[alexmlamb]

Has anyone done an analysis to see what fraction of the wealth generated by silicon valley ends up in the hands of people who happened to own land there? If normal houses cost millions of dollars, I could see it being a sizable fraction.

I think the pricing mechanism plays a useful role in encouraging people with valuable land to give it to others who will use it more productively. At the same time, I think there's a risk that people who just own land could capture an unreasonable fraction of the generated wealth.

Would it really be right for San Francisco homeowners to capture over 50% of the wealth from Silicon Valley's success?