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

Re: FT

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... Right. Moreover, the HK government gets a large part of its land revenue via the initial release of land rather than by recovering the rent as it is
    Message 1 of 111 , Nov 9, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

      > Not that I know how the HK lease system works, but I should imagine the leases are pretty long and assigned to a purchaser on transfer (without upward revaluation) ,so there would be plenty of opportunity for inflation to creep in,would there not?

      Right. Moreover, the HK government gets a large part of its land revenue via the initial release of land rather than by recovering the rent as it is generated, giving it a financial incentive to push up land values and hold land vacant -- the mother of all land speculators.

      > Leasing would seem a pretty clumsy , unresponsive way to deal with changing situations,perhaps.

      It can be made much more responsive, such as by indexing lease amounts to local GDP; voiding and re-issuing leases where improvements have been substantially destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other causes; and revising lease terms to reflect the market rent when the permitted land use is changed.

      > Rather dented my enthusiam for land nationalisation,to be honest;

      Land nationalization is too hard a sell where private landowning is well entrenched, but could be made to work fine in places where land is already publicly owned, including HK.

      > unless you had to surrender an incompleted lease on transfer so the purchaser had to pick up a completely new land lease.Might help.

      No, that would just tend to perpetuate inefficient allocation, much as high capital gains taxes on real estate do.

      > Some blogs talk about the effects of American QE3 on HK property.Did n't QE3 kick in a matter of mere months ago?If so and the money is showing up the other side of the Pacific, then one answer might be to re-think QE as a concept.

      As it is based on debt money issuance by private banksters, QE was never a defensible concept.

      > The idea of distributing QE to the people including issuing "time limited spending vouchers" to all households as proposed by Robt Skidelsky in this latter instance, and Anatole Kalestsky and Steve Keen in general, is,again, worth looking at .

      You are effectively proposing a CD funded by government seigniorage rather than LVT, which though far better than what we have now, is still far inferior to LVT+UIE.

      -- Roy Langston
    • Harry Pollard
      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 –
      Message 111 of 111 , Nov 23, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        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 Group 
        The Henry George School
        of Los Angeles
        Tujunga   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.
        >
        > JDK

        *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.


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