RE: [LandCafe] Re: FT
I'm afraid your comments read like some Tea Party diatribe: people have nor right to health care ("It's certainly no right") and should only be treated "If you /gov can afford it"(Based on the aggregate of land values only) Any govt spending beyond law and order is verboten for having" no practical limit".
(Line gap new para)
All of this is based on a very restricted view of economics where the quantity ( and velocity) of money is fixed and banks never create new funds through Fractional Reserve Banking : the only money available to the Government is to be re-cycled through the Land Tax system based on a tax base of land that possibly/hopefully never increases in value.Or the govt borrows from the money-creating private sector banks and outsources public services to big business like the American Health Insurance companies which are wonderfully public spirited and never seek to make a profit. (Irony BTW)
(New para one line gap)
You constantly impugn me for not caring about working-people when the economic solutions I am discussing ,( from big names like Kaletsky,Steve Keen and Skidelsky ) would provide income and jobs, in ways short of the govt taking control of industries and running them in co-operation with the unions as Obama did with American Auto (though we should n't deny ourselves recourse to this State Capitalist solution or any solution that can be proved to work in the spirit of Dewey's pragmatic experimentalism ).You on the other hand never hint at any growth strategy or any policy for putting the FRB money created by the banks to public use.
(On-line gap new para)
Any political programme based on demonising people paying mortgages as rent-seekers and opposed to the productive class(as you do) is doomed. Don't productive people pay mortgages?And bigger mortgages the more productive they are ?This kind of attitude : that people with mortgages should simultaneously pay for the value of their land via the mortgages AND the entire land value to the State which otherwise has no income, works to sabotage the LVT cause every time it is expressed.
(one line gap new para)
The alternative of starting from now and not attempting to requisition past land value increases from the present owners who are paying through the nose for them is illustrated by the case of Gordon Brown who said in 1997 in his budget speech that he would not let house prices get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery (quoting from memory) He did n't do anything about it. Average house prices were then £55k (half of it land value):within ten years they were £180k .Gordon Brown is an instinctive land taxer (as a young MP he shared a land tax platform with Dave Wetzel).Had he imposed the original JS Mill LVT then, most of the extra £130k per household would have been blocked from forming the housing bubble that is now set in stone and would have been diverted to more productive uses.
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:22:25 +0000
Subject: [LandCafe] Re: FT
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> @k_r_jThe problem is that though you say that under LVT" landowners would be paying for their privilege," the vast majority of politically crucial homeowners are already paying for their land with a mortgage.They would probably not see paying the mortgage as a privilege but as an onerous responsibility.Imposing LVT on the basis "that you can't tax land value too much " is therefore a non-starter.You are not facing what Roy Langston called the injustice of people paying for land twice.<
Yes yes I know, becaue mortgages exist, we can never implement LVT etc. We've discussed your lack of concern for working people before. By the same standard, we can never, ever change the tax-laws in any direction.
>The idea that Government would be restricted in its spending to what could be extracted from landowners is dangerously simple-minded and not a little right-wing.What kind of political party would seek to drastically restrict Government spendingand call this putting "a cap on the fun",as you do?<
By what philosophical system do you define what is and is not appropriate government spending? The stuff that protects people from each other, the negative rights thing, is affordable, OTOH everything we'd like government to pay for, has no practical limit except to the degree that you can extort the productive activity that feeds that spending without entirely destroying it.
> With Pres Obama poised to make huge cuts , we do not need to be talking about restricting anything ,least of all "the fun" which includes serious matters of universal health care<
UHC is great. Me, my family, employer, everyone is benefitting hugely as opposed to our american cousins and their "system". If I feel I can't risk the half-year wait for surgery, I can take out insurance, but I don't have to. Win win, if you/govt can afford it! Pragmatic concern should put UHC on the forefront of things govt should provide, if they manage to raise the funds, but it's certainly no right.
>merely to justify LVT to right-wingers who will not support it anyway when it devalues their one capital asset they pledged their working-lives to pay for.<
Fine, we should then ignore any ideas of change, because the sentiments of rent-seekers is far more important to you than justice for the productive.
- JDK,Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the "fittest" just describes those who have survived.With regard to your last sentence – Stalin got there first.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:Evolution is not really: the survival of the "fittest" It is just survival of that which survives. Evolution is a way of describing the process of how variation within a population will lead to variation eventually of species. There are plenty of genes along for the ride which are not particularly "the fittest".Yes the survival of the two apostolic lungs of Christianity (Catholics and the Eastern church) despite its massive weakness and in fact embracement of weakness of the god who becomes human and is rejected and put to death is a puzzle and crazy on its face. It drove Nietzsche crazy (well that and syphillus drove him crazy). It also drove the communists crazy too. Massive defense? How many tanks does the church have?Jdk
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:26 PM, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...
> > wrote:
> > The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it
> > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.
> > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is
> > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.
> Thanks for sharing this one too. I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.
> It really is best if we get it all out in the open. It's for the same
> reason I won't hide my background.
> This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for
> charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with
> mutual love of beer or gin or your choice. I'd still have a beer in
> Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.
*shrugs* Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene." Basically, ideas are duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's survival of the fittest. The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that generally act as a drain on society? They're very advanced critters in the world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis for social behavior.
Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is, and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as well as emotional) of clergy. Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to be mixed up with it.
Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions, but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid evolution of memes. The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I think people will just eventually find a new normal.
One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the sinner. I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you. It's worth making a conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.