--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@> wrote:
>
> > The monopolist achieves his high return by refusing
> > to supply demand.
>
> That is simply false. He is happy to supply
> all the demand there is at his most profitable price.
A block of 100 apartments. Market rental is £100 per week. That is £10,000 per
week. Only half are let and the rent upped to £200 per week because of demand.
That gives £10,000 per week. But the maintenance costs are half as much as only
half are being used. The value of the apartments, let and unlet, still keeps
rising. So the freeholder is onto a winner by restricting supply.
I doubt whether this tactic would work too well selling Capital goods like Smart
phones. Although restricting supply of capital goods to ratchet up prices is
common enough.
> > In the case of land, or more specifically
> > locations, he has the added
> > advantage that people must have access or
> > they do not survive. So he can
> > run up the Rent until paying more is impossible
> > for the prospective user.
>
> No, he can't, or he would, and he doesn't.
> If he tries to charge more than the economic
> advantage his location affords the user, the
> user will just go elsewhere.
I think the two of you agree on that point.
> No. The pressure on wages comes from the Law of Rent,
> which implies that in an advanced and densely populated society,
> those at the bottom -- i.e., those least able to use land
> productively -- are relegated to sites where their wages are
> well _below_ subsistence.
Those in the subsistence levels tend not to own land and are pushed to the
margins in low rent accommodation. In living on the land he is using it
productively. Residential land in prime locations gives the advantage of higher
wages, amenities, transport access, etc. If your skills can return higher wages
of course. Commercial land is different. In prime locations it gives access to
transportation, for people and goods, and skilled labour. In the margins
transport is poor, or slow, and skills are harder to get, so wages are lower,
but he pays less rent for his premises.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@> wrote:
> >
> > > The monopolist achieves his high return by refusing
> > > to supply demand.
> >
> > That is simply false. He is happy to supply
> > all the demand there is at his most profitable price.
>
> A block of 100 apartments. Market rental is £100 per week. That is £10,000 per
week. Only half are let and the rent upped to £200 per week because of demand.
That gives £10,000 per week. But the maintenance costs are half as much as only
half are being used. The value of the apartments, let and unlet, still keeps
rising. So the freeholder is onto a winner by restricting supply.
>
> I doubt whether this tactic would work too well selling Capital goods like
Smart phones. Although restricting supply of capital goods to ratchet up prices
is common enough.
Apartments are capital goods. If their market rental is £100/week, what is
stopping someone else from supplying them for £190 and pocketing the profits?
> > No. The pressure on wages comes from the Law of Rent,
> > which implies that in an advanced and densely populated society,
> > those at the bottom -- i.e., those least able to use land
> > productively -- are relegated to sites where their wages are
> > well _below_ subsistence.
>
> Those in the subsistence levels tend not to own land and are pushed to the
margins in low rent accommodation. In living on the land he is using it
productively.
But not necessarily productively enough to pay the rent. That is the point.
> Residential land in prime locations gives the advantage of higher wages,
amenities, transport access, etc. If your skills can return higher wages of
course. Commercial land is different. In prime locations it gives access to
transportation, for people and goods, and skilled labour. In the margins
transport is poor, or slow, and skills are harder to get, so wages are lower,
but he pays less rent for his premises.
If he can pay it.
-- Roy Langston
A good example of the fact that some people refuse to know ie "The monopolist achieves his high return by refusing to supply demand" is the Second Reading of the Rating (Empty Properties) Bill of June 2007 in the H of C wherein Michael Gove now Secretary of State for Education, then in opposition (after a stint on Murdoch's Times) made a complete prat of himself by trying to argue against the (Labour Government's)Bill's basic premise that owners were keeping business properties empty to put up rent levels. (Quote coming up so the usual suspects who don't use quotes, because they have n't read anything, can skip over unsullied by information)" The basic premise of the Bill is that owners are deliberately keeping property empty and need to be taxed into putting it to good use.When we first debated the issue I asked what justification there was for the idea that individuals were forgoing the chance to maximise their income and the return on the capital they invested."Despite an attempt at Oxbridge humour about this "widespread economic masochism",Gove was ignored and the House went onto to enact the bill, preferring to believe the evidence of experience that property owners keep property off the market when that serves their interests. (New para one-line gap) Evidence has been given previously that even the Conservatives in the UK have realised that that fight is to get builders to build on land which they have bought with extant planning permissions when to do so in the numbers that would satisfy pent -up demand would see average house prices crash. But closer home for some would be the experience of Vancouver where house prices(av. $1.2 million for a family home) have recently bubbled worse than California pre Crash. Robert Shiller "Vancouver is San Francisco lagging a few years". All the figures appear to show the housing market as frozen (for the moment) with nobody much buying and, more importantly for this argument, a slow-down in sales and new-build starts.The market would appear to be acting as a monopoly (orthodox Georgism) and refusing to supply demand (which would crash it).
To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com From: harrypollard0@... Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:49:34 -0800 Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Land value UK
Roy,
Here you go again!
HP: > The monopolist achieves his high return by refusing to supply demand.
RL: That is simply false. He is happy to supply all the demand there is at his most profitable price.
H: Who holds the "nearly half" of Phoenix downtown which is vacant? And the situation in Phoenix is mirrored in urban areas across the USA. I have personally known good properties that have been held unused for 30 – 40 years.
You appear to be using the Austrian version of the market which is blind to the peculiar nature of land.
HP: > In the case of land, or more specifically locations, he has the added advantage that people must have access or they do not survive. So he can> run up the Rent until paying more is impossible for the prospective user.
RL: No, he can't, or he would, and he doesn't. If he tries to charge more than the economic advantage his location affords the user, the user will just go elsewhere. Almost all land users could in fact pay more than they are paying, and their landlords are powerless to charge them any more.
H: Again, pure Austrian – where is this "elsewhere"? In Phoenix you have practically half the downtown vacant. Why aren't they snapped up by people looking for "elsewhere"? The Austrian analysis is very good. The trouble is that von Mises thought land would act in the market the way other things do. He was wrong - as are you when you follow this same path.
HP: > A large amount of urban land is vacant or underused. Perhaps the underused amount – slums and suchlike – is more important than the vacant. In any event, many landholders will be unable to continue holding their land with the land rent payment pressing on them. So, they will have to build or abandon. The once highly restricted market for land will become open and available.
RL: It's true that the land market will become more liquid, but that does not imply that rents will crash, because the land market will still be a monopoly market.
H: A market with lots of available vacant land competing for use is a monopoly? I doubt that even von Mises would go along with that.
Rents won't crash. However, the competition for lots of available land will cause rack-rents to disappear to be replaced by rents. The city will concentrate and compact. As one moves away from the center rents will drop. There should be quite a lot of land around the edges that becomes marginal with no rent. This vacant land should be quite productive as it will still be quite close to the rich market of the central city.
