Adam Smith said that the four factors of production are land, labor, capital and management. The only quibble non-Marxist economists have had with that list for a quarter of a millennium has been to argue whether management is not really a subset of labor.
But what is critical is how little thinking, none actually, they have done on the word “land.” They have always thought in Adam’s terms, of “land” as meaning what a factory or a farm needed in HIS day. To Adam Smith the word “land” meant resources as well as a factory site. You need land to graze sheep on or to mine for coal.
Economic thinking on land as a factor of production, is where Adam Smith left it.
Today it is not uncommon for what Smith called “land” to be nonexistent. Some of the most expensive “land” on earth is above the fiftieth floor where a firm is located. SMOM is an independent country in Italy which is recognized by a number of other countries. It is located entirely on the second floor of an otherwise Italian building.
Location, location and location. Smith knew some locations were more valuable than others, but today it has an overwhelming importance he could not have imagined.
And that is least of “modern economitss'” problems with the first factor. Even in Adam Smith’s sense, the place you put a factory is mostly not a matter of resources. Africa has lots of resources and Japan has NONE, but how many people would put a factory in Africa?
This is why libertarian economists are such complete fools. They know very well that no sane businessman would put a factory in Haiti with the same percentage profits as he would accept in the United States. No LIBERTARIAN would pay the same amount for Haitian investments as he would for the same factory in America.
Why? Because Haiti is full of HAITIANS His money is subject to HAITIAN politics. PERIOD.
Yet every libertarian economist insists that if the American population moved out and the third world moved in, he would be just as willing to invest his money here. It is the American” land” that is productive, and a new population wouldn’t change it.
Like most of my propositions, once you put the thing in plain English you wonder about the sanity of those who haven’t.
#1 by Gator61 on 03/12/2010 - 8:25 am
I think this post has the makings of a good youtube video. I’ll get started on it tonight.
Bob, I wish you would would provide an audio version of your posts. Then I could use your voice instead of my lispy one.
#2 by BGLass on 03/12/2010 - 9:02 am
One need only imagine a “tipping point,” in China— where 50% of Chinese are replaced in just 50 years by blonde-blue Midwesterners, and there are big photo ops, with them holding up signs, proudly proclaiming, “I AM CHINA!” Big groups of whites, screaming in broken Chinese, “I love China!” And another 30% of Chinese replaced by Dominicans, Haitians, Jews, Mexicans, and them clamoring, “I AM CHINA!” (Usually the sign says “I am America!) The previous Chinese must be expelled! They do not represent the TRUE CHINA! Land, itself, produces nothing. There are plenty of better places than America, if you just want to talk about land. They will never get it.
#3 by Scrivener on 03/12/2010 - 10:57 am
Yet every libertarian economist insists that if the American population moved out and the third world moved in, he would be just as willing to invest his money here. It is the American” land” that is productive, and a new population wouldn’t change it.
You know, that got me thinking. Back when I was in school, the teachers would talk about the fact that America was relatively resource poor compared to places like Brazil and Africa.
By the time I was in college, the official rhetoric was that Europeans had taken the “best land” for themselves.
Of course, a lot of things have changed. Back when I started school, the teachers still believed we were going to be living on the moon in the year 2000. I grew up thinking that we were going to expand into space. Now, I just want somewhere in my own country for my people to live.
#4 by Simmons on 03/12/2010 - 11:46 am
Nowadays the teacher’s aim is to live thru the experience and collect a paycheck. Most teaching slots are in “vibrant” schools and hence just hoping not to be necklaced by the Africans. Ask them if you think I lie.
As for the “sanity” thing, all you have to do is interogate a lefty or their respectable counterpart. They can answer nothing, absolutely nothing, but yet our PHDs insist on lengthy tomes that miss the point, “just ask them” works so much better.
“So what you want is the genocide of the white race, my race, is that what you are saying?”
#5 by warweaver on 03/12/2010 - 4:10 pm
Someone needs to point to a libertarian because either we’re talking about some theoretical philosophy that doesn’t have any practical application or else Bob is looking at the libertarian strain in the USA different from the one that I look at – namely, Lew Rockwell gold bugs.
I’ll agree with Bob, if he’s calling the Lew Rockwellians simpletons – Bob, are you calling the libertarian economists, such as those posting on Lew ROckwell, simpletons?
#6 by Wolf on 03/12/2010 - 8:36 pm
I always try to explain this concept to people at work. I tell them that if a Mexican moves to the US he doesn’t suddenly become productive. There’s nothing wrong with Mexico as a country, there’s no reason why people can’t make a good life there – except for the fact they’re Mexican. Race is real and it matters.
I had heard before how Europeans took all the good lands for themselves, but if that were true why do we pay so much for oil from the middle east? Why do we generally live where it’s cold and we have to waste energy heating stuff?
#7 by Dave on 03/12/2010 - 9:50 pm
Warweaver,
The Libertarians don’t have a monopoly on not making sense. They repeat a lot of classical economic theory (that they call “Austrian Theory”) that needs repeating and is valid.
It is their overall orientation that doesn’t make sense because it is distorted and unrealistic.
I look at them the same way I look at the typical nutbars you find running muncipal governments. They are lost in the “rulebook” that they live by.
They shouldn’t be taken seriously.
I really like the way Simmons keep emphazing how nutty the people we oppose are.
Simmons is right and he is accurate.
We are fighting mentalities that fundamentally don’t make sense and they are weak and exposed. That is the simple truth of it.
#8 by Scrivener on 03/12/2010 - 10:57 pm
If I recall my history correctly, we ended up with nominal political control of most of Mexico after the Mexican-American War. Certainly we had military dominance. But the point is, we had the country.
The problem was, it was ungovernable. The PEOPLE of Mexico were a lot more trouble than they were worth and I’m sure that was a deciding factor in asking the Mexican government to come back and pretend that little conquest thing never happened.
Polk’s administration and the occupying commanders would think we were nuts for willingly BRINGING Mexican peasants here by the truckload to do whatever it is they do.
#9 by Simmons on 03/13/2010 - 11:53 am
Dave wrote
Without the respectables propping up the left and churning out authoritarian goons to enforce its laws the left would crumble within weeks. It would be an orgy of violence down to Nigger revolutionaries raping the white libs, literally.
But we have the Limbaugh mouths spewing inaccurate jargon about “them libruls” as if them libruls were a unified coherent conspiracy, when in fact they are an unstable collection of mini cults.
Our PHDs fall for this, but there is hope however slight for the intellectuals on our side, a new grouping at some site called “Alternative Right” is getting down to basics (not yet at BUGs level).
#10 by Gator61 on 03/14/2010 - 10:24 pm
Just got a video of this blog post up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOlwaGbmpm4
Don’t be selfish. Please share with your friends.