(July 20, 2013 at 10:36 am)Rhythm Wrote: In the context of a situation where someone wanted to defer use or invest in something sure - but stated in a vacuum that's an empty truth. I'd always defer to productivity over investment and deferment - especially in the case of real estate. We'd have to assume that the latter two were an appropriate use of said property before it became a disadvantage in and of itself. Different tools for different jobs and all that jazz.
That's kind of my point. Under the ownership model you get to choose whether to opt for deferment or current productivity. You get to be the judge of when the deferment becomes a disadvantage and you get to bear the responsibility (profit or loss). Others get to make their own choices with regards to their property. The same freedom won't be available under the priority use model.
(July 20, 2013 at 10:36 am)Rhythm Wrote: Same as it would now. I simply wouldn't apply futures, investment, or deferment to real estate. You could still set a futures contract for your goods or services. I could set the price of a bushel of tomato in today, and deliver in 95 days. For example - in the context of a contractual agreement.
The question assumed that the priority use model applied universally - and not just to real estate. If I don't own the bushel of tomatoes but simply have the right to use for a certain period, then I can't ensure that I would be able to make the delivery in 95 days.
Your idea here seems to be that the priority use model should only apply to specific resources and commodities, while others would remain under the ownership model. If so, then how would you decide which resources to place under the priority use model and which under the ownership model?
(July 20, 2013 at 10:36 am)Rhythm Wrote: Consider the manner in which "public" funds and resources are currently allocated. Proposals are made which detail the cost, the length of use, the expected results. There's nothing fundamentally different in the way that this is/could be done and a priority use system. The organization has "x" - proposals are collected for the use of "x", the proposals are judged on their merits and we move forward.
Actually, the fundamental difference remains the same. The government can choose to reject all proposals, thus making deferment the default option. It can choose not to invest or spend the funds in any of the proposed ways and they would simply lie in the government coffers.
A good example would be how the government chooses not to develop all the resources at its disposal simultaneously. It requires - as a rule - to reserve 33% of its land area under forest cover - an area without any tangible productivity - to protect the environment. Under priority use model, someone else would get the dibs on using this land since no one is making any use of it.
