Not sure who's conflating land and capital here.

Land was classically distinguished from capital when it was unimproved land. But for example, fenced pasture-improved paddocks with stockyards are rightly counted as capital to the extent of the improvement, not land.

The author regards mines as "land". This is valid in so far as they are part of the earth and contain minerals. But remember, without the expenditure of capital and labour, no-one would even know that they contain minerals, let alone be in a position to put those minerals to the satisfaction of human wants.

To the extent that the owners of the capital that performed the transformation charge for the final product, they are not "rent-seekers".

The rent-seekers are those hoping to use the political process to parasitise the productive activity of the miners.

On this occasion see pretty much eye to eye with J.K.J.
If we are to make housing/accommodation more affordable, we need to create a system that actually penalizes state government for not releasing enough urban land.
As opposed to the current rationing, which indubitably, rewards them!
The only thing forcing up rents is rationed supply; and or, a failure to decentralize!
The other part of the equation is tax avoidance by the largest enterprises on earth, who often have annual budgets bigger than many sovereign nations.
And we not saying they need to be taxed out of existence; albeit, that's a possibility, if they need to avoid a fair measure of a common liability/responsibility, just to survive!
I mean, there's always a point where endless expansion, just for its own sake, becomes self defeating, due to the huge extremely costly inefficiencies, that are part of that too big to fail model!
These organisations would be far more cost effective and profitable, if they were broken up, and then run as small co-ops, with the shareholders becoming the workforce, or failing that, with the workforce becoming the share the pain as well as the profit, shareholders!
Which as a free market model, eliminates most parasitical practices, and is the most cost effective!
So much so, it was the co-op model that largely survive the Great Depression intact and still profitable!
Given finite wealth and finite resources, it's simply impossible to continue to endlessly grow, both in sheer size and profitability!
And yet, we need to cling fast to incentive as a model, to enable voluntary cooperation, and co-ops is the only model.
If mean, if we but invested in far cheaper publicly supplied energy, reformed our insanely complex tax system and selectively preferenced the cooperative model.
We could still have a viable car industry! Albeit, it would be a right hand drive electric, supplying a niche market and powered by a gas consuming ceramic fuel cell!
And given we lead the world in its mass production; as molded carbon fibre!
Rhrosty.

The arguments against taxing the land will be the same as those against stopping begative gearing and part of that is because too many politicians and pensioners rely on negative gearing to make money. However the government is silly not to tax properties that are not occupied. Re mines there should be a repatration tax as these places leave significan damage to the environment which has to be fixed up in later years. For example four mines proposed in Queensland are said to possibley drop the wter level in the artesion basin by seventy meters. What damage will this do and who will pay for it. Short term gains with most of the profits being sent overseas is not in the country's interest.

"The only thing forcing up rents is rationed supply; and or, a failure to decentralize!”

Bravo Rhostry.

Now apply the same economic theory to money and credit. The only way that the government monopoly of the supply of money and credit did *not* affect the supply and price of money and credit, is if it had no effect on supply and price. But that’s the whole point of it! Obviously if it had no effect, they wouldn’t be doing it.

Once we accept this, we can see that the assumption that the GFC must be because of deregulation is not valid, because it neglects the obvious possibility that it was caused by government manipulation of the supply and price of finance (in its own favour btw).

As with land, the effect of such regulation is to ‘ration’ supply; only with money the rationing is to inflate the supply, whereas with land the rationing is to restrict it. The effect in both is to cause major social problems and conflicts by disconnecting the co-ordination of supply and demand through the usual meat-axe approach of bumbling bureaucratic central planners. Then having caused these problems, the government presumes to appear on the scene as our salvation, and dispensing more of what caused the problem in the first place.

"For example four mines proposed in Queensland are said to possibley drop the wter level in the artesion basin by seventy meters."

Who says this hospas, & on what evidence? It wouldn't be some greenie now would it?

J.K.J: There was a period of post war history, where we went through a period of unprecedented prosperity; and we were the third wealthiest nation on earth and a creditor one at that!
And we the people owned a national bank, a national airline, a national telco, and all our reticulated energy was supplied as essential public service; and for comparatively far less than any subsequently privatized model.
I take your point about banks/money supply, and just how regulated it was!
However, that regulation prevented sub prime mortgages, and business houses borrowing beyond their capacity to service!
Even so, those who were willing to bend the back, and work and save, rather than hiss it against the wall, were able to succeed.
As were migrant families, who shared a single house and pooled their resources, to first buy one business, then another and so on, until all family members were set up in relatively successful business houses!
Some of who went on to make more millions they they could spend in a single lifetime!
Deregulation allowed short selling and even more harmful ponzi schemes to evolve!
And we wouldn't be at all hurt by a return to those economic principles, that once made us the third wealthiest nation on the planet!
Given our current wealth, we could be no.1, if we but stopped racing each other, to sell it to foreigners, at bargain basement prices; or for several suits of the emperor's new clothes!
Rhrosty.