Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: LVT and wage levels

Expand Messages
  • Dave Wetzel
    Thanks Bill very useful. Paul, nb links below: Purchase for $15:- http://www.schalkenbach.org/store.php?crn=75&rn=610&action=show_detail Summary:
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Bill very useful.
      Paul,
      nb links below:
       
      Purchase for $15:-
       
      Summary:

       

      Canadian Inteview by Mason.
       
       
      On 30 September 2012 01:06, Bill Batt <albanygeoist@...> wrote:
      Dave, Carol, Paul and all:  I think that one of the most compelling arguments is the one that Mason makes in After the Crash.  He says that the more the "frozen wealth" embodied in ground rent is recaptured to circulate instead into the active economy, the more competition for labor is increased. Hence an increase in wages.

      Of course there is now so much surplus labor in the underdeveloped world one might need to see a substantial shift from rent flow.  But that's where to start.  B.


      On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:
      Can anyone help Paul with this query please?

      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Paul Brandon <paulbrandon73@...>
      Date: 30 September 2012 00:22
      Subject: Re: LVT and wage levels
      To: Dave Wetzel3 <davewetzel42@...>
      Cc: "carol.wilcox@..." <carol.wilcox@...>, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...>


      Thanks Dave,

      I am aware of this chapter but I suppose I'm looking for an article that emphasises the importance of arguing for the collection of the economic rent in low wage countries as the starting point for a revolutionary change to the economic system.

      If the margin is located in the low wage countries then where should our political energies be best directed?

      Paul


      Sent from my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...>
      Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:30:37
      To: <paulbrandon73@...>
      Cc: <carol.wilcox@...>; <davewetzel42@...>
      Subject: Re: LVT and wage levels


      See Law of Wages in Progress and Poverty:
      http://schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/p+p/pp036.html


       
      On 29 September 2012 18:40, Paul Brandon <paulbrandon73@... <mailto:paulbrandon73@...> > wrote:

       Hi Carol and Dave,

       Greetings from Egypt.

       I'm looking for anything on how the failure to collect the economic rent in today's global economy keeps the general level of wages down. And of course vice a versa - how would the implementation of LVT affect a general increase in wage levels.

       Has anyone written anything accessible on the subject? If so, please do let me know. My understanding has always been this was one of the key points Henry George sought to highlight, but I have never really seen much on this subject in the context of globalisation, and general wage levels.

       Anyway, hope you are  well.

       Cheers

       Paul
       Sent from my BlackBerry® from Vodafone


       
       Dave Wetzel

      www.LabourLand.org
      www.TheIU.org
      www.course.earthrights.net




      --
      Bill Batt
      680 North Pearl St., Albany, New York 12204-1729
      v: 518-462-5068; fax: 866-492-9804 hwbatt@...
      most of my recent work at centralresearchgroup.org
      *The fox knows many things--the hedgehog one big one*
      Archilochus (c.650 B.C.)


    • Harry Pollard
      Paul, This is not a political answer, but an economic one. Someone has to translate to fit political circumstances, but we should understand what we are
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Paul,

        This is not a political answer, but an economic one. Someone has to translate to fit political circumstances, but we should understand what we are translating.

        In a free economy (one must begin without the 101 governmental intrusions that confuse the issue) the Rent of urban land is an attachment to locations which measures the value provided to the locations by the surrounding comunity,

        In other words, when labor pays this free market Rent he gets back the an advantage exactly equalling the Rent. So he loses nothing from his wages. He pays a value, he gets an equal value - this whether the Rent goes to a private landowner, or the community.

        However locations do not exist in a free market in which 'supply and demand' are continually balanced by production and movement of goods to market. If consumers push up demand for a good, the price rises.  Producers produce goods and rush them to market, the effect of which is to reduce prices to their equilibrium.

        We can do nothing without locations, which means that demand is constant. Yet locations are fixed in number and suitability for a purpose is limited. So, there is always a shortage of appropriate locations. Their prices increase but no new locations can be produced. (People "make land" by turning some wet locations into dry locations, but the amount of locations doesn't change.)

        With demand continual and prices going up, there is less incentive for landholders to put their locations to use and the available locations become fewer. Also, in an advancing economy location prices increase lowering still further the available locations. Or, if they attract some expenses such as low property taxes, the location will perhaps be blacktopped and turned into a parking lot. This is what happened with a five acre lot in the middle of the Los Angeles financial district. I first came across it in the 70's. About 15 years ago, it was blacktopped and became a parking lot. I can't imagine how much the location would be worth in the hands of a skyscraper builder.

        London speculators in 1993 bought the 13 hectare Battersea power station site for 10 million pounds. (It had stood derelict  since 1982.) They apparently did nothing to it, sold it in December, 2006, for 400 million pounds. Presumably, the property was increasing in value steadily throughout  these 13 years, so why sell?     

        I remember asking at the time 'Why did they sell now? Did they know something we don't?'

        Not too long afterwards, we found out why they sold.    

        With demand constant and supply erratic, rents go up and up until they reach a ceiling. I say this is the highest Rent that a tenant can pay while continuing to work. Yet, as it is no longer an amount that equals the advantage provided by the community, I feel we cannot continue to call it Rent. So I use a different term - rack-rent. 

        From where comes this difference between Rent and rack-rent? The answer is obvious. It comes from wages, and the lowest wage earners will be forced down to subsistence. You'll recall that when laborers paid rent equal to the advantage provided by the community, nothing came from their wages.

