A shopping center without parking is almost always less valuable than one with parking.
Yet, Georgists think that a shopping center without parking, one with parking, and a parking lot should all be taxed the same.
Yet, Georgists think that a shopping center without parking, one with parking, and a parking lot should all be taxed the same.
In what universe is "fewer parking lots" the solution to "not enough parking lots"?
As Orwell wrote, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
You may like a life where you're dependent on delivery services for anything you can't carry to where it needs to go but the rest of us aren't willing to wear that hair shirt.
You've already stated that an essential part of your plan is eliminating parking lots.
You think that a world without parking lots, a world where people mostly carry stuff and otherwise rely on delivery services, is best. Aren't you going to at least followup with "people buy too much stuff anyway, so shopping centers that sell less are better."?
Surely you can defend your vision instead of just giving up when someone summarizes it.
Why should I agree with something that is so clearly false?
Speculation is betting on a better tomorrow. That's clearly a social good.
> People should not make money for owning empty land that they do nothing with, it's really that simple.
Is it?
Suppose that I like looking at trees. (When a govt does that, it's called greenspace, parkland, etc, and everyone says how great it is. Feel free to argue that Central Park should be covered with high rises.)
Or, I'm waiting for Disneyland to be finished so I can put up a hotel if it pans out.
There are lots of great reasons to "do nothing" with land.
Note that Disneyland is an interesting case that disproves one of your core assumptions, namely that "the public" is responsible for the value of land, therefore it should get all of the "rent". "The public" in all of the nearby cities did just as much as "the public" in Anaheim, yet somehow the area around Disneyland is worth far more than pretty much any place in those cities. The public was, as is often the case, irrelevant.
Disneyland isn't an exception in this respect - I picked it because it's so blatant.
Let's come back to an essential point - why should your preferences regarding other people's property matter? Especially since pretty much every detail that you've used to support your position is wrong.
And it's not just the little details.
For example, you seem to think that efficiency is a goal. It's not. It's a tool. (Of course, your definition of "efficiency" is flawed.)
I get that you want to live in a cramped dysfunctional monoculture, but the rest of us don't. (I brought back monoculture because that's what your policies encourage.) Moreover, such a system is actually less valuable, which is a curious result given your repeated rants about maximizing value.
However, you are demonstrating that Georgist "efficient land use" is not particularly desirable. (Moreover, "efficient" land use is rarely that important.)
Georgism does push towards a monoculture and a particularly horrible one at that.
For example, Georgism punishes someone who puts some open space between buildings, even though open-space is clearly a good thing.
As I wrote previous, Georgists confuse having an equation that they can "optimize" with having a useful idea on how to allocate resources in the real world.
Yes, Georgism lets you do some calculations, but that doesn't imply that doing those calculations is worthwhile. (This is a problem with economics as a field.)
And, no, the "witticisms" don't make your case. They actually argue that Georgists are dangerous fools.
I think this is the key issue that gets glossed over. Who decides the land value? How is that decision arrived at? Is it a purely bureaucratic process where the community has no say? Is it set at a federal level where it will likely be completely disconnected from the reality of a particular municipality?
A lot would hinge on the answers to these questions and I'd take a bet that if this were ever implemented it would be done wrong and would result in many unforeseen negative outcomes.
I think we should stop trying to revive outdated 19th century economic theory and actually put in some work to create a modern one that accounts for the age we live in.