Marx and Land
- I have been reading Fred Harrison's book "The Predator Culture". A good book and quite historical in the misuse of land. Fred goes on about the colonial land grabs and all. Well they are sort of over - we think.
Fred does point out that private greed in the extraction of land rents is the cause of much death in the world. The German invasion of the USSR in 1941 was that last great colonial land grab. The US did it to their west, The British did it via other means in the empire. Land grabs are followed by private ownership of land and removal of the surplus inhabitants.
He splits into two:
1. The predators (the rent seekers who use the effort of others to accumulate riches)
2. The producers - productive people.
The two are opposed, but it needs violence by the army and police keep them together.
Fred does point out that Marx concentrated on Capital as the evil. Marx's critique of capitalism is very sound even today, why Marx never goes away. over 95% of what Marx wrote was a critique of Capitalism.
Fred does point out that Marx, a critic of Henry George, did home in on land, which went over the heads of many, including Lenin. Fred did wonder that if Marx had named Das Kapital, "The Monopoly of Land", the 20th century may have been different, instead of an appalling century of systemic mass killing (yet a century with phenomenal technological growth).
One good point is the interpretation of farming efficiency. The corporations look to efficiency of capital in large factory farms, while labour is often more efficient in small family holdings.
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
>Sorry for the late response. What do you mean by collateral then? Land/buildings can be handed over to the lender as well, can't it? Both loans secured on a physical object that can redeem the debt by reposession, and personal debts, should be entirely legal. I'm not sure if you mean that any specific institutional aspect of mortgage collateral should be abolished, or the idea, which is kind of the basis of risk-taking and economic growth IMO. If anything, the american model is better than what I know as mortgages. AFAIU you can hand over your property and "walk away". No such thing exists here. Even if you hand back the property, you are personally liable for the redemption of the debt, and a creditor sale of a property (moveable objects as well), can only be done through the courts.
> Quoting k_r_johansen on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:45:37 -0000:
> Interesting concept. In most cases, owners servicing mortgages would just
> use their UIEs as an offset to the LVT and continue making the payments.
> If we are talking about a straight swap from income tax to
> LVT, most people would theoretically still have the ability to
> pay. The problem is, and I admit I'm looking at this from the
> Bankster's side, that the collateral just isn't there any more
> (assuming capital values do fall, which I believe they will),
> and the change in risk has implications. Imagine that the country
> suddenly changed systems, and (by the figures I gave), a debt load
> of somewhere around 50% of GDP changed from being collateralized
> to more or less personal loans, but at an interest of 4%.
> Govt. would have to step in as a guarantee in either scheme.
> Abolish collateral. Even more than land privilege, that
> bankster concept keeps people enslaved. If it isn't
> outright security; i.e., something that can be handed over
> to the lender, thus entirely discharging the debt; the
> debt is unconscionable, and ought to be nullified outright.
> Obviously, this also requires concomitant abolition of
> Glass-Steagall (FDIC). Write down all deposits in any given
> institution proportionate to nullification of its assets.