        George didn't offer a different name for rent I call rack-rent, probably because he would end it with his full collection of Rent.

        With the full collection of Rent, either a landholder must use his land or release it to someone who will A lot of locations will come on to the market with actual Rent to the community being the only payment. Rack-rent payers will abandon their locations and head toward Rent paying sites. Rack-rents will collapse.

        Underused sites - slums - will enjoy rebuilding. The boom will carry the whole economy along.

        This is why I advocate collecting full Rent, to gain the economic benefits that will result. (Justice is a given.)The Rent collected is a bonus. (This leads to a favorite of mine "Better to collect Rent and throw it in the sea than not collect it at all.")

        Better! I am not in favor of throwing Rent in the sea! We spend a lot of time on this list discussing the revenue (or the unnecessary exemption) and hardly any time on the far more important economic effects of full Rent collection. 
         
        The application of full Rent collection in underdeveloped countries would release lots of presently unused - but owned - land for people who are presently serfs, often paying half or more of their production in rack-rent.

        Georgist land reform  in Taiwan set the small farmers working like crazy getting as many as five crops from their fields (the one I like is the fish they bred in their paddy fields while waiting for the rice to ripen).

        In this country with close to 1,300 to the square mile, at one point they had a net export of food!

        Sorry this is so long.

        Harry 

        ********************
        The Alumni Group 
        The Henry George School
        of Los Angeles
        Tujunga   CA   90243
               (818) 352-4141
        ********************



        On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:
         

        Thanks Bill very useful.
        Paul,
        nb links below:
         
        Purchase for $15:-
         
        Summary:

         

        Canadian Inteview by Mason.
         
         
        On 30 September 2012 01:06, Bill Batt <albanygeoist@...> wrote:
        Dave, Carol, Paul and all:  I think that one of the most compelling arguments is the one that Mason makes in After the Crash.  He says that the more the "frozen wealth" embodied in ground rent is recaptured to circulate instead into the active economy, the more competition for labor is increased. Hence an increase in wages.

        Of course there is now so much surplus labor in the underdeveloped world one might need to see a substantial shift from rent flow.  But that's where to start.  B.


        On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:
        Can anyone help Paul with this query please?

        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
        From: Paul Brandon <paulbrandon73@...>
        Date: 30 September 2012 00:22
        Subject: Re: LVT and wage levels
        To: Dave Wetzel3 <davewetzel42@...>
        Cc: "carol.wilcox@..." <carol.wilcox@...>, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...>


        Thanks Dave,

        I am aware of this chapter but I suppose I'm looking for an article that emphasises the importance of arguing for the collection of the economic rent in low wage countries as the starting point for a revolutionary change to the economic system.

        If the margin is located in the low wage countries then where should our political energies be best directed?

        Paul


        Sent from my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...>
        Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:30:37
        To: <paulbrandon73@...>
        Cc: <carol.wilcox@...>; <davewetzel42@...>
        Subject: Re: LVT and wage levels


        See Law of Wages in Progress and Poverty:
        http://schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/p+p/pp036.html


         
        On 29 September 2012 18:40, Paul Brandon <paulbrandon73@... <mailto:paulbrandon73@...> > wrote:

         Hi Carol and Dave,

         Greetings from Egypt.

         I'm looking for anything on how the failure to collect the economic rent in today's global economy keeps the general level of wages down. And of course vice a versa - how would the implementation of LVT affect a general increase in wage levels.

         Has anyone written anything accessible on the subject? If so, please do let me know. My understanding has always been this was one of the key points Henry George sought to highlight, but I have never really seen much on this subject in the context of globalisation, and general wage levels.

         Anyway, hope you are  well.

         Cheers

         Paul
         Sent from my BlackBerry® from Vodafone


         
         Dave Wetzel

        www.LabourLand.org
        www.TheIU.org
        www.course.earthrights.net




        --
        Bill Batt
        680 North Pearl St., Albany, New York 12204-1729
        v: 518-462-5068; fax: 866-492-9804 hwbatt@...
        most of my recent work at centralresearchgroup.org
        *The fox knows many things--the hedgehog one big one*
        Archilochus (c.650 B.C.)



      • David Reed
        Please do not apologise for going on so long ;its nice to get the good old Henry George spirit, straight no chaser.You may be wrong though when you say
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 4, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Please do not apologise for going on so long ;its nice  to get the good old Henry George spirit,  straight no chaser.You may be wrong though when you say "George did not offer a different name for rent I call rack-rent." George used the term rack-rent himself and his usage of it is cited in no less than the Oxford English Dictionary:1879 H. George Progr. and Pov.105 Who rack-rent the cultivators most mercilessly. (Compact edition vol 2  p2402 ) So again you don't need to apologise: George uses it and its in the dictionary.
           

          To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
          From: harrypollard0@...
          Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:27:32 -0700
          Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: LVT and wage levels

           
          Paul,

          This is not a political answer, but an economic one. Someone has to translate to fit political circumstances, but we should understand what we are translating.

          In a free economy (one must begin without the 101 governmental intrusions that confuse the issue) the Rent of urban land is an attachment to locations which measures the value provided to the locations by the surrounding comunity,

          In other words, when labor pays this free market Rent he gets back the an advantage exactly equalling the Rent. So he loses nothing from his wages. He pays a value, he gets an equal value - this whether the Rent goes to a private landowner, or the community.

