Wouldn't this just completely screw over farmers and others who need to own large tracts?
-
-
Replying to @UDepravity
No, not really AFAIK. If their land is valuable, they would sell it. If not, they would only pay a small LVT and that would be passed on to consumers of food.
6 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijic @UDepravity
There might be an issue with the positive visual externality of farmland & greenbelt laws... but I mean this touches on other issues. Maybe it would be better for more of Britain to be covered in forests and meadows. LVT might make that happen.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijic @UDepravity
Especially with more efficient vertical farms coming online now...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijic @UDepravity
Which one of these is better?pic.twitter.com/MvREWfToaJ
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
It's an empirical question in land value terms. Nice to live next to the one on the right (scenery and peace of nature), nice to have another farm next to the one on the left (density of other players in your industry located near you means there are service industries for you)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @UDepravity
More beautiful forests and meadows would make Britain a nicer place to live. I used to live near some of the most beautiful areas in the UK, I could get lost in a forest, find a hidden lake, crest a hill and watch the sun set. Just walk all day.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If we can get food from vertical farming there's no reason not to have a lot of natural places.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Ultimately this is aesthetics. Maybe vertical farming isn't the most economically efficient use of land b/c there's no value in GBP that can be assigned to having more open forests but that shouldn't stop a sovereign and we shouldn't have to pretend to have an "optimal" answer.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @UDepravity
> there's no value in GBP that can be assigned to having more open forests You could just pay for a forest access pass. It sounds crazy but there might be something to it. Especially if you had the technology to guarantee sunshine (orbital mirrors!) and fast transport.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You don't have to be bound by an economic mindset that maximizes and optimizes each transaction to show that it's the most Pareto-efficient state. "People should like forests and spending time in them, our state provides this for people's moral, spiritual and physical health"
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @UDepravity
True. It's likely that the most efficient way to provide this is a voucher system. Everyone gets assigned wilderness vouchers and they can spend them to access wilderness, which could be private. The government or local associations could also run some.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
But like, as a matter of pure fact, the government in Britain under-provides convenient, nice wilderness.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.