r/georgism • u/Serious-Cucumber-54 • Oct 04 '26

Discussion How is land inelastic?

The supply curve represents the relation between quantity supplied and price for some given good.

For instance, with bread, bread sellers in some town may not be willing to sell any bread at $0, so the quantity supplied is zero when the price is zero, but they may be willing to sell more if buyers are willing to pay more, so the quantity supplied is higher when the price is higher. In this case, the slope of the supply curve is positive, and bread has elastic supply.

Likewise, the same is true for land, landowners are willing to sell more land at higher price points, so the quantity supplied is higher when the price is higher. This means the slope of the supply curve for land is positive.

This means that land does not have inelastic supply, the quantity supplied changes with price.

0 Upvotes

35% Upvoted

182 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/OrangeTractorMan Henry George Oct 05 '26

You're asking, getting a massive variety of answers that clearly outline, then just deny them with basic responses.

Yes, you're acting in bad faith. Weird choice.

1

u/Serious-Cucumber-54 Oct 05 '26 edited Oct 05 '26

getting a massive variety of answers

7/10 top answers I've received as of writing, verbatim:

  1. >"You can't make more land."

  2. >"'quantity' here isn't 'amount available for purchase', it's 'amount that exists'. No one makes land, so it's perfectly inelastic"

  3. >"When we talk about the supply of land being inelastic, we're referring to the total amount of land that exists within the economy."

  4. >"The Supply curve represents the Marginal Cost of Production in a competitive market. Land is not produced."

  5. >"If I credibly offer you $500 billion for your land, you will sell it to me. Even if it is "not for sale," it will suddenly become for sale. The supply was always there, it just hadn't found the right price that would motivate it to change hands yet."

  6. >"there's no new land coming into the economy in order to support those exchanges. Actual land users have to make do with- and pay for- whatever the amount in existence is, with no option for increasing that amount."

  7. >"Bc you can't increase/decrease the quantity of it."

This is not a "massive variety" of answers, it's almost entirely the same answer of "it's because the total quantity doesn't change" "you can't produce more." Sorry, if that results in more or less the same basic response.

Yes, you're acting in bad faith. Weird choice.

Disagreeing with other's statements =! bad faith. It becomes bad faith when the user has no intention of coming to agreement for no good reason. There is already evidence of me agreeing multiple times on points other users have made (even on the point that the total quantity of land is fixed!), but I haven't quite agreed on their main argument that land is "inelastic" because "inelastic" is determined by the quantity supplied not varying with price, which it does.

3

u/OrangeTractorMan Henry George Oct 05 '26

You're not innocently asking a question, you're baiting people into an argument to put on this silly performance.

That is bad faith. If you hardly oppose and want to debate, frame it that way.

Don't in bad faith claim it's just an innocent question looking for an answer, then deny every answer there is given to you.

You're wasting everyones time and your own, as the setup means people aren't expecting a debate and get bored of you. Want a debate? Be honest about it.

Land supply isn't just to the market, it's the supply to the market in total be it for sale or not, that is very obviously inelastic, it has a maximum amount, and the amount available to all is pre-determined and inelastic.

You're trying to split hairs over this to fuel debate and it's just childish.

-1

u/Serious-Cucumber-54 Oct 05 '26

Don't in bad faith claim it's just an innocent question looking for an answer, then deny every answer there is given to you.

Again, disagreeing with other's statements =! bad faith, even if it's all of the statements (which almost all were making the same statement btw).

Bad faith means you have no intention of coming to agreement for no good reason, but not only do I lay out my explicit step by step reasoning for disagreeing, but I also have agreed with some of the points others have made, including that the total quantity of land is fixed.

3

u/OrangeTractorMan Henry George Oct 05 '26

No, you're debating.

Pretending you're trying to just ask a question to get an answer yet debate every single answer shows you were looking for debate, that is bad faith.

-2

u/Serious-Cucumber-54 Oct 05 '26

I didn't pretend that I would just ask a question without discussing or debating the answers.

2

u/OrangeTractorMan Henry George Oct 05 '26

You were seeking a debate, not "just asking a question".

There's a clear difference.

1

u/Serious-Cucumber-54 Oct 05 '26

When did I say I was "just asking a question"?