          However locations do not exist in a free market in which 'supply and demand' are continually balanced by production and movement of goods to market. If consumers push up demand for a good, the price rises.  Producers produce goods and rush them to market, the effect of which is to reduce prices to their equilibrium.

          We can do nothing without locations, which means that demand is constant. Yet locations are fixed in number and suitability for a purpose is limited. So, there is always a shortage of appropriate locations. Their prices increase but no new locations can be produced. (People "make land" by turning some wet locations into dry locations, but the amount of locations doesn't change.)

          With demand continual and prices going up, there is less incentive for landholders to put their locations to use and the available locations become fewer. Also, in an advancing economy location prices increase lowering still further the available locations. Or, if they attract some expenses such as low property taxes, the location will perhaps be blacktopped and turned into a parking lot. This is what happened with a five acre lot in the middle of the Los Angeles financial district. I first came across it in the 70's. About 15 years ago, it was blacktopped and became a parking lot. I can't imagine how much the location would be worth in the hands of a skyscraper builder.

          London speculators in 1993 bought the 13 hectare Battersea power station site for 10 million pounds. (It had stood derelict  since 1982.) They apparently did nothing to it, sold it in December, 2006, for 400 million pounds. Presumably, the property was increasing in value steadily throughout  these 13 years, so why sell?     

          I remember asking at the time 'Why did they sell now? Did they know something we don't?'

          Not too long afterwards, we found out why they sold.    

          With demand constant and supply erratic, rents go up and up until they reach a ceiling. I say this is the highest Rent that a tenant can pay while continuing to work. Yet, as it is no longer an amount that equals the advantage provided by the community, I feel we cannot continue to call it Rent. So I use a different term - rack-rent. 

          From where comes this difference between Rent and rack-rent? The answer is obvious. It comes from wages, and the lowest wage earners will be forced down to subsistence. You'll recall that when laborers paid rent equal to the advantage provided by the community, nothing came from their wages.

          George didn't offer a different name for rent I call rack-rent, probably because he would end it with his full collection of Rent.

          With the full collection of Rent, either a landholder must use his land or release it to someone who will A lot of locations will come on to the market with actual Rent to the community being the only payment. Rack-rent payers will abandon their locations and head toward Rent paying sites. Rack-rents will collapse.

          Underused sites - slums - will enjoy rebuilding. The boom will carry the whole economy along.

          This is why I advocate collecting full Rent, to gain the economic benefits that will result. (Justice is a given.)The Rent collected is a bonus. (This leads to a favorite of mine "Better to collect Rent and throw it in the sea than not collect it at all.")

          Better! I am not in favor of throwing Rent in the sea! We spend a lot of time on this list discussing the revenue (or the unnecessary exemption) and hardly any time on the far more important economic effects of full Rent collection. 
           
          The application of full Rent collection in underdeveloped countries would release lots of presently unused - but owned - land for people who are presently serfs, often paying half or more of their production in rack-rent.

          Georgist land reform  in Taiwan set the small farmers working like crazy getting as many as five crops from their fields (the one I like is the fish they bred in their paddy fields while waiting for the rice to ripen).

          In this country with close to 1,300 to the square mile, at one point they had a net export of food!

          Sorry this is so long.

          Harry 

          ********************
          The Alumni Group 
          The Henry George School
          of Los Angeles
          Tujunga   CA   90243
                 (818) 352-4141
          ********************



          On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:
           


          Thanks Bill very useful.
          Paul,
          nb links below:
           
          Purchase for $15:-
           
          Summary:
           
          Canadian Inteview by Mason.
           
           
          On 30 September 2012 01:06, Bill Batt <albanygeoist@...> wrote:
          Dave, Carol, Paul and all:  I think that one of the most compelling arguments is the one that Mason makes in After the Crash.  He says that the more the "frozen wealth" embodied in ground rent is recaptured to circulate instead into the active economy, the more competition for labor is increased. Hence an increase in wages.

          Of course there is now so much surplus labor in the underdeveloped world one might need to see a substantial shift from rent flow.  But that's where to start.  B.


          On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:
          Can anyone help Paul with this query please?

          ---------- Forwarded message ----------
          From: Paul Brandon <paulbrandon73@...>
          Date: 30 September 2012 00:22
          Subject: Re: LVT and wage levels
          To: Dave Wetzel3 <davewetzel42@...>
          Cc: "carol.wilcox@..." <carol.wilcox@...>, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...>


          Thanks Dave,

          I am aware of this chapter but I suppose I'm looking for an article that emphasises the importance of arguing for the collection of the economic rent in low wage countries as the starting point for a revolutionary change to the economic system.

          If the margin is located in the low wage countries then where should our political energies be best directed?

          Paul


          Sent from my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...>
          Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:30:37
          To: <paulbrandon73@...>
          Cc: <carol.wilcox@...>; <davewetzel42@...>
          Subject: Re: LVT and wage levels


          See Law of Wages in Progress and Poverty:
          http://schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/p+p/pp036.html


           
          On 29 September 2012 18:40, Paul Brandon <paulbrandon73@... <mailto:paulbrandon73@...> > wrote:

           Hi Carol and Dave,

           Greetings from Egypt.

           I'm looking for anything on how the failure to collect the economic rent in today's global economy keeps the general level of wages down. And of course vice a versa - how would the implementation of LVT affect a general increase in wage levels.

           Has anyone written anything accessible on the subject? If so, please do let me know. My understanding has always been this was one of the key points Henry George sought to highlight, but I have never really seen much on this subject in the context of globalisation, and general wage levels.

