Re:Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth c...
by yterdy on Friday December 01, 2023 @02:19PM
(#38490960)
It's not nitpicking, it's central to the issue. One could consider that, as far as Western civilization is concerned, colonialism was an exercise in "land creation" - and the various wars of the 20th century, temporarily in the case of bombings and permanently in the case of mine-setting, a type of "land destruction".
Picketty doesn't miss.
Re:Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth c...
by tomwheeler on Friday December 01, 2023 @02:12PM
(#38490880)
The Netherlands has also created quite a bit of land. Chernobyl is an example of land that was effectively destroyed by becoming uninhabitable.
Re:Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth c...
by iNic on Sunday December 03, 2023 @09:39AM
(#38507375)
Yeah, I'm talking about land in the Henry George sense. Maybe a better word would be "natural resources". In this framework you don't just have Labor and Capital, but you have Labor, Capital and Land. Labor uses Land to create wealth, and Capital gives Labor the tools to be more effective in wealth creation.
I'm sure the amount of land that can realistically be created and destroyed within a few lifetimes is negligible compared to the amount of land in existence, but compared to valuable inhabited land it might actually be significant. Coastal land tends to be pretty valuable, and that's where (almost) all the creation and destruction occurs.
Edit: Actually, the interview you reference is not even really talking about land.
> When you say “land,” you’re not talking about land in the Jane Austen sense, that is, agricultural land under the ownership of the lord of the manor, right?
> It’s not agricultural land, it’s the value of urban land.
Obviously urban land can be created and destroyed as cities expand and contract.