... What should determine land usage is the urban footprint. This is paramount. If it needs to expand, then it expands. If it means agricultural land isMessage 1 of 43 , Nov 28, 2012View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> The only way we would find how much landWhat should determine land usage is the urban footprint. This is paramount. If it needs to expand, then it expands. If it means agricultural land is reduced and we import, then so be it. We do it the other way around? Or is this deliberately done so as to create an artificial land shortage to ratchet up land prices - keeping the voters happy as their home value rises. At only 7,5% of the land settled there is no issue in the UK in expanding the urban footprint.
> is needed and for what is to let
> the market determine it.
If say the population expanded by 100% The transport infrastructure need not be twice as much. Widening roads with another lane and having train lines with twice or three time the throughput is all that is needed if existing towns are expanded.
> Do you still have in Europe the mountainsNo. Due to pressure from the UK it stopped. The first to highlight it were the Monster Raving Loonies - that is true. It was being dumped down disused mine shafts in Germany and France and sold for next to nothing to the eastern block. The Raving Loonies exposure resulted in the distribution of the surpluses to the needy, old people and charities instead. My pensioner mother was given some butter and it had "a gift from the EU" or something like that on the packs. A gift? Our taxes paid for it.
> of butter and cheese stored in caves?
The EU had a policy of price control. Create an artificial shortage and the price goes up.
> giant sucking sound of Rent (actually rack-rent)Rack-rent is supposed to mean extortionate rent. The market comes in, unless an artificial shortage is created.
The point is, Scott, that the little fields of Britain cannot compete with the mass production of the US. Harry ********************** *The Alumni Group * *TheMessage 43 of 43 , Dec 1 1:38 PMView SourceThe point is, Scott, that the little fields of Britain cannot compete with the mass production of the US.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga 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:
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.
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.