           Anyway, hope you are  well.

           Cheers

           Paul
           Sent from my BlackBerry® from Vodafone


           
           Dave Wetzel

          www.LabourLand.org
          www.TheIU.org
          www.course.earthrights.net




          --
          Bill Batt
          680 North Pearl St., Albany, New York 12204-1729
          v: 518-462-5068; fax: 866-492-9804 hwbatt@...
          most of my recent work at centralresearchgroup.org
          *The fox knows many things--the hedgehog one big one*
          Archilochus (c.650 B.C.)





        • roy_langston
          ... No, Harry is right about that: George called rent, rent, not, rack-rent. ... Yes but George was using the term in its correct dictionary sense of an
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 4, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

            > You may be wrong though when you say "George did not offer a different name for rent I call rack-rent."

            No, Harry is right about that: George called rent, "rent," not, "rack-rent."

            > George used the term rack-rent himself and his usage of it is cited in no less than the Oxford English Dictionary:1879 H. George Progr. and Pov.105 Who rack-rent the cultivators most mercilessly. (Compact edition vol 2 p2402 ) So again you don't need to apologise: George uses it and its in the dictionary.

            Yes but George was using the term in its correct dictionary sense of an excessive, extortionate rent (i.e., payment for fixed improvements the tenant himself has made, extorted from him through the landowner's privilege of evicting the tenant and keeping the improvements), not Harry's made-up sense that is in fact just "rent."

            -- Roy Langston
          • walto
            The only real problem with Harry s use of rack-rent it seems to me is that it causes him to use rent equivocally. This is clear from the following
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 4, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              The only real problem with Harry's use of "rack-rent" it seems to me is that it causes him to use "rent" equivocally. This is clear from the following paragraphs where sometimes "rent" is used to include payments that include "rack-rents" and sometimes not.

              *****************************
              Harry:

              "With demand constant and supply erratic, rents go up and up until they reach a ceiling. I say this is the highest Rent that a tenant can pay while continuing to work. Yet, as it is no longer an amount that equals the advantage provided by the community, I feel we cannot continue to call it Rent. So I use a different term - rack-rent.

              "From where comes this difference between Rent and rack-rent? The answer is obvious. It comes from wages, and the lowest wage earners will be forced down to subsistence. You'll recall that when laborers paid rent equal to the advantage provided by the community, nothing came from their wages.

              "George didn't offer a different name for rent I call rack-rent, probably because he would end it with his full collection of Rent.

              "With the full collection of Rent, either a landholder must use his land or release it to someone who will A lot of locations will come on to the market with actual Rent to the community being the only payment. Rack-rent payers will abandon their locations and head toward Rent paying sites. Rack-rents will collapse."

              ***********************************
              Horn again:

              The main thing is to always keep clear what you're talking about, and Harry's usage doesn't always have that merit. I think, though, that one could define 'rack-rent' in such a way that it wouldn't cause those problems and still convey the nastiness that Harry wants conveyed. Roy gives one way of doing that in his post. I'm not sure why Harry hasn't simply fastened on that: they don't really have a substantive disagreement on this matter, only a terminological one. As we all know, it's more fun to fight than switch. (I'm one of the poster boys.)

              W

              PS: I guess I've now, like Saint Roy, admitted an error: I said I spelled "you're" wrong in a recent post. See, I can be wrong too. (And I believe my striving to be more like Saint Roy has helped me to achieve this high level of humility.)



              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Please do not apologise for going on so long ;its nice to get the good old Henry George spirit, straight no chaser.You may be wrong though when you say "George did not offer a different name for rent I call rack-rent." George used the term rack-rent himself and his usage of it is cited in no less than the Oxford English Dictionary:1879 H. George Progr. and Pov.105 Who rack-rent the cultivators most mercilessly. (Compact edition vol 2 p2402 ) So again you don't need to apologise: George uses it and its in the dictionary.
              > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
              > From: harrypollard0@...
              > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:27:32 -0700
              > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: LVT and wage levels
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >

