner should be able to charge whatever he wants. The government nor individuals should have the right to land. These same landowners and governments that expect the tenants to go to war.

As said before Mao is government ownership of land. He and Stalin caused about a 100 million to starve to death. Government dual ownership of land in the United States will eventually cause millions to starve to death. Land is already rented in every county in Iowa, the only difference is the land owners living in California collect the rent subsidies and rents. The farmer and landlord split the profits of farming about 50-50. Probably 25-25-50 with 50% going to government.

=====

Was at the poker table again and some guy owned section 8 housing apartments. He was complaining he could not kick the tenants out and was only limited to 2% annual increases in rent. If he did kick them out it would cost him $15,000.

That is the problem the land is free but the building and foundation represent labor. The tenants are correct in that they should get real estate to stay on. The landlord is correct in that he owns the capital, the apartment.

The government and private landlords set up a system of dual ownership. Does the government represent the poor? Definitely not! Many wanting Section 8 housing can not get it. Many that work for these housing authorities make 200K a year.

The system is simple auction the lots and everyone would have a lot to live on rent free. The apartment owner should be able to charge whatever he wants. The government nor individuals should have the right to land. These same landowners and governments that expect the tenants to go to war.

The is a politics thread called, "I am happy to see the fast food workers walking out on the job." The question I ask is why don't the fast food workers leave to start their own fast food joint and pay themselves equally. The response is "it costs $200,000 to start your own resturant".

The reality is all the wall street money and all the fed pumped bailout money ends up in New York. According to wikipedia "The 344,700 workers in the finance industry collect more than half of all the wages paid in Manhattan, although they hold fewer than one of every six jobs in the borough."

Is not the minimum wage it is that poor really have no chance at the land that causes the poverty in New York. You can set up rent controls, minimum wages and welfare but then you are just adding more problems as those can never be allocated fairly. Many probably commute long distances to get to where the pot of gold originates. The reality is the poor, minimum wage workers, should probably just move. If you live in a rural area the land is not all taken.

==========

The slums of Nairobi, Kenya and the Favelas of Brazil seem to be built on government land. Apparently the land can't be bought or sold, and no one really has legal rights to stay there the building end up being poorly built giving the appearance of someone poor or a slum. If they had a legal right to stay on the land (even for short periods) the quality of the construction would improve. Especailly if they could buy and sell the structure and the land together.

=====

A property rental system, where the rent is redistributed as median land rent could end these problems. However it does lead to some problems. Suppose there was a chain of 3 islands of about equal size there are 3 people thus each own island. If one of the owners allow 100,000 immigrants in to his island, what right do they have to the other 2 islands. Maybe one of the owners wanted to use 9/10 of his island for wildlife preservation.

This is why I have not been writing in the thread for awhile.

I assumed you hadnt written in this thread for awhile because you realized that everything you write is completely ******ed.

I never said the thread was ******ed. But I think you are saying you are ******ed. How are your BBY shorts comng along. You implied we should take it private for $22.

Since the fast food workers of NYC are denied equal access to land. They could implement a localized minimum wage such that the workers wages exceed those of the managers that sit around and push paper.

I stated your $100 price target was insane, which it still is. Hope you are declaring victory and selling here.

You supported the low buyout price regardless of whether the small shareholders did not want to sell to private equity.

These private equity firms work out insider corrupt deals to buy these companies for next to nothing. the SEC waste time going after insider trading. They throw Martha Stewart in jail for selling stock in a massive undervalue company. Yet they sit and watch Dell attempt to take Dell private when many of the shareholders, probably most by number, want to remain shareholders. Not only can't they remain shareholders they are forced to sell at a riduculus price of $13.75, when Dell is easily worth $40.

Best Buy was the same situation they wanted to force shareholders that wanted to remain with the company to sell for $22. This is what you supported.

=====

Why Minimum Wage New Yorkers should move. I have no reason to step a foot in New York , unless I had better than average wage set-up. There is nothing there.

Would a indian expect to live like a slave. They would pitch their own teepee and sell their own buffalo burgers. The idea they would work for someone else only because they own the land would not stand.

