On earth as scriptactive
In the last article we stopped at desbalanceada the economic factor called “Earth”.
Land is a unique factor of production. Its uniqueness is that it is finite. And also that the income from land is very poorly correlated with actual investments in it labor and capital.
What is General land? This piece of territory of our planet. The factor land is directly linked with the right of ownership, which, in turn, stems from the concept of public power (it will be considered late and you will like it too).
Previously, the land is valued by economists in the context of agricultural reproduction. The Lord of the physiocrats on this they built a whole school, taking the factor of land in the absolute, as the only source of added value. Later their beliefs were deemed naive, factors of production work together.
That is, I have a piece of land, I planted it on a ton of corn and picked two. I added to my land or hired labor, and collected two tonnes and five. I bought the plow that is raised, or embodied in means of production, previous work, and has collected five tons and ten. But the work is reproduced by people invested in the form of the plough is created by labor, land is unique and novopromyslova.
Today, agriculture ceases to be so rural and right turns from a unique industry into an ordinary industry. Now land for agriculture is not as important as used to grow food capital. With high-tech and very compact greenhouses, located in absolutely unsuitable for traditional agriculture, e.g. in the Arabian desert, you can get a lot more products than usual beds.
But the land as a resource has not lost its value. Land in the correct (!) the place brings an income far greater than some ten tons of wheat.
Hectares in the middle of Manhattan is worth a lot of money and brings huge income to the owner, practically requiring no additional labor or capital. The same overall hectares in the middle of the Yakut taiga are not worth anything. Although it may ha in Yakutia it is possible to extract more resources than a hectare in new York, but the infrastructure in Yakutia, and the wealth there turned into a cube of gold in the middle of dense forest.
Hectares of land in the middle of Manhattan has become valuable due to the huge investment of labor and capital, which made Manhattan the capital of world Finance. But the owner of this particular hectare may be, these attachments no did not participate. I’ve seen similar, for example, in 2007 in the Krasnodar region, when Russia won the right to host the Olympics. Was planned a significant investment from the state budget, and suddenly land in the bear corner with three sheds and a dirt road were worth millions. To invest the money going to the state to invest the taxes of the whole country, and earned in the end, the owners, the finger is not striking.
Of course, the acquisition of land in the beginning had expended some labour, and sometimes considerable. But the land is inherited, and it is a labour spent in the heirs? No, simply use the rent. On the one hand. On the other, we know about the public authority and compliance status — social and economic (actually, don’t remember, because I still do not understand, but a check put).
You can go to Moscow or Kiev, to read the signs on the houses and learn the names of former owners other than land and luxury properties in the trump. However, at one point in history these people have lost their social status and laid them on the status of the share of public power, and therefore lost the right of ownership. Other people later, finding necessary and sufficient social status, the property and the land underneath the property was obtained, and relatively inexpensive, and sometimes free. Who is to blame? Do the former owners.
But this is a complex idea, let’s just leave it for the next article when we look at the driving forces of policy initiatives in the society.
Back to the ground. This factor is really poorly placed in economic theory and much it distorts. When humanity will be able to get rid of this factor? Let’s play a little futurism.
The answer is simple: when we have a new earth. When deep space will become commercial and will begin to make a profit. When the owners of labor and capital will cease to depend on rentier share the only planet in the plots. Fiction? Well, for example, Elon Musk — adventurer, but is a successful businessman, is considering deep space as a very promising business project.
But the land we have learned to make themselves for a long time. For example, a significant portion of the world’s largest Shanghai sea port is located on an artificial spit. And what to do, just a free place on the coast is over? The Macau SAR has increased its territory by almost half over the last 40 years. Open in Google Maps Macau, turn on the layer with street map, and then with geophoto — I guarantee you will be surprised. You can also recall the famous Arab projects of artificial Islands. Although they are not very successful.
But we invented a more effective way of “making land”. We created the Internet. Very cool to have a boutique on Manh the balcony (and quite sad to have a boutique in the middle of the Yakut taiga), but the world’s largest retailer, though an extensive infrastructure worldwide in real sectors of the real earth, his multi-billion dollar revenue it receives in the place called “website amazon.com”. And such a successful business Amazon makes that infrastructure, which, in contrast to just earth, it definitely is created by investment of labor and capital, not just the ownership of a good piece of territory.
Why do I say that the factor of land distorts the economy and leads to crises? Yes elementary: let us recall two recent large-scale global crisis. One of them is associated with the manipulation of property rights and ownership, and the second with excessive investment in a beautiful domain names without any business model and infrastructure. And why? And all because the earth’s assets is much more difficult to assess in monetary terms, than the labor, and the generated capital, and they are much less liquid than capital and creating his work.
And look what a progressive idea: we land on the planet to cryptocurrency. Imagine a planet Bitcoin. The surface end is a coin. To develop new areas all the more difficult, the hash rate is growing, we need growing investment. Part of the bitcoins lost forever without any meaning — let it be barren desert or the oceans, although both analogies are not very good. The planet appears Bitcoin economy: stock exchanges, exchanges, funds, channels, input and output, the land included in the turnover.
The land ends, and people are thinking about other worlds. So there are violas. There is no economy there, but on the moon there is no economy, but people are buying portions of the surface on the moon for the future, in the hope that their heirs will have enough public power to this right of ownership to prove. When someone comes to this planet to make the economy, he recognizes the right of ownership on her part, and will not make any fork. As, for example, France has formnula the global shipping infrastructure, the Suez canal, and captured by the British, Mauritius did not become a second Singapore.
And here again there is the contradiction between the social and economic status. Coins are many, and the economy built a few, sometimes it’s by strangers — those large institutional investors, which are so welcome in the crypt. Why are the capitalists — that is, those who own capital and creates a product — to increase the value of the assets of the rentier, that is, those who just somehow got the coins much earlier and much cheaper?
In other words, why was the banker John needs to do a Bob-programmer a millionaire if social status they do not equal? Of course, he won’t do it!
Output there is only one programmer Bob, the owner of the pile of coins, have to raise their social status and receive adequate share of public power. Then banker John will assume the Bob is equal to and begin to invest real labour and real capital in Wasini plots on captplanet. Otherwise Wasini investment awaits the fate of the characters of the plates in the center of Moscow. “Apartment house Pepper!” No Pepper there for a long time does not smell.
But as the finiteness of land as a factor of production introduces errors in the current economy, and the extremity amount of cryptocoins makes them defective by design, that is initially. As a factor in the future needs to disappear and the coins of the first wave with a fixed issue will probably die.
The second conclusion from the above: the crypt immature and flawed, if a serious capitalization were unable to organize more or less sane political lobby. Yes, the crypt held as an objective fact of reality and has been recognized in a number of countries, but this process is stochastic and haphazard (although it seems that the crypt gave us a DAO, but not in the horse feed).
Ashamed, Criptana. ThePirateBay even able to make his party, and this is just a torrent tracker.
Well, the main conclusion that the cryptocurrency is in any case not the money. This right of ownership on the part of the infrastructure created on the basis of the cryptocurrency. Now it remains to make the true owners of this infrastructure to respect your right of ownership, not to exchange it for an uncontrolled issued by stably and numbers in the personal offices of the exchanges.