              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Paul,
              > This is not a political answer, but an economic one. Someone has to translate to fit political circumstances, but we should understand what we are translating.
              >
              >
              >
              > In a free economy (one must begin without the 101 governmental intrusions that confuse the issue) the Rent of urban land is an attachment to locations which measures the value provided to the locations by the surrounding comunity,
              >
              >
              >
              > In other words, when labor pays this free market Rent he gets back the an advantage exactly equalling the Rent. So he loses nothing from his wages. He pays a value, he gets an equal value - this whether the Rent goes to a private landowner, or the community.
              >
              >
              > However locations do not exist in a free market in which 'supply and demand' are continually balanced by production and movement of goods to market. If consumers push up demand for a good, the price rises. Producers produce goods and rush them to market, the effect of which is to reduce prices to their equilibrium.
              >
              >
              > We can do nothing without locations, which means that demand is constant. Yet locations are fixed in number and suitability for a purpose is limited. So, there is always a shortage of appropriate locations. Their prices increase but no new locations can be produced. (People "make land" by turning some wet locations into dry locations, but the amount of locations doesn't change.)
              >
              >
              > With demand continual and prices going up, there is less incentive for landholders to put their locations to use and the available locations become fewer. Also, in an advancing economy location prices increase lowering still further the available locations. Or, if they attract some expenses such as low property taxes, the location will perhaps be blacktopped and turned into a parking lot. This is what happened with a five acre lot in the middle of the Los Angeles financial district. I first came across it in the 70's. About 15 years ago, it was blacktopped and became a parking lot. I can't imagine how much the location would be worth in the hands of a skyscraper builder.
              >
              >
              > London speculators in 1993 bought the 13 hectare Battersea power station site for 10 million pounds. (It had stood derelict since 1982.) They apparently did nothing to it, sold it in December, 2006, for 400 million pounds. Presumably, the property was increasing in value steadily throughout these 13 years, so why sell?
              >
              >
              > I remember asking at the time 'Why did they sell now? Did they know something we don't?'
              >
              >
              > Not too long afterwards, we found out why they sold.
              >
              > With demand constant and supply erratic, rents go up and up until they reach a ceiling. I say this is the highest Rent that a tenant can pay while continuing to work. Yet, as it is no longer an amount that equals the advantage provided by the community, I feel we cannot continue to call it Rent. So I use a different term - rack-rent.
              >
              >
              > From where comes this difference between Rent and rack-rent? The answer is obvious. It comes from wages, and the lowest wage earners will be forced down to subsistence. You'll recall that when laborers paid rent equal to the advantage provided by the community, nothing came from their wages.
              >
              >
              > George didn't offer a different name for rent I call rack-rent, probably because he would end it with his full collection of Rent.
              >
              >
              >
              > With the full collection of Rent, either a landholder must use his land or release it to someone who will A lot of locations will come on to the market with actual Rent to the community being the only payment. Rack-rent payers will abandon their locations and head toward Rent paying sites. Rack-rents will collapse.
              >
              >
              > Underused sites - slums - will enjoy rebuilding. The boom will carry the whole economy along.
              > This is why I advocate collecting full Rent, to gain the economic benefits that will result. (Justice is a given.)The Rent collected is a bonus. (This leads to a favorite of mine "Better to collect Rent and throw it in the sea than not collect it at all.")
              >
              >
              > Better! I am not in favor of throwing Rent in the sea! We spend a lot of time on this list discussing the revenue (or the unnecessary exemption) and hardly any time on the far more important economic effects of full Rent collection.
              >
              > The application of full Rent collection in underdeveloped countries would release lots of presently unused - but owned - land for people who are presently serfs, often paying half or more of their production in rack-rent.
              >
              >
              > Georgist land reform in Taiwan set the small farmers working like crazy getting as many as five crops from their fields (the one I like is the fish they bred in their paddy fields while waiting for the rice to ripen).
              >
              >
              > In this country with close to 1,300 to the square mile, at one point they had a net export of food!
              >
              >
              > Sorry this is so long.
              >
              > Harry ********************
              >
              > The Alumni Group The Henry George Schoolof Los Angeles
              >
              >
              > Tujunga CA 90243 (818) 352-4141
              >
              >
              > ********************
              >
              >
              >
              > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Thanks Bill very useful.Paul,nb links below:
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Purchase for $15:-http://www.schalkenbach.org/store.php?crn=75&rn=610&action=show_detail
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Summary:http://commonground-usa.net/so09AfterCrash.html
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Canadian Inteview by Mason.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > http://brighterlife.ca/2009/11/30/mason-gaffney-on-the-u-s-economy-part-1/
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > On 30 September 2012 01:06, Bill Batt <albanygeoist@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Dave, Carol, Paul and all: I think that one of the most compelling arguments is the one that Mason makes in After the Crash. He says that the more the "frozen wealth" embodied in ground rent is recaptured to circulate instead into the active economy, the more competition for labor is increased. Hence an increase in wages.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Of course there is now so much surplus labor in the underdeveloped world one might need to see a substantial shift from rent flow. But that's where to start. B.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:
              >
              > Can anyone help Paul with this query please?
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
              > From: Paul Brandon <paulbrandon73@...>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Date: 30 September 2012 00:22
              > Subject: Re: LVT and wage levels
              > To: Dave Wetzel3 <davewetzel42@...>
              > Cc: "carol.wilcox@..." <carol.wilcox@...>, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Thanks Dave,
              >
              >
              >
              > I am aware of this chapter but I suppose I'm looking for an article that emphasises the importance of arguing for the collection of the economic rent in low wage countries as the starting point for a revolutionary change to the economic system.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > If the margin is located in the low wage countries then where should our political energies be best directed?
              >
              >
              >
              > Paul
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Sent from my BlackBerry® from Vodafone
              >
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              >
              > From: Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...>
              >
              > Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:30:37
              >
              > To: <paulbrandon73@...>
              >
              > Cc: <carol.wilcox@...>; <davewetzel42@...>
              >
              > Subject: Re: LVT and wage levels
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > See Law of Wages in Progress and Poverty:
              >
              > http://schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/p+p/pp036.html
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > On 29 September 2012 18:40, Paul Brandon <paulbrandon73@... <mailto:paulbrandon73@...> > wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Hi Carol and Dave,
              >
              >
              >
              > Greetings from Egypt.
              >
              >
              >
              > I'm looking for anything on how the failure to collect the economic rent in today's global economy keeps the general level of wages down. And of course vice a versa - how would the implementation of LVT affect a general increase in wage levels.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Has anyone written anything accessible on the subject? If so, please do let me know. My understanding has always been this was one of the key points Henry George sought to highlight, but I have never really seen much on this subject in the context of globalisation, and general wage levels.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Anyway, hope you are well.
              >
              >
              >
              > Cheers
              >
              >
              >
              > Paul
              >
              > Sent from my BlackBerry® from Vodafone
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Dave Wetzel
              > www.LabourLand.org
              > www.TheIU.org
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > www.course.earthrights.net
              >
              >
              >
              > --
              > Bill Batt
              > 680 North Pearl St., Albany, New York 12204-1729
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > v: 518-462-5068; fax: 866-492-9804 hwbatt@...
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > most of my recent work at centralresearchgroup.org
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > *The fox knows many things--the hedgehog one big one*
              > Archilochus (c.650 B.C.)
              >
            • Harry Pollard
              David and Walter, David, Henry George mentioned rack-rent in its original context as the extortionate rents inflicted on the Irish where essentially it left to
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 4, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                David and Walter,