> The monopolist achieves his high return by refusing to supply demand.
That is simply false. He is happy to supply all the demand there is at his most profitable price.
HP: > In the case of land, or more specifically locations, he has the added advantage that people must have access or they do not survive. So he can> run up the Rent until paying more is impossible for the prospective user.
RL: No, he can't, or he would, and he doesn't. If he tries to charge more than the economic advantage his location affords the user, the user will just go elsewhere. Almost all land users could in fact pay more than they are paying, and their landlords are powerless to charge them any more.
> Rent is supposed to be a measure of the advantage that attaches to a
> location. The payment of Rent does not come from wages. You get $100 a week
> advantage to your location and you pay $100 a week in Rent – a zero-sum.
> However, the landlords ability to keep running up the price
That ability is imaginary, as proved above.
> means the extra
> paid – which I call rack-rent – comes from wages. As we know, this pressure
> on wages drives them down until those at the bottom are surviving at
> subsistence levels.
No. The pressure on wages comes from the Law of Rent, which implies that in an advanced and densely populated society, those at the bottom -- i.e., those least able to use land productively -- are relegated to sites where their wages are well _below_ subsistence.
> But then we collect the full rent from every location.
>
> A large amount of urban land is vacant or underused. Perhaps the underused
> amount – slums and suchlike – is more important than the vacant. In any
> event, many landholders will be unable to continue holding their land with
> the land rent payment pressing on them. So, they will have to build or
> abandon. The once highly restricted market for land will become open and available.
It's true that the land market will become more liquid, but that does not imply that rents will crash, because the land market will still be a monopoly market. Rent is economic advantage. Replacing taxes that burden economic activity with land rent revenue will increase the economic advantage of productive use. Yes, producers will have more good land available to use. But the economic advantage they can obtain by using it will be correspondingly greater, too. And when ordinary working people's real disposable incomes double and triple, one of the things they are going to want to enjoy more of is land. Working families with young children who currently can't afford a SFD house with a big back yard close to schools, infrastructure, employment opportunities and other societal benefits will be able to afford one easily.
> This will be particularly noticeable as one gets away from the city center. The emptiness in the city center will tend to fill up first.
Increasing the advantage obtainable by using each site, and thus their rents.
> Modern cities tend to spread in all directions as entrepreneurs search for
> cheaper land. With Rent collection the city will contract although its political boundaries will remain.
Not so. There will just be less vacant and underused good land. People who currently can't afford to support idle landowners as well as themselves, their families, and government will be able to afford to use the amount of land they want to use.
> Rents in the center will naturally soar while the outer parts of the city will become marginal
No, they will not, because more than one person will be willing to pay to use them.
> - important because these marginal areas will set
> Rents across the city.
No, they will not. Rent is set by the economic advantage obtainable by using each site.
> It should be noted that this marginal land is likely
> to be quite productive.
Marginal land will not be very productive, and will typically be remote from cities.
> The major result of so much land becoming available will be to end the practice of rack-rent.
The practice of rack-rent is today effectively non-existent in advanced economies.
> One cannot hold out for exorbitant Rents with lots
> of competitive locations available.
Rents are affordable by definition, and it is precisely the competition FOR locations that sets their rents.
> This competition will ensure that
> location Rents will soon equal the actual advantage provided by the
> surrounding community.
They already do.
> Although central Rents will soar as downtown land is fully used, they will
> also be reduced by the margin moving toward the center. As you know, rent is measured from the margin.
The margin will not move towards the center. If anything, it will move outward as productive use of land is relieved of the burden of taxation.
The point is, Scott, that the little fields of Britain cannot compete with the mass production of the US.
Harry
********************
The Alumni Group
The Henry George School
of Los Angeles
Tujunga CA 90243
(818) 352-4141
********************
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
Quoting Harry Pollard on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:06:15 -0800:
___Harry___
if we import our bulk foods, farm land is given over to animals,
which provide instant food while crops are being started (not
to mention they improve fertility rather than use it up).
-----
Importing meat and animal feed needn't be a huge strategic
concern, if you're willing, when besieged, to slaughter
most of the animals (preserving the meat, of course) and
switch to a primarily vegetarian diet.
___Harry___
As you know, the combine harvesters in the US probably
work all day in a field, then stop until next morning
when they continue harvesting in the same field.
-----
Many of them have lights. Combines are a separate business
from farming. They migrate, following the harvest.
I'm one of those subscribers to this list, who are mostly lurking on the ongoing debates. Once in a while however I may have something to share, which may be of a broader interest...
On monday November 26th we had an official "relaunch" in Copenhagen of Retsforbundet, the Danish pro-LVT party of 1919, which participated in the famous Danish "land value reform"-government of 1957-1960, but have not been represented in the Danish parliament since 1981.
I am a member of the party leadership, and we have worked together the last 3 months with a team of 35 students of strategical political communications studies, who has gone through all our materials and methods, in order to give us a complete make-over (everything except the politics), ranging from a new logo to tools to make it easier for us to communicate with the press.
I am happy to say the "relaunch" so far was picked up by all major Danish newspapers, with additional television and radio appearances by lead representatives of the party. No doubt we have a long road ahead of us - but we believe we succeeded so far in establishing in public discourse the fact that the party still exists, has a strong political agenda which answers directly to the problems faced locally and globally right now, and is still small, but very seriously working for our beliefs and goals, to provide an alternative to the parties currently in power. Following the mass media attention we have turned all our focus on following up in social media, most notably on blogs and debates, and on Facebook.
We would be grateful if you'd stop by if only to "like" and "follow" but also to take a look at how we're doing. I'll be happy to hear comments and answer questions, if you have any. And to follow what's going on, I suggest using Google Translate or a similar service, just to get an idea of the discussions.
Tillykke med relanceringen, materialet ser meget godt ud. Jeg var ikke klar over
Retsforbundets aktiviteter, og det er meget opmuntrende!
Mvh
KRJ
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Morten Blaabjerg <mortenblaabjerg@...> wrote:
>
> I'm one of those subscribers to this list, who are mostly lurking on the
> ongoing debates.
> Once in a while however I may have something to share, which may be of a
> broader interest...
>
> On monday November 26th we had an official "relaunch" in Copenhagen of
> Retsforbundet, the Danish pro-LVT party of 1919, which participated in the
> famous Danish "land value reform"-government of 1957-1960, but have not
> been represented in the Danish parliament since 1981.
> I am a member of the party leadership, and we have worked together the last
> 3 months with a team of 35 students of strategical political communications
> studies, who has gone through all our materials and methods, in order to
> give us a complete make-over (everything except the politics), ranging from
> a new logo to tools to make it easier for us to communicate with the press.
