🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <nieporen-5A0197.06451725062005@host170.octanews.net>,
 David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, I hadn't thought of that. Now I'm depressed that I realize my 
sarcastic example is actually true.