Steelhouse, I said you would come out ahead by always taking the buyout because you are an idiot when it comes to investing, as evidenced by your $100 price target on Best Buy based on analysis that showed you can't read a cash flow statement. Most people are better off passively investing, idiots and lunatics DEFINITELY are better off passively investing. You are DEFINITELY much better off trusting what a majority of shareholders think than forming your own opinion, as evidenced by every post you make on his site.

In this case, since you are a lunatic with a $100 price target, you won't sell now at $30. Which means are likely going to end up having been better off getting $22.

I'd love to see you contest a buyout and show your valuation methods in front of a judge though. Would be amazing theater.

Lol at what you think happened to Martha Stewart.

The point was that the $100 price for BBY was not real. Who knows what the real price is. There is a market for that. It is called the open exchange price. If Michael Dell wants to buy Dell let him do so at the market price. Let him buy on the exchanges. Michael Dell wants the minority to sell to him for $13.75, yet he does not want to sell to Icahn for $14. The Icahn deal allows the shareholders that want to remain shareholders to do so. Basically clearing out all the weak money that wants to sell a stock with p/e of 2 with massive cash. The Dell deal allows the company to be stolen. Whether it is Dell, American Greeting or the dozens of other corrupt deals that occur everyday, the minority shareholder gets screwed.

However, if you consider BBY able to produce a $1 dividend for 100 years. Since the value of a company has been suggested the present value of all future dividends. A $100 valuation is not unheard of. The only reason not to buy, is that there are better deals. I recently sold BBY becasue there are better deals, not that BBY at $30 is a bad price. The only bad deal is having the company being taken private where the value can be raided by insiders. Thus there are less stocks to own and overall less value.

You don't understand taxes, and you don't understand present value calculations.

That $100 explanation is amazing. Get in the box steelhouse, the box is for you.

The dividend will rise with inflation. It is not a bond. Thus $1 real divdend for 100 years is $100 in the present value.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7StWJ6nnS8

This video explains the problem. From minute 15:00. You go to a farmers market and sell a potato to someone for $1. The trade is claimed to be win-win. However it is not win-win for everyone. It took land to grow the potato and it took land to earn the $1. If you live on a small island the land used to grow the potato was a loss to you. As hundreds of millions are added to the population of the United States, the country will effectly become smaller to every individual. I recently heard a stat that the richest country on earth by wealth per capita presently is Australia. The land of plenty.

STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUSE

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUBZ

The system proposed above might be too complicated. Furthermore, people like permanent structures. As there are limits to the amount of fish you can take in a lake so the fish populations remain high, there should be limits to the amount of land you can own so everyone gets some. The acreage of the United States is about 2.3 billion acres. Only about 1 billion of it is good for agriculture with 2/3 of that ranching. Thus people of the United States should be limited to about 4 acres. if you own stock in a corporation, the amount of land the corporation owns divided per shareholder would be added to your total. This would limit many people from accumulating stock abstract from the cost and time of actually managing it. Warren Buffet would be forced to sell stock as his holding probably amounts to more than 100,000 acres. This would greatly balanced out the stock market and curtail the dreaded large owner friendly Delaware corporation.

Since everyone gets some land there really is no need to tax it. Land does not use any services. People can still farm large areas by renting land from other people, like as already is done. You can also own a large ranch if you lease land.

If you build 2 identical houses each on 1/4 acres in the desert. Say one is in a nice town the other is in a rural area. The house in the city might sell for twice the price as the one in the country. The previous land owners contributed to the quality city that helped make the home more valuable. Thus, they should get the benefit when they sell the home.

The corrupt city "Detroit" the home prices may have fallen. But, that is the result of the previous homeowners decision in electing poor city leaders.

Land like air or sea belongs to everyone equally and can be equally protected. It was not til government regulations of air in Los Angeles did the air quality improve. Thus it is cleaner today than in the 1940s yet far more people live here. Wildlife numbers never rebounded until game laws applied to both private and government land.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPFlH6eGqsg

8:45 This guy argues that Rome fell due to the welfare state. This may be true, but what caused people to want to sell their vote for free stuff?

"Where there is anything like an equal distribution of wealth—that is to say, where there is general patriotism, virtue, and intelligence—the more democratic the government the better it will be; but where there is gross inequality in the distribution of wealth, the more democratic the government the worse it will be; for, while rotten democracy may not in itself be worse than rotten autocracy, its effects upon national character will be worse. To give the suffrage to tramps, to paupers, to men to whom the chance to labor is a boon, to men who must beg, or steal, or starve, is to invoke destruction. To put political power in the hands of men embittered and degraded by poverty is to tie firebrands to foxes and turn them loose amid the standing corn; it is to put out, the eyes of a Samson and to twine his arms around the pillars of national life." - Henry George

In summary the people lost their land and moved to the cities. Basically a person that must work on the land of others, they become in fact a slave. The red states tend to be conservative and the blue cities tend to the welfare liberal state. Those in the cities have lost their land even commercial land in previous generations. The land owners don't care where the slaves come. A renter must mow someones lawn so he can watch the game.

Limiting the amount of land one can own to 3 acres or the ((total land acres/population)/2) will be the only way to preserve capitalism. Doing so will expose the fallacies of immigration too. The problem is not welfare, it is the private ownership of land more than your fair share.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnjPFZV8Wqo

1:00 Basically the guy shows the "Fallacy of the Commons" is a joke. The waves are a common owned land. The unwritten law limits people to only a fair share of waves.

LOL STEEEEEEEEEEEEELHOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUSE

LOL UTUBZ!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EryWIWJL0Y

0:30 If you look at the Han Bushman you don't see poor people. You see rich people. Why were people 10,000 years ago poor. They owned more land than us.

1:25 Many people lived past their late teens. Many Han Bushman lived til their 50s and if they went into captivity they probably would live to 70. source: Man The Hunter. A king of Egypt lived to about 80. The average work day was 2-4 hours.

9:20 Basically he says "Fallacy of the Commons" should be called the "The Fairness of the Commons". The classroom belongs to all and you are allowed to take 1 seat. If you took 5 seats you would be taking more seats or acreage than your fair share. If you drawed a line down the middle of the classroom and said 1/2 the seats were mine (I owned the acreage) the ones on the other side might be standing. They in effect become your slaves as you could force them to make your bed, change the channel, wash, the floors in order for them to get a seat of their own, as you watch the lecture from the front row in your bed.

13:00 I don't think John Locke would object to taking the Starburst. Something that has no use to anyone except a few you could take. For example if you find a piece of driftwood on the beach, you could take it. However, if there is a large rock that people like jumping off to dive in the water, you could not take it to put on your lawn because many have a use for it. since no one really cares about the starburst it is ok to take.

18:00 Adverse possession. No land is limited. You can take your house with you if you want. If land is not limited then there is no reason to take the house. If you are coming back in 10 years you need to make arrangements with the community to let them know it is off limits. Otherwise you have the problem with Eric the Red, when he murdered a relative that took one of his houses when he was gone.

23:00 specifically 27:00 Round 1 he claims depicts the Tragedy of the Commons. If you read the 1st paragraph. The first paragraph of the wikipedia page states you have "certain traditional rights". This means you have limits. What are those limits? To protect the carrying capacity of the resource. If say 100000 acres can support the harvesting of 10,000 cattle a year. And there are 200 people in the community. Then each person could harvest 50 cattle a year. The community sets limits to what you can take. That is why they had a famine in Ireland and survival in the commons.

On a side note, if all the ranches of Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, and the Dakotas were put into a community ranch, each person in the United States today could get about 100 lbs of buffalo meat for free or very low cost if you hire someone harvest the meat that belongs to you. Instead you pay for the meat and you go to war as the land owners are exempt from that.

30:00 That is not the tragedy of the anti-commons, that is called government. Government should not be involved in commerce or the economy. Everyone in the community should have access to free commercial and industrial land with no restrictions.

33:00 property rights gives you power to invest correct.
39:00 don't mine title or property rights, i have a problem with hoarding of land. Technically land is hoarded by a few.

55:00 A lot of the property laws are written by current businesses to protect them from competition and new businesses.