>
> I am happy to say the "relaunch" so far was picked up by all major Danish
> newspapers, with additional television and radio appearances by lead
> representatives of the party.
> No doubt we have a long road ahead of us - but we believe we succeeded so
> far in establishing in public discourse the fact that the party still
> exists, has a strong political agenda which answers directly to the
> problems faced locally and globally right now, and is still small, but very
> seriously working for our beliefs and goals, to provide an alternative to
> the parties currently in power. Following the mass media attention we have
> turned all our focus on following up in social media, most notably on blogs
> and debates, and on Facebook.
>
> We would be grateful if you'd stop by if only to "like" and "follow" but
> also to take a look at how we're doing.
> I'll be happy to hear comments and answer questions, if you have any. And
> to follow what's going on, I suggest using Google Translate or a similar
> service, just to get an idea of the discussions.
>
> Our new website is at http://retsforbundet.dk
> Our Twitter profile is at https://twitter.com/Retsforbundet
> Our FB page is here :
>
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Retsforbundet-Danmarks-b%C3%A6redygtige-parti/2144\
88091924495
>
> Yours Sincerely/
> Med venlig hilsen
>
> *Morten Blaabjerg
> *
> Flygtninge- og integrationsordfører
>
> Tlf. 51 80 91 55
> mblaa@...
>
>
>
> RETSFORBUNDET - Lyngbyvej 42 - 2100 København Ø - Tlf. 51 20 44 63
> info@... - www.retsforbundet.dk
>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:28 PM, roy_langston <roy_langston@...> wrote:
"The land market is always a monopoly market, and land rent is always a monopoly rent. Rack-rent is a different phenomenon: charging tenants rent for fixed improvements they have made themselves."
This is why full collection of land Rent is so important. It essentially imposes a burden on non-use which forces use or abandonment.
The land market will change from one in which landholders hold land from its optimum use - or from any use - while they watch its value increase as a result of an advancing economy.
There is an enormous amount of urban land of all values which is presently held out of use at rack-rent (or higher) prices. Such holdings would become available to producers and other users with adoption of full land Rent collection and Rents would topple to a point where they would accurately reflect the advantage provided by the surrounding population.
You agree with me that present land rent is a 'monopoly rent'. I happen to call it rack-rent because that seems to me to be an appropriate term. Your peculiar opposition to this seems to stem from your mistaken belief that with full Rent collection, rack-rent would remain. In fact, as I have stated, it would disappear.
I don't know where you got your land-value taxation ideas from, but you treat it as simply a good way to tax. The real intention of collecting Rent (popularly, land-value taxing) is to produce a genuine equality of conditions for all, replacing the present rigged economy which condemns the less able to poverty and the more able to a lifetime of paying rack-rent.
The object of full Rent collection is to take the first step towards 'Liberty and Justice for All'. Reducing this to a simple tax advocacy diminishes its importance as a genuine reform.
I've been twice to Georgist Conferences in Denmark. Had a great time at each. Back then you had a good group of young people in the Retsforbundet Ungdam (correct that if my memory is poor). Do you intend eventually to form a youth group?
Your website looks good.
Harry
********************
The Alumni Group
The Henry George School
of Los Angeles
Tujunga CA 90243
(818) 352-4141
********************
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Morten Blaabjerg <mortenblaabjerg@...> wrote:
I'm one of those subscribers to this list, who are mostly lurking on the ongoing debates. Once in a while however I may have something to share, which may be of a broader interest...
On monday November 26th we had an official "relaunch" in Copenhagen of Retsforbundet, the Danish pro-LVT party of 1919, which participated in the famous Danish "land value reform"-government of 1957-1960, but have not been represented in the Danish parliament since 1981.
I am a member of the party leadership, and we have worked together the last 3 months with a team of 35 students of strategical political communications studies, who has gone through all our materials and methods, in order to give us a complete make-over (everything except the politics), ranging from a new logo to tools to make it easier for us to communicate with the press.
I am happy to say the "relaunch" so far was picked up by all major Danish newspapers, with additional television and radio appearances by lead representatives of the party. No doubt we have a long road ahead of us - but we believe we succeeded so far in establishing in public discourse the fact that the party still exists, has a strong political agenda which answers directly to the problems faced locally and globally right now, and is still small, but very seriously working for our beliefs and goals, to provide an alternative to the parties currently in power. Following the mass media attention we have turned all our focus on following up in social media, most notably on blogs and debates, and on Facebook.
We would be grateful if you'd stop by if only to "like" and "follow" but also to take a look at how we're doing. I'll be happy to hear comments and answer questions, if you have any. And to follow what's going on, I suggest using Google Translate or a similar service, just to get an idea of the discussions.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Morten Blaabjerg <mortenblaabjerg@...> wrote:
> I'll be happy to hear comments and answer questions,
> if you have any.
Morten,
How are you differentiating your party? What policies stand out?
LVT is in there but how are you selling it? On the successes of 1957-60?
The failure of the Justice Party while in power was an underestimation of:
The population were not educated to what LVT was - Only few Danes knew what LVT was all about, most people did not know the good effects they already experienced because of LVT and that the possibilities of citizens in general would improve further when more LVT would be levied.
That people did not understand that the revenue of LVT belonged to them - It is commonwealth. They never understood where land values came from.
The Power of Landowners & Self-Interest Groups - The powerful Danish media:
Produced propaganda that LVT was just another tax, like all other taxes.
They put it across that it is unjust that only landowners should pay all the taxes of the nation.
They emphasized that the poor having no income, or a small income, would not benefit of the reduction of income taxes.
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 12:22 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
How are you differentiating your party? What policies stand out?
LVT is in there but how are you selling it? On the successes of 1957-60?
No, that's too far back for most to remember. And for young people, almost noone has ever heard about our party.
The goal was to become visible again especially for young people and make our appearances as a serious poltiical alternative. Time will tell if we succeed.
Communications-wise we have identified our common denominator, and surprisingly, it turned out to be "sustainability" - We want a sustainable economy, a sustainable environment, a sustainable world, and a sustainable outlook on life. Retsforbundet is now "Danmarks bæredygtige parti" - Denmark's sustainable party. We are very happy with identifying this, as it joins together much of what we believe under this one concept. Simultanously, it brands us as sustainable, and the established parties as unsustainable. It's a bold move - but one which is very difficult to counter, if I may be so daring to say so. Our new logo reflects this key theme.
On top of this, all of our policy suggestions on all areas have been remapped and rewritten, accessible in a 40-page pdf on our website, to reflect our renewed focus. Specifically we have picked 4 policy areas as particularly important;
- economic policy (of course, LVT as measure to achieve a sustainable economy)
- the environment (sustainable way of life)
- immigration policies (sustainable outlook on life - working globally to solve global inequalities, while we receive those who do come to our doors as refugees gracefully and respectfully), and
- an anti-EU and pro-globalism stance (a sustainable global community)
The above policy areas by no means reflect all of our policies but have mainly been picked as areas where we are capable of positioning ourselves in relation to the existing parties. We will continue to refine and choose the vacant standpoints so that we can further position ourselves on important areas in the time ahead, picking them on the grounds, that should be able to expose our core ideas (LVT, specifically) from different perspectives.
