Talk:Law of rent

Untitled

Why no section on counter arguments?

David Ricardo was an economist from two centuries ago. His theories on rent (and wages and....) were refuted a very long time ago (at least many economists believed they had refuted them). Why is there no section on counter arguments in this article?90.211.148.249 (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A section on counter arguments would logically start with the work of Frank Fetter.90.211.148.249 (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a section on later treatments of the same subject. Whether Ricardo's seminal ideas were definitively "refuted" is questionable, but I concur with the preceding comment that there should at least be a reference to [Frank Fetter]'s work for example. Sayitclearly (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Rent

If this is "among the most important and firmly established principles of economics" then one would hope that the article on it would make some modicum of sense. However, in the definition: "rent of a land site is equal to the economic advantage obtained by using the site in its most productive use, relative to the advantage obtained by using marginal (i.e., the best rent-free) land for the same purpose, given the same inputs of labor and capital." "rent" is defined in terms of "rent free" and is therefore circular. Does this reflect on the foundation of economics as a science? Or can we hope for a better formulation of "the most important and firmly established principles of economics"? Let us, for the moment, say that we strike the parenthetic circularity and just go with some meaning of "marginal" that is reasonable: "Marginal" land is land that can provide subsistence for the laborers working it, but no more. How's that? Is that what is meant by "marginal"? --Jim Bowery 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Bowery's claim of circularity is unfounded, as rent is defined relative to the best rent-free land, not rent. The best rent-free land provides an objective basis for comparison that does not depend on the definition of rent: it is land that exactly one user is willing to pay to use, and therefore uses WITHOUT paying rent. That is the definition of "marginal," not Mr Bowery's claimed subsistence definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Langston (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an even greater objection to it: If it's really that important a piece of economics, why is the only link to a page about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.156.34 (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because todays economics is all about getting a free lunch and the best way to do that is to claim there is no free lunch. The Law of Rent shows otherwise. WjtWeston (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Rent → Law of rent –

Perplexed as to why the concepts developed by this guy are upcased, against sibling article titles such as Von Thünen rent and Schumpeterian rent, which are consistent with WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. $Tony (talk)$ 08:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The final two paragraphs appear unnecessary and only to detract from the comprehensibility of the concept. It is wrong to state that landlords have no role in setting rent. This is a simplifying assumption which makes the system easier to model. Similarly, distinguishing between "contract rent" and "Ricardian rent" is like distinguishing between real and imaginary rent. The truth is that landlords can set contract rent at whatever the market will bear. They will usually decide that rate based on the rents others are paying in their neighborhood. Over time the real contract rents set by landlords will converge on the surplus value provided by their site over the best available rent free site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benharpo (talk • contribs) 17:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Increased production causing increased price: An example

As given in the article, this is not an example of increased production causing increased price. Someone seems to have got confused somewhere. It's actually a standard example of increased demand for a limited resource resulting in higher prices. Should be re-written and corrected or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.205.72 (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, and it's been nearly 6 years and this example is still wrong. Does anyone have a better example or should we remove this section? TV4Fun (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Since the market is in equilibrium, all the wheat produced on the better land, at lower cost, will also sell at £3 a bushel." This is not how market prices adjust. Just because a producer has some break even price at $x, does not mean all other producers (with cheaper production costs) will also sell it, or even be able to sell it, at $x. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.36.75 (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]