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


Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... Low food prices are in the PUBLIC interest. Prosperity means products are cheap relative to labor. ... Proving conclusively that the MSI were right, and
    Message 1 of 43 , Nov 21, 2012
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

      > It is very easy for Georgists to fall into the reflex laissez-faire habit of backing the manufacturing interest (cheap food)

      Low food prices are in the PUBLIC interest. Prosperity means products are cheap relative to labor.

      > as opposed to the landed interest ( high agricultural prices) but Marx did not back the Manchester School Industrialists in their efforts to abolish the Corn Laws.

      Proving conclusively that the MSI were right, and the Corn Laws should have been abolished.

      > He said cheap food would mean lower wages

      Proving conclusively that he did not understand the Law of Rent.

      > and he got behind Chartists who used to invade Anti-Corn Law meetings and debate the Charter instead.

      Proving conclusively that he was a boor and a thug at heart.

      > It may be that the CAP is the locus of very deep seated divergences between the British and Europeans who are not at all keen on the kind of industrial competition rhetoric demanding laissez faire low wages and cheap food

      Low wages are an artifact of the forcible removal of people's liberty right to use land, not of cheap food. When landowning removes people's liberty rights by force, they have no choice but to bid down each other's wages in order to regain access to opportunities to sustain themselves, and thus avoid starvation.

      > that comes now, from, lets face it, the most prattish Tories.

      Blatant ad hominem fallacy.

      > After the manufacturing interests got their way over the Corn Laws, we had aN Industrial Revolution founded on child labour, the spread of slums stlll being cleared a hundred years later and poor nutrition such that half of those trying to join up in the Boer War were turned away for being too unfit or simply too small to bear arms.

      But in fact, the Industrial Revolution began decades before the Corn Laws were abolished, and all those unfavorable conditions also obtained while the Corn Laws were still in effect, because they were the result of removal of people's rights to liberty by the Enclosures, not abolition of the Corn Laws.

      > There is something to be said for supporting agriculture rather than bashing it.

      But for reasons that seem obvious to me, it is very difficult to support agriculture and not just the idle owners of agricultural land.

      > At the end of recent Wartime Farm programme on BBC television,they briefly discussed post- WW2 plans: Labour wanted to continue with the highly interventionist war-time measures for the country to produce as much of its own food as possible: Churchill wanted to go back to the reliance on the world trade in food (which had reduced the UK to producing only 30% of its own food pre-war). In the event Labour got in and Tom Williams, an ex mining trade unionist became Minister for Agriculture and dished out farming support payments so lavish that he remains ,among farmers, the most popular politician ever.

      Proving that policy was wrong.

      > Obviously ,these payments would needs be backed by an LVT to stop them being capitalised into land values .

      Land values are not the problem. The payments would flow through into land RENT. Which IS the problem.

      > The Mill/Sentinel Tax version could be announced with the statement on farming support levels.

      Meaning the increased land rent would go to landowners, but not be capitalized into increased land value that could be recovered by taxation -- a result that David inexplicably imagines would somehow count as a success.

      > Might be a good straightforward place to start.

      If you didn't want to get any farther.

      -- Roy Langston
    • Harry Pollard
      The point is, Scott, that the little fields of Britain cannot compete with the mass production of the US. Harry ********************** *The Alumni Group * *The
      Message 43 of 43 , Dec 1, 2012
        The point is, Scott, that the little fields of Britain cannot compete with the mass production of the US.


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

        On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:

        Quoting Harry Pollard on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:06:15 -0800:

        if we import our bulk foods, farm land is given over to animals,
        which provide instant food while crops are being started (not
        to mention they improve fertility rather than use it up).

        Importing meat and animal feed needn't be a huge strategic
        concern, if you're willing, when besieged, to slaughter
        most of the animals (preserving the meat, of course) and
        switch to a primarily vegetarian diet.

        As you know, the combine harvesters in the US probably
        work all day in a field, then stop until next morning
        when they continue harvesting in the same field.

        Many of them have lights. Combines are a separate business
        from farming. They migrate, following the harvest.

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