                David, Henry George mentioned rack-rent in its original context as the extortionate rents inflicted on the Irish where essentially it left to the peasants little more than barely enough to keep them alive (most of them).

                I have brought back the term to describe modern Rents which are the result of monopoly and are actually a resultant after the taxes and subsidies have done their work. Always, "Rents" take every penny they can and it comes from wages, reducing the lowest paid (on which most wages rest) to poverty.

                That's why "the poor will always be with us".  It is ridiculous in our modern economies with incredible powers of production that anyone should be in deep poverty.

                George didn't describe this monopoly return as anything but Rent. I think we should separate this monopoly return from Rent in a free market which is a measure of the advantage given to a location by the community.  

                As I said, I think that George was looking ahead to his solution to the problem - community collection of Rent - one important effect of which would be to end rack-renting and reduce Rent to a measure of the advantage provided to the location by the community and return wages to Labor.

                I mentioned the Taiwan experiment to illustrate what happens when Labor is freed from rack-rent.

                Walter - I don't much care for general criticism without explanation. Looks to me as if within the confines of an E-Mail I was quite clear.

                Roy doesn't help. He suffers from a basic error in his treatment of Rent. He doesn't think there will be much change in monopoly Rent (rack-rent) with a full collection of Rent. That, wages will remain minimal after full collection. This perhaps led him into the exemption argument which, as you know, I regard as nonsense. (Illustrated by the interminable discussion about baby farmers and suchlike silliness. In a just community, the Rent of land is equally owned by every person on the planet whether 80 years old or 8 days. Practicality will show how this is done within political jurisdictions.)    

                Anyway if you show me an actual error in my use of Rent in my post I'll be glad to correct it

                Harry

                ********************
                The Alumni Group 
                The Henry George School
                of Los Angeles
                Tujunga   CA   90243
                       (818) 352-4141
                ********************



                On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:34 AM, walto <calhorn@...> wrote:
                 

                The only real problem with Harry's use of "rack-rent" it seems to me is that it causes him to use "rent" equivocally. This is clear from the following paragraphs where sometimes "rent" is used to include payments that include "rack-rents" and sometimes not.

                *****************************
                Harry:

                "With demand constant and supply erratic, rents go up and up until they reach a ceiling. I say this is the highest Rent that a tenant can pay while continuing to work. Yet, as it is no longer an amount that equals the advantage provided by the community, I feel we cannot continue to call it Rent. So I use a different term - rack-rent.

                "From where comes this difference between Rent and rack-rent? The answer is obvious. It comes from wages, and the lowest wage earners will be forced down to subsistence. You'll recall that when laborers paid rent equal to the advantage provided by the community, nothing came from their wages.

                "George didn't offer a different name for rent I call rack-rent, probably because he would end it with his full collection of Rent.

                "With the full collection of Rent, either a landholder must use his land or release it to someone who will A lot of locations will come on to the market with actual Rent to the community being the only payment. Rack-rent payers will abandon their locations and head toward Rent paying sites. Rack-rents will collapse."

                ***********************************
                Horn again:

                The main thing is to always keep clear what you're talking about, and Harry's usage doesn't always have that merit. I think, though, that one could define 'rack-rent' in such a way that it wouldn't cause those problems and still convey the nastiness that Harry wants conveyed. Roy gives one way of doing that in his post. I'm not sure why Harry hasn't simply fastened on that: they don't really have a substantive disagreement on this matter, only a terminological one. As we all know, it's more fun to fight than switch. (I'm one of the poster boys.)

                W

                PS: I guess I've now, like Saint Roy, admitted an error: I said I spelled "you're" wrong in a recent post. See, I can be wrong too. (And I believe my striving to be more like Saint Roy has helped me to achieve this high level of humility.)

                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > Please do not apologise for going on so long ;its nice to get the good old Henry George spirit, straight no chaser.You may be wrong though when you say "George did not offer a different name for rent I call rack-rent." George used the term rack-rent himself and his usage of it is cited in no less than the Oxford English Dictionary:1879 H. George Progr. and Pov.105 Who rack-rent the cultivators most mercilessly. (Compact edition vol 2 p2402 ) So again you don't need to apologise: George uses it and its in the dictionary.
                > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                > From: harrypollard0@...
                > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:27:32 -0700
                > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: LVT and wage levels
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >

