🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <d9im0l$4ch$2@blue.rahul.net>,
 Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote:
>In ca.general BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>  Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote:

>>>      Frankly I don't think that a different decision would really
>>> have changed anything. Governments would have seized the land for 
>>> "a park," then a few months later turned around and sold it to the
>>> private developers.

>> Yeah, you're probably right.
>> Frankly, I don't know why I should be allowed to have a savings account, 
>> either. I'm sure Wal-Mart or some real estate developer could put the 
>> money to better use. This would surely be "for the public good."

>     The property owners will, I'm sure, be paid more than their
>property is worth (though of course that was not the point of 
>their suit).  

No; by definition, they're being paid less than the property is worth to 
them.  If they were being paid more, they'd sell.

In practical terms, anybody who has been involved in a legal condemnation 
actions knows that the amounts paid are always lowballed.  Monopsonies 
backed up with guns tend to have an awful lot of market power.

>A savings account has no value beyond its dollar
>price, so if the govt seizes your $5000 account and pays you $6000
>for it, I don't see that you have a lot of complaints coming.
>(Except on general principle.)

Yeah.  Pesky principles.

Besides, BTR, he's right -- they have to compensate you when they take your 
property via eminent domain.  When they want to take your savings accounts, 
they just say the magic words "taxing the rich" and seize it.

---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent    nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu