Talk:Land (economics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconEconomics Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Land economics[edit]

is it appropriate to say that land economics has to do with the buying and selling of land?PLS throw more light on this

Not really, land economics is more to do with the allocation of land to its "highest and best use". It asks what use should any given parcel of land be put? Build housing? Build office tower? Keep as nature reserve? Use for farming? mydogategodshat 03:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The journal Land Economics concerns itself with the study of land use, natural resources, public utilities, housing, and urban land issues.
Janosabel 22:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Land Economics involves the study of the allocation (use) of a scarce resouce; land. The TV series "Flip This House" has little to do with land economics, but the study land use succession does (for example, bulding sites in Rome have been used and re-used (recycled) many times in the past 2,500 years). Considering geologic time, land uses change at a brisk pace. //Don K. (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

even real land isn't land (economics)[edit]

I think it's worth making very clear that the economic term models reality rather than reflecting it; today, new land is regularly "produced" on earth, albeit at prices that are still far higher, in most cases, than just buying real land would be.

There is no serious question today about whether it would be possible, in principle, to produce land outside of earth's atmosphere - it definitely is, at astronomical prices.

Ultimately, the difference between land and capital was (and is) one of technology. Today, one could argue that all the forms of land mentioned in the article are available in unlimited quantities (excepting "the universe is finite" arguments), though there are sharp jumps in how expensive a given quantity of each would be.

RandomP 06:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a brave effort to prove by sophistry that there is no real distinction between land and man created capital. True, you can create artificial islands and (in theory) extend beaches into the sea indefinitely. But in the economic meaning of the term. land includes all natural resources including the electromagnetic spectrum revealed (not created) by modern communications technology.
This kind of exercise is a favourite pastime of many neoclassical economists who love to simplify economic models by conflating categories of entities. In the process mainstream economics moves further and further from modeling actual economic reality in their theories. Janosabel 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]