1
2
3
Wealth and Want | |||||||
... because democracy alone is not enough to produce widely shared prosperity. | |||||||
Home | Essential Documents | Themes | All Documents | Authors | Glossary | Links | Contact Us |
Capital
Formation
Mason Gaffney: Land as a Distinctive Factor of Production Investors
respond to high land-price by forming land-saving capital, i.e.
substituting capital for land. It is useful to distinguish five
forms this substitution takes (cf A-6, where these points
are
outlined).
i)
ii) 44.
Developing submarginal land is particularly capital-intensive, and the payoff is notably slow. A generic example is reforesting land that is high, cold, dry and sloping, where the timber does not ripen for over a century.
v)
Economies
of simultaneity are related to economies of scale.
Building higher, taken by itself, suffers diseconomies, also known as
increasing costs. On the other hand, building larger, with
horizontal expansion, evinces economies of scale. It also
requires
more land, meaning more land rent. It comes into style during
periods of rent-leading capital building.
45. There are
"economies
of simultaneity" in building, so if you
are going to build to four stories, you have to do it all at once.
Suppose today's demand is high enough to justify a two-story building,
but you see the demand rising steadily over the 40-year life of the
building. You build a four-story building today, and absorb some early
losses on the upper two stories, as an investment for future
years. Read the whole
article
Net domestic
capital formation. We need to get away from the disregard many
radical reformers show for the incentives for capital formation,
conservation, and maintenance. George was less insouciant than Marx
or Keynes, and he did see the merit of untaxing capital, but he had
no concern about the aggregate supply: by inference, importing
capital was as good as forming it locally, or domestically.
Incentives are needed, not just to import capital, but to form capital. Besides simply forming newcapital, we need incentives NOT to squander existing capital, in the manner of the notorious Prince of Brunei who indulges himself with his traveling harem, retinue, yachts and racehorses; or worse, in the manner of Osama bin Laden who indulges his passions with the jihad that not only consumes his own capital, but destroys that of his enemies. Marxists and early Keynesians seem to see the rich as automatically creating more capital than can be used. They underrate the capacity of the rich for self-indulgence, and the tendency of social standards of consumption to rise with wealth. Marxists and Keynesians also overrate the automaticity of domestic American capital formation. They, and many others, still see the U.S.A. as the overflowing fount of loans for the world. Yet, the U.S.A. is now the world’s leading debtor nation. Those who see the forgiveness of international debts as a means of transferring wealth FROM the U.S.A. should give that fact some prayerful thought. Modern conservative champions of incentives for capital formation err also in failing to note that it is important to use any given aggregate of capital efficiently – as important as to create more capital. When we speak of “any given aggregate of capital” we are constructing a temporary mental model in which capital is like land, i.e. fixed in supply. Here, the function of price and the market is to get that fixed supply allocated optimally, i.e. put to the best use. “Price,” in this case, means the rate of interest. They
err even more egregiously, and tendentiously, in making their
favorite cause the exemption of “capital gains” from
taxation. I put “capital
gains” in quotes because most
capital gains are land value gains (Gaffney, 1990). “Capital
gains” is one of those slippery euphemisms that P.R. people came
up with, and the media circulate, to camouflage unearned increments
as functional incentives and rewards for creating capital, and
investing it in income-creating ways. It’s a way of controlling
us by corrupting the language. A tragedy of modern Georgism is how
easily its Philadelphia convention, during the first Bush
Administration, was stampeded into memorializing Congress to repeal
the capital gains tax. A convention of land speculators could have
done no worse. Most modern Georgists simply did not understand, or
seem to care to understand, how the income tax works. There has been
some progress since then; but still, they need to wake up and smell
the coffee. Read the whole article
Michael Hudson and Kris Feder: Real Estate and the Capital Gains Debate
Because real estate investors make much of their money by buying and
reselling existing properties, much as financial investors buy already
seasoned stocks and bonds, many real estate and stock transactions have
no new employment or direct investment effects regardless of the
capital gains incentives being offered. Yet the tax code
permits real
estate investors to take their returns mainly in the form of capital
gains and declare little taxable ordinary income. FIRE sector investors
in the finance and insurance industries also have taken their income in
ever more lightly taxed forms. These tax subsidies divert effort and
ingenuity out of productive channels and into speculation on already
existing buildings and land, or already issued stocks and bonds. An
across-the-board cut in capital gains taxes would favor the FIRE sector
rather than manufacturing, steering investment money further from
active to passive investment. Far greater stimulus to productivity is
to be expected from, instead, eliminating special privileges and
closing loopholes -- while reducing taxes on payrolls, sales, and
enterprise. ...
If the intention is to provide an incentive for new direct investment, employment, and industrial modernization, then an across-the-board capital gains tax cut is at best a blunt policy instrument. We have examined several reasons to doubt that further cuts in capital gains taxes will have a pronounced incentive effect on new direct investment.49 Capital gains tend to reward accumulation of old assets more than production of new wealth. Read the whole article |
|
to
email this page to a friend: right click, choose "send"
|
||||||
Wealth
and Want
|
www.wealthandwant.com
|
|||||
... because democracy
alone hasn't yet led to a society in which all can
prosper
|