Best, Morten :-)
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." --Mahatma Gandhi
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 12:22 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
> I'll be happy to hear comments and answer questions,
> if you have any.
Morten,
How are you differentiating your party? What policies stand out?
LVT is in there but how are you selling it? On the successes of 1957-60?
The failure of the Justice Party while in power was an underestimation of:
The population were not educated to what LVT was - Only few Danes knew what LVT was all about, most people did not know the good effects they already experienced because of LVT and that the possibilities of citizens in general would improve further when more LVT would be levied.
That people did not understand that the revenue of LVT belonged to them - It is commonwealth. They never understood where land values came from.
The Power of Landowners & Self-Interest Groups - The powerful Danish media:
Produced propaganda that LVT was just another tax, like all other taxes.
They put it across that it is unjust that only landowners should pay all the taxes of the nation.
They emphasized that the poor having no income, or a small income, would not benefit of the reduction of income taxes.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Morten Blaabjerg <mortenblaabjerg@...> wrote:
> We want a sustainable
> economy, a sustainable environment, a sustainable
> world, and a sustainable outlook on life. Retsforbundet
> is now "Danmarks bæredygtige parti" - Denmark's sustainable
> party.
Morten, a brilliant touch indeed. I will be following with interest.
Best of luck.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> A good example of the fact that some people refuse to know ie "The monopolist
achieves his high return by refusing to supply demand" is the Second Reading of
the Rating (Empty Properties) Bill of June 2007 in the H of C wherein Michael
Gove now Secretary of State for Education, then in opposition (after a stint on
Murdoch's Times) made a complete prat of himself by trying to argue against the
(Labour Government's)Bill's basic premise that owners were keeping business
properties empty to put up rent levels. (Quote coming up so the usual suspects
who don't use quotes, because they have n't read anything, can skip over
unsullied by information)" The basic premise of the Bill is that owners are
deliberately keeping property empty and need to be taxed into putting it to good
use.When we first debated the issue I asked what justification there was for the
idea that individuals were forgoing the chance to maximise their income and the
return on the capital they invested."Despite an attempt at Oxbridge humour about
this "widespread economic masochism",Gove was ignored and the House went onto to
enact the bill, preferring to believe the evidence of experience that property
owners keep property off the market when that serves their interests.
The problem is that property owners are not a single individual. When someone
holds their property off the market to put up prices, someone else can decline
to hold their property off the market and make a killing at the expense of the
first fool. Property being held off the market is therefore not a phenomenon
that arises in a free market. It is an artifact of a perverse regulatory and
(especially) tax environment. I am not an expert on the UK's tax system, but
there are many perverse tax rules that could make it more profitable to hold
property vacant. Rent income may be highly taxed. Having a vacant property may
incur paper losses that enable other income to be tax-favored. There are many
possibilities. My experience in business and interpreting their financial
statements is that things that appear not to make sense generally do make sense
when you know the whole story, but the reasons they make sense are often subtle
and indirect to the point of being convoluted.
> Evidence has been given previously that even the Conservatives in the UK have
realised that that fight is to get builders to build on land which they have
bought with extant planning permissions when to do so in the numbers that would
satisfy pent -up demand would see average house prices crash.
But as explained above, there is very likely more to the story, something you
either don't know, don't realize is relevant, or are simply not telling us --
something I am fairly certain I could discover in 10 minutes by talking with one
of the builders who are holding land vacant, and his tax accountant.
> But closer home for some would be the experience of Vancouver where house
prices(av. $1.2 million for a family home) have recently bubbled worse than
California pre Crash. Robert Shiller "Vancouver is San Francisco lagging a few
years". All the figures appear to show the housing market as frozen (for the
moment) with nobody much buying and, more importantly for this argument, a
slow-down in sales and new-build starts.The market would appear to be acting as
a monopoly (orthodox Georgism) and refusing to supply demand (which would crash
it).
Nope. It's the city government that has refused planning permission for
adequate increased housing supply for decades, and extravagantly subsidized
private land hoarding to raise the price of housing as high as possible. I had
an off-the-record meeting with the policy director of the current governing
party on Vancouver City Council a few years ago, and explained to him how his
party could make housing more affordable while solving the city's chronic budget
and traffic woes by not giving away publicly created land value to developers
and speculators. The gist of his reply was, "Yes, I'm sure that would work, and
I'd like to see that kind of solution in place myself, as it would make the city
much more livable as well as affordable. But developers pay our [meaning the
party's -- RL] bills. We wouldn't even _consider_ a policy that would hurt
their bottom line."
-- Roy Langston
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> There is an enormous amount of urban land of all values which is presently
held out of use at rack-rent (or higher) prices.
It is held out of use in the hope of rezoning windfalls, which permitting
development and use at the current permitted density would likely scotch for
decades. As long as the long-term economic growth rate exceeds the tax rate,
owning land increases the owner's net worth, so there is no reason to take a
chance by permitting productive use.
> Such holdings would become
> available to producers and other users with adoption of full land Rent
> collection and Rents would topple to a point where they would accurately
> reflect the advantage provided by the surrounding population.
Rents already reflect that advantage, so they would not topple.
> You agree with me that present land rent is a 'monopoly rent'. I happen to
> call it rack-rent because that seems to me to be an appropriate term.
It's not appropriate, because what you are talking about is in fact rent.
> Your peculiar opposition to this seems to stem from your mistaken belief that
> with full Rent collection, rack-rent would remain. In fact, as I have stated,
it would disappear.
No, YOUR peculiar theory stems from your mistaken belief that rent is rack-rent.
> I don't know where you got your land-value taxation ideas from, but you treat
it as simply a good way to tax.
My UIE proposal proves that claim false. LVT is essential to equal human
rights.
> The real intention of collecting Rent
> (popularly, land-value taxing) is to produce a genuine equality of
> conditions for all, replacing the present rigged economy which condemns the
> less able to poverty and the more able to a lifetime of paying rack-rent.
No, the real intention is to restore the EQUAL RIGHTS of all to life, liberty,
and property in the fruits of their labor, relieving the poverty of the less
able by ensuring they have free, secure access to economic opportunity, and
enabling the more able to rise as high as their productive contributions will
carry them by relieving them of the burden of supporting the greedy, privileged,
parasitic landowning overclass in exorbitant luxury. I am much more aware of
that intention than you, as your opposition to my UIE proposal shows.
