(July 16, 2013 at 12:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Sure, but how that would be able to modify my statement - that priority use and deferment are at cross odds...is a bit of a mystery.
My point was regarding your statement that we don't assure value on behalf of anyone at any time. I'm saying that since we allow a person to leave his property (real estate in this case), we do assure value at a future date.
(July 16, 2013 at 12:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's not a concept solely limited to investment, but sure, right now deferred use is an aspect of investment. I'm not sure I understand....you seem to be asking me how we might insure some value to an investment (which we don't do now anyway) from a model that makes the concept of investment - along with the concept of ownership - null. I'm not sure how I would answer a question like that. The question seems to be "What if I want to buy a piece of land, sit on it, and have a reasonable expectation of a return on my investment?" (correct me if I've misunderstood?) to which the answer has always been "You can't buy anything in the first place". Anything that follows "what if I buy" in a model that is put forward as an alternative to ownership is essentially a question for some other system. Doubly so in the case of "sit on it", and triply so in the case of "reasonable expectations of a return on my investment".
As you correctly point out, the question you've posed is valid only within the context of ownership. Within the priority use model, the question would be "How do I exercise my priority rights upon the piece of land in such a way that I extract the corresponding value 20 years from now?"
