HotTopicRebel

HotTopicRebel t1_ixus3uk wrote

We've got other materials we can use. But water has a lot going for it. It's relatively cheap, has an absolutely huge specific heat, isn't reactive/corrosive, and if there's a leak it's generally not going to spontaneously combust or poison everything, and it happens to have a fairly malleable phase-shift diagram.

Are there better materials for each of those above in isolation? Yes. But is there a better material on the whole? Not really.

4

HotTopicRebel t1_it9x4jo wrote

>Everybody works but the vacant lot. I paid $3600. for this lot and will hold it ‘till I get $6000. The profit is unearned increment made possible by the presence of this community and the enterprise of its people. I take the profit without earning it. For the remedy read ”HENRY GEORGE”

>Yours truly

>Fay Lewis

It's because we've created such a warped set of incentives that a home--what should be a depreciating asset--is being seen more and more as not just a place to put money, but an investment (and a pretty good one at that). Of course, it's not the house that is bringing in the big bucks, it's the appreciation of the land.

We should be implementing a tax on the land itself (not including the structures built on it). To encourage productive use of it. Whether it's more housing or industry. You should not be able to hold onto land indefinitely waiting for the price to go up.

4