> The object of full Rent collection is to take the first step towards
> 'Liberty and Justice for All'. Reducing this to a simple tax advocacy
diminishes its importance as a genuine reform.
>
> But, you probably know that.
I do indeed.
-- Roy Langston
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> The powerful Danish media:
>
> * Produced propaganda that LVT was just another tax, like all other taxes.
It is essential to pound home the fact that all other taxes confiscate privately
created value and give it to landowners in return for nothing, while LVT
recovers publicly created value for public purposes and benefit, leaving
privately created value in its producers' hands where it rightly belongs.
> * They put it across that it is unjust that only landowners should pay all
the taxes of the nation.
It is essential to pound home the fact that landowners GET all the taxes of the
nation, and that land's value simply measures how much of other people's taxes
its owner can expect to pocket in return for nothing.
> * They emphasized that the poor having no income, or a small income, would
not benefit of the reduction of income taxes.
It is essential to advocate not just LVT but LVT+UIE, to restore the people's
equal rights to liberty and ensure that all have free, secure access to economic
opportunity. The UIE enables a massive reduction of government spending on
poverty relief, pensions, etc. as well as combining a more competitive wage
structure with a higher real standard of living.
-- Roy Langston
best wishes. we can only hope the press will not investigate the posts over the years in land cafe and hold it against you.
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Morten Blaabjerg <mortenblaabjerg@...> wrote:
I'm one of those subscribers to this list, who are mostly lurking on the ongoing debates. Once in a while however I may have something to share, which may be of a broader interest...
On monday November 26th we had an official "relaunch" in Copenhagen of Retsforbundet, the Danish pro-LVT party of 1919, which participated in the famous Danish "land value reform"-government of 1957-1960, but have not been represented in the Danish parliament since 1981.
I am a member of the party leadership, and we have worked together the last 3 months with a team of 35 students of strategical political communications studies, who has gone through all our materials and methods, in order to give us a complete make-over (everything except the politics), ranging from a new logo to tools to make it easier for us to communicate with the press.
I am happy to say the "relaunch" so far was picked up by all major Danish newspapers, with additional television and radio appearances by lead representatives of the party. No doubt we have a long road ahead of us - but we believe we succeeded so far in establishing in public discourse the fact that the party still exists, has a strong political agenda which answers directly to the problems faced locally and globally right now, and is still small, but very seriously working for our beliefs and goals, to provide an alternative to the parties currently in power. Following the mass media attention we have turned all our focus on following up in social media, most notably on blogs and debates, and on Facebook.
We would be grateful if you'd stop by if only to "like" and "follow" but also to take a look at how we're doing. I'll be happy to hear comments and answer questions, if you have any. And to follow what's going on, I suggest using Google Translate or a similar service, just to get an idea of the discussions.
John D. Kromkowski 6803 York Road -- Suite 207 Baltimore, MD 21212
Tel 410-377-6248 Fax 410-372-0624 Mobile 443-271-0500
This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving in any manner.
Here are a few suggested talking points.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Morten Blaabjerg <mortenblaabjerg@...> wrote:
> - economic policy (of course, LVT as measure to achieve a sustainable economy)
"Land value measures the subsidy to the landowner. Increasing land value
indicates increasing subsidy. That's not sustainable. We've seen the proof in
Japan's land value boom of the 1980s, which gave them a 20-year recession. We
saw it in the American land bubble of the 2000s that forced their government
into debt to rescue the rich bankers, and many other examples in Ireland, Spain,
Iceland, the UK, and on and on. Subsidizing landowners is like economic drug
addiction: it feels great at first, but then you need more and more of it just
to avoid feeling awful. The current government's policy of addiction to
subsidies for landowners is not sustainable."
> - the environment (sustainable way of life)
"It starts with understanding that people are all equal in their rights to live
on earth, and to access and enjoy what nature provided equally to all. So the
people who appropriate and use up more than their fair share of nature's gifts
should pay just compensation to the community of those they are depriving of
their fair share."
> - immigration policies (sustainable outlook on life - working globally to
> solve global inequalities, while we receive those who do come to our doors as
refugees gracefully and respectfully), and
"We can best help people in poorer countries by example: showing them how to
create free, just, prosperous, and sustainable economies in their own countries.
We need to do it here first, to show them how it is done, and how they can do
it, too."
> - an anti-EU and pro-globalism stance (a sustainable global community)
"The EU imposes unsustainable policies on us like the banksters' euro, which
Greece, Spain and the rest have proved is not a sustainable money system because
it is based on feeding the banks' addiction to lending for land speculation."
> The above policy areas by no means reflect all of our policies but have
> mainly been picked as areas where we are capable of positioning ourselves
> in relation to the existing parties. We will continue to refine and choose
> the vacant standpoints so that we can further position ourselves on
> important areas in the time ahead, picking them on the grounds, that should
> be able to expose our core ideas (LVT, specifically) from different
> perspectives.
I hope the above may be of help. If you want more suggestions, I'll see what I
can do.
-- Roy Langston
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
> > - an anti-EU and pro-globalism stance
> > (a sustainable global community)
>
> "The EU imposes unsustainable policies
> on us like the banksters' euro, which
> Greece, Spain and the rest have proved
> is not a sustainable money system because
> it is based on feeding the banks' addiction
> to lending for land speculation."
I do not think the Euro, no more than the US dollar, has anything to do with
that.
The problem with the Euro is that it may be overvalued for some countries and
undervalued for others. That could apply to the US dollar. The southern states
are getting into biomass fuel, using
sustainably-sourced renewable biofuel wood pellets and exporting it to Europe.
Tibury Power station near London is using the pellets and few other changing
over from coal. Germany and Holland use the pellets. Devaluing the dollar may
mean they do greater business, but it stays high because of commerce/industry
elsewhere in the USA. The Euro is just another currency.
We are in the EU and it worked well until the CC. Many are anti-EU because of
the crisis and seeing that they are bailing out the PIIGS - some of the PIIGS
were just plain fianacially irresponsible.
In the UK we have the anti EU UKip party. IMO, they tend to get votes from older
people who are bigots, racists or just confused. The UK is in the EU but not in
he Euro zone. The pound is still used. Currently, maybe the best of both worlds.
The EU brings political stability - maybe we now have generations that did not
see the needless carnage of WW2 or feel the after effects of austerity. Being
anti-EU is not a positive measure. Most people view that it is here and it is
not going away and getting out is financial suicide.
Promoting Genomics to Brussels maybe a good ploy - economic stability resulting
in political stability, etc.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote: > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" burns-john@ wrote: > > > The powerful Danish media: > > > > * Produced propaganda that LVT was
> > just another tax, like all other taxes. > > It is essential to pound home the fact that all other
> taxes confiscate privately created value and give it
> to landowners in return for nothing, while LVT recovers
> publicly created value for public purposes and benefit,
> leaving privately created value in its producers' hands
> where it rightly belongs.
