... There is, just not in cities. ... That s Ricardo s description, and it still applies. ... It s already on the market. Its owners are just holding out forMessage 1 of 87 , Dec 17 1:18 PMView Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> Roy said:There is, just not in cities.
> "The return of land rent to the community doesn't really address the
> worker's problem of access to land. He still has to pay rent for access to
> economic opportunity, just to a different landlord; and absent a UIE, if he
> is not very productive the market will consign him to poor land where he can't survive."
> An effect of full collection of rent in cities will be to free the massive
> amount of unused and underused land. At the moment, for all practical purposes there is no free land.
> This makes it difficult for Henry George'sThat's Ricardo's description, and it still applies.
> description which measures rent from the "best available rent-free land".
> When full rent is collected, a large amount of vacant and underused land will come onto the market.It's already on the market. Its owners are just holding out for higher than market prices.
> It will no longer be possible to charge rack-rent.It already isn't.
> Rents collected by the community will reflect the advantageAbsent a UIE, that's just clearly false. The only way no rent could be paid is if no more than one person is willing to pay anything at all to use the land. But most people are willing to pay quite a lot of money to use more land, and there is no reason to expect that to change with LVT -- indeed, they will have more money with which to pay for more land. The claimed urban margin is therefore nothing but a figment of Harry's imagination.
> provided by the community and because so much land will now be available an urban margin will appear in cities. That is there will be land that is quite productive, but on which the no rent is paid.
> (There will, no doubt, be anBizarre. How could such an amount possibly be collected from people who are not willing to pay anything to use the land? Harry's imagination is running away with him again.
> amount collected to pay for existing city services.)
> This rent-free land along with other low-rent land will be ideal for poorerNo, it won't, because if there is any money to be made growing fruits and vegetables for the nearby central city, more productive people will be willing and able to pay more for use of the land than the unproductive poor.
> people to grow fruits and vegetables for the nearby central city.
> That is,They would almost always prefer to work for higher wages in the central city, and would be willing to pay for use of locations from which to do so.
> if they want to. They might prefer to work for higher wages in the central city.
> Widespread subsistence level wages, so evident now, will disappear.False on two counts: wages are already above subsistence because of minimum wage laws; and market wages will not be much affected by LVT because the margin won't move much: people will just be able to pay for the good, vacant land they would now like to use but can't afford.
> That's Georgist theory.No, it is only Pollardian theory.
> Roy has his own theory, which is unlikely to say the least.My theory is far more likely than Pollardian theory because it is consistent with the known facts.
> He thinks that with application of full rent collection, there will be no change (or very little) in the amount collectible by landholders.Right, because supply is fixed, and demand -- the amounts people are willing to pay to use the good land -- probably won't change much.
> They'll still be able to collect rack-rentThey can't now.
> and the least able workers will remain at the subsistence level.Or below, absent a UIE or minimum wage law.
> This is why he came up with the universal exemption -That is gratuitous psychological speculation on Harry's part, and factually incorrect.
> a completely unnecessary complicationIt is very necessary, even just politically, to obtain the popular support needed for implementation. It was mainly Henry George's failure to understand the economic, moral, and political necessity of the UIE that defeated the Single Tax movement in the 19th century.
> (just how complicated was indicated by the recent long-winded and tedious discussion here).It wasn't complexity of the idea that made the discussion long-winded and tedious.
> Thus, he feels that rent collection is just a better way to tax people,That is another fabrication on Harry's part. I have stated explicitly, many times, that rent recovery is a matter of just compensation for the abrogation of people's rights to liberty inherent in exclusive land tenure. But just compensation BY the landholder is not enough: just compensation must also be made TO those whose rights to liberty are consequently removed.
> whereas the importance of full rent collection rests in its economicHow could there be liberty and jusice for all, when people's liberty to use land would still be forcibly removed without just compensation?
> consequences, consequences which lead to the real goal "Liberty and Justice for All".
-- Roy Langston
It all depends on what you are writing and who will be the reader. Unfortunately, modern schooling isn t great at producing readers so material must be madeMessage 87 of 87 , Dec 30 10:23 PMView SourceIt all depends on what you are writing and who will be the reader.Unfortunately, modern schooling isn't great at producing readers so material must be made simple for them. Which point doesn't throw out other writing which may be more complicated as it conveys more subtle directions..Harry********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:55 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> However, I suppose the short sentence is now
> the thing, which may or may not be an improvement.
Harry, tabloid newspapers use short sentences. People are familiar with that. So, you have to write to what they can easily understand. If they have to do double-takes they lose interest. It is that simple. Churchill realised that a long time ago. His books on WW2 and super easy to understand. The proof readers would highlight parts of the book(s) and he would override them. In the end they thanked him for teaching them how to write simple English.