1:01 One thing about capitalism and corporations once you invent something there is no reason to go back. You don't need to use Caterpillar tractors used in 1940, you can use more modern tractors. Will we ever go back to horses? All the stents and titanium hips have led to increased lifespan, Angola can bypass the development stage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFQgOy-5Tng 5-22-2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdE1umKfyJA 1-26-2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkXEM7fgGDc 6-17-2013

5-22-2013
0:58 How are they suppose to assess this land? Buildings are on it so they have no way to determine the price or land rent value.
1:24 It becomes economically viable if you can sell the property for a profit. Thus, lower the property tax the higher the value.
1:30 Three different buildings should pay a different tax. The parking lot uses few city resources, the house uses more, and the apartment will use more police, roads (its residents), and fire resources.
2:22 An owner does not want to leave a store and apartment vacant because as time it depreciates and needs repair. Furthermore he is paying tax on a vacant land. high land taxes, if high enough may force the owner to leave for another area.
3:30 the owner does not care about land appreciation he cares about a profitable business.
4:00 People sprawl to the suburbs to avoid the property and taxes of the city. Yes a land tax would be better than a property tax as it would clear out the $30K homes if there were $300K homes. The $300K home might be paying 1% in tax, yet the $30K home might be paying 10% in tax. If the land tax was $3000. Thus a city with high property taxes, the rich residents will leave and the bad residents will stay.
4:21 It will leave less than to nature, to pay the land tax the farmer must be productive on it.
5:00 Mutli-unit housing uses more city resources.
5:30 All housing land would eventually go to the tallest apartment owners. They would buy all the adjacent land and leave it vacant. Housing would concentrate into smaller and smaller hands like what has happened in Hong Kong.
6:20 he can keep the vacant and pay the tax because he can use the profit from other parts of the city to pay for the tax.
6:40 parking lots are needed for business. They are not being subsidized, the city is not paying money to the owner to keep them parking lots.
8:10 they are not monopolizing the lot nor keeping it out of best use. It is the owners option to what the best use is. The true cost of land is zero. How are you going to have all these apartments if no one have the money to buy anything.
8:30 Churches don't pay taxes and look how big and rich those churches are. The wealth is added to the churches, not paid to government crooks.
9:00 The truth is the art galleries, the theater groups should not being paying tax either.
9:20 I would be willing to bet only if the net taxes end up being lower. Land taxes would force the low end to move, as the value of the home would not matter.

1-26-2013
0:30 No it was the existing landowners and people of the city that paid the taxes to make the trail. Thus, the landowners should get the value added to their value of the property since they paid for it.
1:00 The school was build by the local landowners.
1:40 No they should not share, the landowners built the park.
2:00 Parks are rather cheap to build, The local landowners should get the money they spent on the investment. Preferably the parks should be privately owned as a business.
2:30 The community clinic is paid for by someone is it not?

6-17-2013
0:15 There are no businesses there. They grow a crop that exceeds the cost of property taxes. homes would love to move into the area if they get the same tax rate.
2:15 The land value tax would only allow the owner to build better facilities. But, as these facilities are built the land value also rises. Thus, taxes will be raised.
2:30 LVT would be a disaster for wildlife. The only way top pay the LVT would be productive on it. No taxes on land? The only people he wants to be free is the wildlife.
2:45 I highly doubt a young farmer could out compete a seasoned farmer with 20 years experience. He who would produce most corn per acre would get the land? All the land would accumulate into a massive farm.

Basic Overview How it Works

There are 2.3 billion acres in the United States. 1.9 billion acres in the lower 48. There are about 317 billion citizens of the United States. Assuming 1/2 is used as commoner land, that leaves 1.9 billion/2 or 950 million acres available to be claimed. 950/317= 2.997 acres per person.

Some land is more valuable. Imagine the United States 1,000 years ago. The most valuable land is probably California land due to the weather and potential irrigation, the midwestand southern farming land, all the coastal land. The lakefront property of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan and the great lakes. The land value can be determined by population density of each state Class A land might be 16 times more valuable than average land. Beachfront property in the South Bay of Los Angeles might get a rating of 32x. That is 1/32 of an acre = 1 acre. Thus, 3/32 of an acre would be your free allotment of land and only land you could own.

Iowa has 3.07 million people and 35 million acres. Considering 1/2 is used as commons, that would leave about 5 acres per person. Common land can be used for hunting, fishing, pole permits, roads, and the like.

Not only is the land free there should be no taxes on it. As population grows you get less land. You as a choice can move into a community that charges tax, even land tax but these communities would be limited in size to say 4 square miles.