Also to emphasise that Income Tax penalizes the productive and LVT promotes enterprise and productivity. Also it is how it is put across. Some Marxist made it look like war on the wealthy. You do not want to make it look like its is war on landowners. Landowners benefit as well. That must be emphasised.
That is why Geonomics is far better and a better word - use Land Value Tax as little as possible. Geonomics is NOT a single tax, so no one can be accused of victimizing one section - landowners. Geonomics uses commonwealth in land and resources and collectively created economic growth to fund society - while promoting productivity by eliminating harmful Income and Sales taxes.
That is very "sustainable".
Another point is that economic stability is promoted and virtually ensured within the nation. No boom & busts. The effect of Credit Crunch are still with us, look at Greece and Spain (the PIIGS), this is easier to sell. OK, if a world-wide crash comes a country like Denmark will slide in with them, but the effect will be less and recovery easier and less painful.
Also it has to emphasised that the whole thing is just a tax shift. The system stays the same. Business behaviour stays the same.
> > * They put it across that it is unjust that only
> > landowners should pay all the taxes of the nation. > > It is essential to pound home the fact that landowners
> GET all the taxes of the nation, and that land's value
> simply measures how much of other people's taxes
> its owner can expect to pocket in return for nothing.
It is how that is put across to millions of people who currently just do not see it that way and regard land as a capital item like a car or washing machine. It is not worth putting across economic theories that must people will have difficulty grasping.
> >* They emphasized that the poor having no income,
> > or a small income, would not benefit of the reduction
> > of income taxes. > > It is essential to advocate not just LVT but LVT+UIE, to
> restore the people's equal rights to liberty and ensure
> that all have free, secure access to economic opportunity.
> The UIE enables a massive reduction of government spending
> on poverty relief, pensions, etc. as well as combining a more
> competitive wage structure with a higher real standard of living.
Most of that will go over their heads. Most are only interested in what is in it for them. Currently selling stability and eco is worth it.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
>
> > > - an anti-EU and pro-globalism stance
> > > (a sustainable global community)
> >
> > "The EU imposes unsustainable policies
> > on us like the banksters' euro, which
> > Greece, Spain and the rest have proved
> > is not a sustainable money system because
> > it is based on feeding the banks' addiction
> > to lending for land speculation."
>
> I do not think the Euro, no more than the US dollar, has anything to do with
that.
The dollar and sterling are also debt money based on lending for land
speculation and thus not sustainable. As we have seen.
> The Euro is just another currency.
Not at all. It is a transnational debt money that can't be managed using
national fiscal levers the way the dollar and sterling can.
> We are in the EU and it worked well until the CC.
I.e., NOT SUSTAINABLY.
> Many are anti-EU because of the crisis and seeing that they are bailing out
the PIIGS - some of the PIIGS were just plain fianacially irresponsible.
They all were, because they all subsidized idle landowning.
> Being anti-EU is not a positive measure. Most people view that it is here and
it is not going away and getting out is financial suicide.
Being anti-EU is a positive measure because the EU requires member nations to
adopt unjust and harmful policies like VAT.
> Promoting Genomics to Brussels maybe a good ploy - economic stability
resulting in political stability, etc.
That would more effectively be done by a member government already successfully
thriving under geonomic policies, and very loudly and publicly asking Brussels
why EU members are required to follow stupid, unjust, harmful and evil policies.
-- Roy Langston
After four years of proving our worth day after day, bringing carefully selected news, findings, expert views, arguments, tools, comments, provocations and leads to the desks of thousands of readers from more than seventy countries on all continents, World Streets is now reaching out. We need your support to continue in 2013.
World Streets is not just one more plan or well-intentioned project. It is a proven independent, international peer network for knowledge-management and idea-sharing, with a solid track record serving local government, policy makers, activists, operators, consultants, researchers, NGOs and perhaps above all students and citizens who wish to better understand the full texture of the sector and the opportunities for doing something about it. World Streets not only informs - it challenges!
If you go to World Streets this morning -- http://worldstreets.org -- you will see in the top left menu the details of why and how to make your donation -- along with some background on the work program for the year ahead. Or, easier still, direct from here you can click W/S EUROS-- http://goo.gl/Eo3x0--to make a donation by PayPal or credit card in Euros. Or W/S DOLLARS for USD donations -- http://goo.gl/JU9nS.
We are aiming to collect EUR 36,000 (around USD 50,000) to guarantee the year. With your support and even a modest donation, we can continue making our contribution over 2013 to the challenges of sustainable transport, sustainable cities and sustainable lives. If you are not clear about suggested amounts for individuals and organizations, pleaseclickDONATION GUIDELINES here - http://wp.me/psKUY-2C4#transfers
Thank you, and keep reading World Streets.
Eric Britton
Editor in chief
PS. If you want to talk about collaborative or team projects in 2013, that's what we do best. If you click to http://wp.me/psKUY-2Cgyou will see how this works.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@>
> wrote:
>
> > It is essential to pound home the fact that all other> taxes
> confiscate privately created value and give it > to landowners in return
> for nothing, while LVT recovers > publicly created value for public
> purposes and benefit, > leaving privately created value in its
> producers' hands > where it rightly belongs.
>
> Also to emphasise that
> Income Tax penalizes the productive and LVT promotes enterprise and
> productivity. Also it is how it is put across. Some Marxist made it
> look like war on the wealthy. You do not want to make it look like its is war
on landowners.
At some point, landowners need to understand that in the long term it is LVT or
the abyss. The GFC was a warning, just as Japan's land crash of 1990 was a
warning.
> Landowners benefit as well.
No, landowners qua landowners are the only losers.
> That must be emphasised.
We should be honest.
> That is why Geonomics is far better and a better word - use Land Value Tax as
little as possible.
Something like "common value recovery."
> Geonomics is NOT a single tax, so no one can be accused of victimizing one
section - landowners.
It is landowners who are victimizing everyone else. We must not shrink from
identifying that fact.
> Also it has to emphasised that the whole thing is just a tax shift. The system
stays the same. Business behaviour stays the same.
Business behavior does not stay the same. It changes from lobbying, rent
seeking and taking to investing, competing and producing.
> > It is essential to pound home the fact that landowners > GET all the
> taxes of the nation, and that land's value > simply measures how much of
> other people's taxes > its owner can expect to pocket in return for
> nothing.
>
> It is how that is put across to millions of people who currently
> just do not see it that way and regard land as a capital item like a car
> or washing machine. It is not worth putting across economic theories that
must people will have difficulty grasping.
It is ESSENTIAL to inform people of the economic truth that will set them free.
ESSENTIAL.
> > > * They emphasized
> that the poor having no income, > > or a small income, would not benefit
> of the reduction > > of income taxes.