                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Paul,
                > This is not a political answer, but an economic one. Someone has to translate to fit political circumstances, but we should understand what we are translating.
                >
                >
                >
                > In a free economy (one must begin without the 101 governmental intrusions that confuse the issue) the Rent of urban land is an attachment to locations which measures the value provided to the locations by the surrounding comunity,
                >
                >
                >
                > In other words, when labor pays this free market Rent he gets back the an advantage exactly equalling the Rent. So he loses nothing from his wages. He pays a value, he gets an equal value - this whether the Rent goes to a private landowner, or the community.
                >
                >
                > However locations do not exist in a free market in which 'supply and demand' are continually balanced by production and movement of goods to market. If consumers push up demand for a good, the price rises. Producers produce goods and rush them to market, the effect of which is to reduce prices to their equilibrium.
                >
                >
                > We can do nothing without locations, which means that demand is constant. Yet locations are fixed in number and suitability for a purpose is limited. So, there is always a shortage of appropriate locations. Their prices increase but no new locations can be produced. (People "make land" by turning some wet locations into dry locations, but the amount of locations doesn't change.)
                >
                >
                > With demand continual and prices going up, there is less incentive for landholders to put their locations to use and the available locations become fewer. Also, in an advancing economy location prices increase lowering still further the available locations. Or, if they attract some expenses such as low property taxes, the location will perhaps be blacktopped and turned into a parking lot. This is what happened with a five acre lot in the middle of the Los Angeles financial district. I first came across it in the 70's. About 15 years ago, it was blacktopped and became a parking lot. I can't imagine how much the location would be worth in the hands of a skyscraper builder.
                >
                >
                > London speculators in 1993 bought the 13 hectare Battersea power station site for 10 million pounds. (It had stood derelict since 1982.) They apparently did nothing to it, sold it in December, 2006, for 400 million pounds. Presumably, the property was increasing in value steadily throughout these 13 years, so why sell?
                >
                >
                > I remember asking at the time 'Why did they sell now? Did they know something we don't?'
                >
                >
                > Not too long afterwards, we found out why they sold.
                >
                > With demand constant and supply erratic, rents go up and up until they reach a ceiling. I say this is the highest Rent that a tenant can pay while continuing to work. Yet, as it is no longer an amount that equals the advantage provided by the community, I feel we cannot continue to call it Rent. So I use a different term - rack-rent.
                >
                >
                > From where comes this difference between Rent and rack-rent? The answer is obvious. It comes from wages, and the lowest wage earners will be forced down to subsistence. You'll recall that when laborers paid rent equal to the advantage provided by the community, nothing came from their wages.
                >
                >
                > George didn't offer a different name for rent I call rack-rent, probably because he would end it with his full collection of Rent.
                >
                >
                >
                > With the full collection of Rent, either a landholder must use his land or release it to someone who will A lot of locations will come on to the market with actual Rent to the community being the only payment. Rack-rent payers will abandon their locations and head toward Rent paying sites. Rack-rents will collapse.
                >
                >
                > Underused sites - slums - will enjoy rebuilding. The boom will carry the whole economy along.
                > This is why I advocate collecting full Rent, to gain the economic benefits that will result. (Justice is a given.)The Rent collected is a bonus. (This leads to a favorite of mine "Better to collect Rent and throw it in the sea than not collect it at all.")
                >
                >
                > Better! I am not in favor of throwing Rent in the sea! We spend a lot of time on this list discussing the revenue (or the unnecessary exemption) and hardly any time on the far more important economic effects of full Rent collection.
                >
                > The application of full Rent collection in underdeveloped countries would release lots of presently unused - but owned - land for people who are presently serfs, often paying half or more of their production in rack-rent.
                >
                >
                > Georgist land reform in Taiwan set the small farmers working like crazy getting as many as five crops from their fields (the one I like is the fish they bred in their paddy fields while waiting for the rice to ripen).
                >
                >
                > In this country with close to 1,300 to the square mile, at one point they had a net export of food!
                >
                >
                > Sorry this is so long.
                >
                > Harry ********************
                >
                > The Alumni Group The Henry George Schoolof Los Angeles
                >
                >
                > Tujunga CA 90243 (818) 352-4141
                >
                >
                > ********************
                >
                >
                >
                > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Thanks Bill very useful.Paul,nb links below:
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Purchase for $15:-http://www.schalkenbach.org/store.php?crn=75&rn=610&action=show_detail
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Summary:http://commonground-usa.net/so09AfterCrash.html
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Canadian Inteview by Mason.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > http://brighterlife.ca/2009/11/30/mason-gaffney-on-the-u-s-economy-part-1/
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > On 30 September 2012 01:06, Bill Batt <albanygeoist@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Dave, Carol, Paul and all: I think that one of the most compelling arguments is the one that Mason makes in After the Crash. He says that the more the "frozen wealth" embodied in ground rent is recaptured to circulate instead into the active economy, the more competition for labor is increased. Hence an increase in wages.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Of course there is now so much surplus labor in the underdeveloped world one might need to see a substantial shift from rent flow. But that's where to start. B.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:
                >
                > Can anyone help Paul with this query please?
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                > From: Paul Brandon <paulbrandon73@...>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Date: 30 September 2012 00:22
                > Subject: Re: LVT and wage levels
                > To: Dave Wetzel3 <davewetzel42@...>
                > Cc: "carol.wilcox@..." <carol.wilcox@...>, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Thanks Dave,
                >
                >
                >
                > I am aware of this chapter but I suppose I'm looking for an article that emphasises the importance of arguing for the collection of the economic rent in low wage countries as the starting point for a revolutionary change to the economic system.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > If the margin is located in the low wage countries then where should our political energies be best directed?
                >
                >
                >
                > Paul
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Sent from my BlackBerry® from Vodafone
                >
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                >
                > From: Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...>
                >
                > Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:30:37
                >
                > To: <paulbrandon73@...>
                >
                > Cc: <carol.wilcox@...>; <davewetzel42@...>
                >
                > Subject: Re: LVT and wage levels
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > See Law of Wages in Progress and Poverty:
                >
                > http://schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/p+p/pp036.html
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > On 29 September 2012 18:40, Paul Brandon <paulbrandon73@... <mailto:paulbrandon73@...> > wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Hi Carol and Dave,
                >
                >
                >
                > Greetings from Egypt.
                >
                >
                >
                > I'm looking for anything on how the failure to collect the economic rent in today's global economy keeps the general level of wages down. And of course vice a versa - how would the implementation of LVT affect a general increase in wage levels.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Has anyone written anything accessible on the subject? If so, please do let me know. My understanding has always been this was one of the key points Henry George sought to highlight, but I have never really seen much on this subject in the context of globalisation, and general wage levels.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Anyway, hope you are well.
                >
                >
                >
                > Cheers
                >
                >
                >
                > Paul
                >
                > Sent from my BlackBerry® from Vodafone
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Dave Wetzel
                > www.LabourLand.org
                > www.TheIU.org
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > www.course.earthrights.net
                >
                >
                >
                > --
                > Bill Batt
                > 680 North Pearl St., Albany, New York 12204-1729
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > v: 518-462-5068; fax: 866-492-9804 hwbatt@...
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > most of my recent work at centralresearchgroup.org
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > *The fox knows many things--the hedgehog one big one*
                > Archilochus (c.650 B.C.)
                >