Suppose you live in a 1 square mile community in Iowa and use 1/2 acre for your lot. The community might have their own sales tax say 3% or land tax of $1000 in gold. These taxes would be permanent unless approved by 100% of the vote. It might be more or less depending on the community you own. I would probably choose a community with their own currency pegged to the dollar to add more revenues to the city. This community might also have another 1/2 acre linked to each lot for use of commercial and business land. This business land might not have any taxes. The amount of taxes you pay would be the choice for the city you which to live, there would be cities with no or little tax.

The city might hold an election for mayor that would run the schools (mostly internet), hospitals, police, courts, jails, roads, and firefighting. The taxes are low enough that if the mayor becomes corrupt, you could stay anyways with abandoning or selling your property. Elections would be held every 3 months.

Since you have 1/2 acre for your residence, 1/2 acre for your business, you still have 4 acres that you could invest in a stock, reit, or for a piece of recreational land in Montana. Sears Holdings owns about 241 million square feet or 5500 acres. Assuming Eddie Lampert owns 50% of shld, he would own 2250 acres of land assuming it is all single story. Thus he would be forced to sell 2247 acres of land or 99.9% of his stock in SHLD. He would probably get around this by not owning the stores, but the owners of the stores could switch if corporate was not treating them right or they could find a better use of their stores or a better brand.

As more people are added to the United States, more people would be against legal and illegal immigration. Most of it seems to gain the slave labor for large landowners that don't want to pay a competitive wage.

==========

With a little imagination the system is rather simple. If you don't like where you are living, sell or abandon the property and move. Permits would be illegal, however there would be laws to follow. You might also be forced to register for selective service if you own land. there would be plenty of land to move to in all states if the adjustment factor was calculated.

Unlike the other system, you can build to your hearts desire without permits, sell the property, and move on to another property to develop. Regardless of race or religion the country is open to you, as long as you don't take too much. Like in a classroom, you don't take 5 seats and force the ones coming in later to stand. Yet, private property today allows this to happen and everyone sits around in a daze like it is normal. It is not normal the above system is the normal. When the sooners came to Oklahoma they were limited to 160 acres. There were always limits so everyone got land.

The only question is how do you stop overpopulation?

===============

In the meantime there really is no reason not to vote for food stamps or social security disability. You have been denied the right to your land.

**** the poor

and the landless

Overpopulation could be a problem. You gain a competitive advantage by having more kids. Thus if you have 10 kids, you will eventually have 36 acres to farm. 2 kids and only 12 acres to farm. Thus a general limit on the land you own might be 5-10 acres. It would be easier to implement too.

Looking at Buffett, even his See's Candies holdings probably amount to more than a 100 acres for him. Let alone the 100s of other holdings. In fact, it was probably not Buffetts wise investments that made him rich but the monopolization of profitable land. It does not take rocket science to see that Heinz ketchup is just another land (and capital) holding. Corporations were not designed to be held most by one man, yet a large group of people. A large group of people would limit the power of the CEO and the large shareholders that rape the small shareholders on virtually every deal. There is no reason not to tax capital gains, debt interest, and dividends of more than $1 million at the 50% rate, to help the economy. The small investors should get their corporate income taxes back (which is just an investors tax) which should be larger than the dividend. Imagine if the small investor dividend was 3x larger. Furthermore you could eliminate all taxes for people than make less than $1 million, they would not need to file.

"In the 1830s, John Jacob Astor foresaw that the next big boom would be the build-up of New York, which would soon emerge as one of the world’s greatest cities. Astor withdrew from the American Fur Company, as well as all his other ventures, and used the money to buy and develop large tracts of Manhattan real estate. Astor correctly predicted New York's rapid growth northward on Manhattan Island, purchasing more and more land beyond the then-existing city limits. Astor rarely built on his land, and instead let others pay rent to use it." wikipedia.

As for hate the poor and land less. Land does not cost anybody any money which is labor. You are not entitled to a check or a job. However, you are entitled to a piece of land.

If you want to see how the small shareholders get raped on virtually every deal, just look at Dell, BBY, AM, or any of the dozens of deals that occur every month.

If you look at Detroit, I would not be surprised to find the underlying cause of the violence is to reduce the home values. 90% of the people of Detroit do not pay property tax. This was accomplished by creating a culture of violence. It is still 30x more likely to die of heart disease, cancer, or accidents than murder in Detroit. The violence made the property affordable. The question to ask if there was no property or income taxes would not the violence just go away if land was limited to 1/4 acre per resident? I think it would.