> >
> > It is essential to advocate not just LVT but LVT+UIE, to > restore the
> people's equal rights to liberty and ensure > that all have free, secure
> access to economic opportunity. > The UIE enables a massive reduction of
> government spending > on poverty relief, pensions, etc. as well as
> combining a more > competitive wage structure with a higher real
> standard of living.
>
> Most of that will go over their heads.
You just have to find ways of saying it that they will feel in their gut. "Your
real disposable income will double or triple. You will be able to buy a house
without going into debt slavery for decades. Your family will be able to afford
the kind of comforts you currently have to buy for landowners and bankers."
> Most are only interested in what
> is in it for them. Currently selling stability and eco is worth it.
Liberty, justice and prosperity are in it for them. Next to those, stability
and eco seem like pretty weak beer to me.
-- Roy Langston
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
>
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
> >
> > > > - an anti-EU and pro-globalism stance
> > > > (a sustainable global community)
> > >
> > > "The EU imposes unsustainable policies
> > > on us like the banksters' euro, which
> > > Greece, Spain and the rest have proved
> > > is not a sustainable money system because
> > > it is based on feeding the banks' addiction
> > > to lending for land speculation."
> >
> > I do not think the Euro, no more than the US
> > dollar, has anything to do with that.
>
> The dollar and sterling are also debt money
> based on lending for land speculation and
> thus not sustainable. As we have seen.
The money supply is based on debt. The more debt the more money is "printed".
> > The Euro is just another currency.
>
> Not at all. It is a transnational debt
> money that can't be managed using national
> fiscal levers the way the dollar and
> sterling can.
I can be managed but not as effectively as the dollar or Stirling.
> > We are in the EU and it worked well until the CC.
>
> I.e., NOT SUSTAINABLY.
The EU is sustainable. That is argument could be placed at the United States
over 100 years ago.
> > Many are anti-EU because of the
> > crisis and seeing that they are
> > bailing out the PIIGS - some of
> > the PIIGS were just plain fianacially
> > irresponsible.
>
> They all were, because they all subsidized idle landowning.
>
> > Being anti-EU is not a positive
> > measure. Most people view that it is
> > here and it is not going away and
> > getting out is financial suicide.
>
> Being anti-EU is a positive measure
> because the EU requires member nations
> to adopt unjust and harmful policies like VAT.
That can always be changed and should be. A country can ignore it and see what
happens.
> > Promoting Genomics to Brussels
> > maybe a good ploy - economic stability
> > resulting in political stability, etc.
>
> That would more effectively be done by
> a member government already successfully
> thriving under geonomic policies,
It could be. But the EU is into stability.
Ross Ashcroft on the Keizer Report (from 12 mins in), about the film The Four
Horsemen. The conclusion of the film is introduce LVT and go back to the Gold
Standard. It is available on DVD for those interested - it has not been shown
on UK TV, although it has in many other countries. I am not connected to the
film or Ahscroft.
http://www.renegadeeconomist.com/blog/video/the-keiser-report.html
Ross said when he went around the world promoting the film, 70% of the audiences
were 35 years of age and under. Encouraging.
Here is a 50 minute talk by Ross. He does go on about rent seekers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Ddi6WDSdM&feature=g-all
By Simon Rabinovitch in Hangzhou and Josh Noble in Hong Kong
In the sales office of a new property development in the affluent eastern Chinese city of Hangzhou, there is a buzz in the air. While the plate-glass towers that will form the Xizi International Centre are still three years from opening, prospective homeowners crowd around every available table.
“Someone just came in and bought five apartments,” says Ashley He, one of the battalion of salespeople working the floor.
The fresh enthusiasm for Chinese property, which has long been a yoke on the economy, is not confined to home buyers. Investors have also been snapping up equities and debt linked to Chinese real estate in recent weeks.
In October, new house prices rose in 35 out of the 70 Chinese cities tracked by the national bureau of statistics, up from 31 in September. Prices fell in 17 cities, and remained unchanged in 18 cities, including Shanghai.
It is a sharp turnround from the bleak predictions for a downturn or even a housing sector crash that have dominated the news until recently. Just two months ago, the World Bank warned that a “property market correction” was one of the biggest risks facing the Chinese economy.
The implications of the Chinese property market confounding expectations by strengthening rather than weakening would be huge for both China and the world.
“There’s this deep-seated belief that there are millions of empty, unsold apartments out there. That doesn’t appear to be right, and that’s surprising people,” says Stephen Green, an economist with Standard Chartered in Hong Kong.
There are still plenty of analysts and investors who believe the recent rally will fizzle out as scores of new property developments near completion and add supply to the market. But for now, China property bears are on the back foot.
Mr Green echoes other economists in calling Chinese property the “most important sector in the universe”. Not only has it been the main driver of Chinese growth over the past decade, it has also been the biggest factor in Chinese demand for global commodities from iron ore to copper.
A slowdown in housing construction, which accounts for about 10 per cent of gross domestic product, is one of the main reasons that the economy is on track for sub-8 per cent growth this year, its weakest performance in more than a decade.
China reported over the weekend that its official PMI [purchasing managers’ index], a gauge of manufacturing activity, rose to 50.6 in November from 50.2 in October. It was the latest in a series of positive data points, suggesting that growth is now rebounding after dipping for seven straight quarters.
“Solid underlying demand, continuing urbanisation, easing mortgage financing for first-time home buyers, and the increasing development of mass-market housing should drive sales and transaction volumes for property developers,” Moody’s said.
What Moody’s did not mention, however, is that one small but important part of the upturn is that developers have found ever more clever ways to get around government rules aimed at cooling the market.
The government, worried that property prices were unaffordable and that developers were building too many luxury homes, has implemented a series of tough policies since 2010.
Banks were ordered to cut their lending to developers and people were barred from buying second homes in most big cities in an effort to stamp out speculation.
Hangzhou, once one of China’s hottest housing markets, has been among the hardest hit. Its home prices have fallen 8.7 per cent from a year earlier, the second worst of 70 cities monitored by the statistics bureau. Greentown, the biggest developer in Hangzhou, has been forced to sell many properties to remain afloat.
But things are looking up at the Xizi International Centre, which is 30 per cent owned by Greentown. By building “hotel-style serviced apartments”, the dwellings have been classified as commercial property, not a residential property. As such, they are not subject to the official restrictions on housing purchases.
There are also other tricks. In Langfang, a commuter city that feeds Beijing, a sales agent at the 15-building Haodi Fang development said that homebuyers needed to have records proving they had paid taxes for one year before buying an apartment. “But there are agencies who can arrange that,” she hastened to add.
Regulators are aware of these loopholes but they want growth to stabilise and so do not appear to be in any rush to close them.
