Talk:Law of rent

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Law of Rent

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increased production causing increased price: An example