🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3v9pso$5cl@gap.cco.caltech.edu> jlodman@alumni.caltech.edu writes:
    >In article <philDCE7pD.8ED@netcom.com>, Phil Ronzone
    ><phil@netcom.com> wrote:
    >>What a maroon (B. Bunny)! I've said no such thing about fair
    >>pricing for grazing lands. Idiot (or dolt). I've said that
    >>there is NO subsidy for grazing lands because there is NO
    >>market for grazing lands. With no market, you have no
    >>marketplace price. No marketplace price, no concept of
    >>whether or not a price is "below market". Without that FACT,
    >>you can't say there is a subsidy.
    >>
    >The only maroon, Phil, is you. There is, in virtually all
    >cases, an established market for privately held grazing land
    >in the area. I know many ranches are leased in total to other
    >operators. A rough lower bound on the market price for
    >government held grazing land can be established. Where the
    >government is leasing land for below these market rates,
    >there is not only a subsidy, there is a distortion induced in
    >the private rental market. In other words, the private
    >landowners are getting stiffed by the below market rates of
    >the government.
    >
    >It's really hilarious to watch a supposed free-market
    >proponent such as yourself defending government subsidies.

Eh? Biy, you are quite disable conceptually! I've defended no such thing.
There is NO market for grazing land. Pray tell, for example, show me
an MLS equivalent for grazing lands (MLS == real estate multiple listing
system). Or perhaps, a section is a local newspaper listing grazing lands
for rent as per apartments for rent.

You can't -- you have the usual government intervention non-market.

    >>As I said, the non-development of Yosemite is a multi-billion
    >>dollar subsidy to park users.
    >>
    >The owners of Yosemite can put the park up for sale any time
    >they choose Phil. There is no subsidy whatsoever. The owners
    >apparently feel the park is more valuable to them as is than
    >sold off in pieces. I, as one of the owners, agree with the
    >majority of the owners on this point.

Ah, no, there are no owners. An onwer can sell, transfer, occupy, rent,
lease (etc.) real estate he or she owns. Please show me such owners for
Yosemite.

    >>Well, then, we have to call the Yosemite park users "welfare
    >>park users" to be consistent, won't we?
    >>
    >No. Any owner of Yosemite can use the park. The same is not
    >true of government grazing lands, which some ranchers even
    >have the gall to fence off from hunters as if they owned it.

Really? Gee, do YOU own YOUR house if you CAN'T sell, lease, reant, transfer,
or OCCUPY it? Try living 365 days a year on YOUR part of Yosemite ...

If that's your idea of ownership, I'd hate to see what you think freedom is ...


-- 
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)