              • walto
                ... There s the problem right ther. The term Rent should mean one thing in these discussions. It should not sometimes be used for an amount which includes
                Message 7 of 8 , Oct 4, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
                  >

                  > Roy doesn't help. He suffers from a basic error in his treatment of Rent.
                  > He doesn't think there will be much change in monopoly Rent (rack-rent)
                  > with a full collection of Rent. That, wages will remain minimal after full
                  > collection.

                  There's the problem right ther. The term "Rent" should mean one thing in these discussions. It should not sometimes be used for an amount which includes and sometimes only for an amount which does not include what you call "rack-rent." Again, this is merely a terminological point.

                  The substance of your other main argument (leaving the exemption out as well as dealing with his arrogance) with Roy is an empirical matter only: how much would the economy change/benefit merely from the collection of LVT. FWIW, on that matter, I'm somewhere in the middle. I'd like to believe it would have all the salutary effects you (and George) predict. But we'd have to see. In any case, the LVT is more consonant with my notions
                  fairness than any alternative, and would certainly have SOME beneficial effects (esp. if coordinated with the reduction in other taxes).

                  On the exemption, I agree with Roy for reasons I've stated many times and will not repeat. I think he's wrong about baby exemptions, but I consider that a detail (in spite of his hyperbole and occasional use of capital letters). I'd rather have the exemption even with the stupid baby mistake than no exemption at all. And if passage pf a plan required the stupid baby mistake, I'd still support it.


                  >
                  > Anyway if you show me an actual error in my use of Rent in my post I'll be
                  > glad to correct it
                  >
                  > Harry
                  >


                  See above.

                  W
                • roy_langston
                  ... And they were rack-rents in the true sense: rents charged for fixed improvements the tenants themselves had made. ... Land is a canonical example of
                  Message 8 of 8 , Oct 5, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:

                    > David, Henry George mentioned rack-rent in its original context as the
                    > extortionate rents inflicted on the Irish where essentially it left to the
                    > peasants little more than barely enough to keep them alive (most of them).

                    And they were rack-rents in the true sense: rents charged for fixed improvements the tenants themselves had made.

                    > I have brought back the term to describe modern Rents which are the result
                    > of monopoly

                    Land is a canonical example of monopoly, and LVT won't change that.

                    > and are actually a resultant after the taxes and subsidies have
                    > done their work. Always, "Rents" take every penny they can and it comes
                    > from wages, reducing the lowest paid (on which most wages rest) to poverty.

                    Rent does not come from wages, it is paid for an advantage that increases production over what could be produced on marginal land. It is the pressure of population, advancing technology, and increasing capital investment that push the margin out so far that the wages of the less productive fall below subsistence.

                    > That's why "the poor will always be with us". It is ridiculous in our
                    > modern economies with incredible powers of production that anyone should be in deep poverty.

                    And this is the guy who thinks a UIE to provide everyone with free, secure access to economic opportunity is "nonsense"...

                    > George didn't describe this monopoly return as anything but Rent. I think
                    > we should separate this monopoly return from Rent in a free market which is
                    > a measure of the advantage given to a location by the community.

                    And is equal to what you call, "rack-rent."

                    > Roy doesn't help. He suffers from a basic error in his treatment of Rent.
                    > He doesn't think there will be much change in monopoly Rent (rack-rent)
                    > with a full collection of Rent. That, wages will remain minimal after full collection.

                    Harry has never explained why the most productive will not be outbidding the least productive for the good land, consigning them to land where their wages are near or below subsistence, nor will he ever be doing so.

                    > This perhaps led him into the exemption argument which, as you
                    > know, I regard as nonsense.

                    But can't refute.

                    > In a just community, the Rent of land is equally owned by every person on the planet

                    Why? How did everyone get a right to collect rent?

                    And Harry, as I have asked you many times, please trim your posts.

                    -- Roy Langston
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.