Having shunned Chinese property for the past few years, investors too are jumping back in. Shares in China’s two biggest property developers, Poly Real Estate and China Vanke, are up 40 per cent and 20 per cent respectively this year. Meanwhile, the main Chinese stock index has fallen 10 per cent.
The equity rally is fuelling a virtuous cycle, reducing the cost of issuing debt for developers and hence making fresh investment easier.
The debt market, which was closed to property companies for much of 2011 and early 2012, is now very much open for business. Last week, Soho China became the first Chinese developer to raise $1bn in one go, while a recent $500m issue by Longfor generated orders of $11bn.
The result has been a steep drop-off in the cost of borrowing for property companies. Agile, the first Chinese developer to raise money through the bond market this year, issued debt yielding 9.75 per cent back in April, which now trades at just 6.75 per cent.
The investors themselves have changed too, with sovereign wealth funds now joining asset managers, hedge funds and private banks in snapping up property bonds, according to one banker who worked on the Soho China issue.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
>
>
> Ross Ashcroft on the Keizer Report (from 12 mins in),
> about the film The Four Horsemen. The conclusion
> of the film is introduce LVT and go back to the
> Gold Standard. It is available on DVD for those
> interested - it has not been shown on UK TV,
> although it has in many other countries. I am
> not connected to the film or Ahscroft.
> http://www.renegadeeconomist.com/blog/video/the-keiser-report.html
>
> Ross said when he went around the world
> promoting the film, 70% of the audiences
> were 35 years of age and under. Encouraging.
>
> Here is a 50 minute talk by Ross. He does go on about rent seekers.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Ddi6WDSdM&feature=g-all
Ross Ashcroft said:
"Georgists are a rabid bunch who put off more people than they take on-board"
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ross Ashcroft on the Keizer Report (from 12 mins in),
> > about the film The Four Horsemen. The conclusion
> > of the film is introduce LVT and go back to the
> > Gold Standard. It is available on DVD for those
> > interested - it has not been shown on UK TV,
> > although it has in many other countries. I am
> > not connected to the film or Ahscroft.
> > http://www.renegadeeconomist.com/blog/video/the-keiser-report.html
> >
> > Ross said when he went around the world
> > promoting the film, 70% of the audiences
> > were 35 years of age and under. Encouraging.
> >
> > Here is a 50 minute talk by Ross. He does go on about rent seekers.
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Ddi6WDSdM&feature=g-all
>
> Ross Ashcroft said:
> "Georgists are a rabid bunch who put off more people than they take on-board"
>
Sigh. I can see that there's definitely some truth to that, but he's far to
glib. My retort to that? Oh, yeah, and goldbugs are known as exemplars of
rationality. *rolls eyes*
Just received this from an economics academic in USA.
It is a common argument I face.
A recent example is Amazon paying no corporation tax (company profits tax) in UK but do pay vat (UK sales tax) on all sales (under the current system!).
It is argued that with lvt they'd pay no vat nor profits tax and only pay lvt for 4 warehouses in he UK.
What is the definitive argument?
-- Hi Dave: Well, land tax used to be almost the only tax. But it would leave land-light entities, like software companies, insurance, real estate, etc., etc., not taxed at all --esp if there is no income tax. And how about retirees and other who own land but must live in pensions or investments subject to a tax which woul be hefty if it were the govt's only source of revenue...
You've probably thought about all these issues. But I agree taxing something productive, like labor, is a dangerous thing...But if you want as much money as possible, that's what you have to do..
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
>
> > Ross Ashcroft said:
> > "Georgists are a rabid bunch who put off more people than they take
on-board"
>
> Sigh. I can see that there's definitely some truth to that, but he's far to
glib. My retort to that? Oh, yeah, and goldbugs are known as exemplars of
rationality. *rolls eyes*
Maybe Ashcroft's problem with "Georgists" is that they do indeed cleave too
closely to George's analysis, where land is the only thing worth talking about.
I'd estimate that banksters' privilege of issuing debt money and IP monopolists'
privilege of privatizing knowledge and ideas that are in the public domain each
account for about 10% of GDP -- or together, about as much as land rent.
Ignoring those rent seeking sectors just because they were so much smaller in
George's day is not going to fly with people who understand what is going on.
That is another reason why "Georgism" -- the personality cult of Henry George --
has become an impediment to effective thought and action.
-- Roy Langston
IMO there are two ways of looking at it.
1.companies don't pay tax, it's either employers, owners or customers. The
incidence of VAT can be on both the customer, the owner or the employee, same
with corp-tax, noone knows exactly to what extent to whom, but there are
estimates. Customers pay LVT, Employees pays LVT, and owners if anyone in the UK
own Amazon shares.
2.so what? If Amazon has 4 warehouses in the UK, it pays it's ways through LVT
on those 4 warehouses. The value received from UK presence is exactly what they
should be liable to pay. Anything else they benefit from, transport, employees
and whatnot, they pay in full. In theory, buyers and sellers both gain from a
transaction (or it wouldn't happen), so even if they just sent everything from a
warehouse in India, them selling stuff to the UK is still a net benefit to the
economy -> which again goes to rents in the UK.
Kj
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:
>
> Just received this from an economics academic in USA.
> It is a common argument I face.
> A recent example is Amazon paying no corporation tax (company profits tax)
> in UK but do pay vat (UK sales tax) on all sales (under the current
> system!).
> It is argued that with lvt they'd pay no vat nor profits tax and only pay
> lvt for 4 warehouses in he UK.
> What is the definitive argument?
>
> -- Hi Dave: Well, land tax used to be almost the only tax. But it would
> leave land-light entities, like software companies, insurance, real estate,
> etc., etc., not taxed at all --esp if there is no income tax. And how about
> retirees and other who own land but must live in pensions or investments
> subject to a tax which woul be hefty if it were the govt's only source of
> revenue...
>
> You've probably thought about all these issues. But I agree taxing
> something productive, like labor, is a dangerous thing...But if you want as
> much money as possible, that's what you have to do..
>
>
>
>
> Dave Wetzel
>
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
> Maybe Ashcroft's problem with "Georgists" is that they do indeed cleave too
closely to George's analysis, where land is the only thing worth talking about.
I'd estimate that banksters' privilege of issuing debt money and IP monopolists'
privilege of privatizing knowledge and ideas that are in the public domain each
account for about 10% of GDP -- or together, about as much as land rent.
Ignoring those rent seeking sectors just because they were so much smaller in
George's day is not going to fly with people who understand what is going on.
That is another reason why "Georgism" -- the personality cult of Henry George --
has become an impediment to effective thought and action.
>
> -- Roy Langston
With George everything falls onto LAND. Capturing land values is very
important, however, not all unearned income comes from land. Wealth is in other
commonly owned aspects which should also be captured.
George is important but go and on only about land and people think you are mad.
Send Email
