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

RE: [LandCafe] Re: Marx, Engel and Morris on George

Expand Messages
  • Harry Pollard
    Roy said: The return of land rent to the community doesn t really address the worker s problem of access to land. He still has to pay rent for access to
    Message 1 of 87 , Dec 17, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      Roy said:

       

      “The return of land rent to the community doesn't really address the worker's problem of access to land. He still has to pay rent for access to economic opportunity, just to a different landlord; and absent a UIE, if he is not very productive the market will consign him to poor land where he can't survive.”

       

      An effect of full collection of rent in cities will be to free the massive amount of unused and underused land. At the moment, for all practical purposes there is no free land. This makes it difficult for Henry George's description which measures rent from the "best available rent-free land".

       

      When full rent is collected, a large amount of vacant and underused land will come onto the market. It will no longer be possible to charge rack-rent. Rents collected by the community will reflect the advantage provided by the community and because so much land will now be available an urban margin will appear in cities. That is there will be land that is quite productive, but on which the no rent is paid. (There will, no doubt, be an amount collected to pay for existing city services.)

       

      This rent-free land along with other low-rent land will be ideal for poorer people to grow fruits and vegetables for the nearby central city. That is, if they want to. They might prefer to work for higher wages in the central city.

       

      Widespread subsistence level wages, so evident now, will disappear. That's Georgist theory. Roy has his own theory, which is unlikely to say the least. He thinks that with application of full rent collection, there will be no change (or very little) in the amount collectible by landholders. They'll still be able to collect rack-rent and the least able workers will remain at the subsistence level. This is why he came up with the universal exemption – a completely unnecessary complication (just how complicated was indicated by the recent long-winded and tedious discussion here).

       

      Thus, he feels that rent collection is just a better way to tax people, whereas the importance of full rent collection rests in its economic consequences, consequences which lead to the real goal "Liberty and Justice for All".

       

      Harry

       

      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of roy_langston
      Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:28 PM
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Marx, Engel and Morris on George

       

       

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Scott on the Spot" <ssbaker305@...> wrote:

      (BTW Scott, please trim your responses. -- RL)

      > Both [Marx and Engels] fail to see the essential difference in the factor of production in
      > Land vs. the factor of production in labor or even (true) capital.

      Capitalists pretend land is capital to justify stealing land; socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital.

      > The Rent, of course, is not distributed equally, a fact Marx
      > seems to miss entirely when he says:
      > ''How did it happen that in the United States, when the land was and is,
      > relatively speaking, accessible to the masses, the capitalist system and
      > its correlative enslavement of the working class have rapidly and more shamelessly developed than in any other country?"

      The problem is not so much that rent is not distributed equally but that the masses did NOT have access to land. For the first 80 years of US history, the land was NOT accessible to the masses of slaves, and the workers who weren't slaves had to compete with slaves. Following emancipation, there was a brief period when people could go out to the frontier and homestead good land, but it was all taken up very quickly (huge amounts were given to railroads and other wealthy, privileged interests). Anyway, Marx was just ranting stupidly and dishonestly, as the condition of working people in the USA was far better than in the older, higher-density capitalist economies of Europe where good land was scarcer, rents consequently higher and wages lower.

      > Well, of course, as
      > George was early to observe, where Land is truly free and available to
      > all, the working class really DOES escape enslavement and do (earn) much better.

      Yes, it's strange how George missed the need for a UIE to make land truly free and available to all under his LVT plan.

      > It's where Land is owned without proper return to the community
      > that workers have no choice but to work at "correlative enslavement."

      The return of land rent to the community doesn't really address the worker's problem of access to land. He still has to pay rent for access to economic opportunity, just to a different landlord; and absent a UIE, if he is not very productive the market will consign him to poor land where he can't survive.

      > By the way, the same result applies whether the Land is owned by
      > individual Landlords, or the Lord of the State, so long as the Rent is
      > not returned to those whose efforts created the value in the first
      > place.

      We can't tell whose efforts created the value, and to return it to them would not solve the problem, as that is not the point. The point is that landowning, whether private or public, removes people's liberty to use the land. Absent a UIE, that will reduce them to offering their labor on any terms just to survive, whether rent is recovered for public purposes and benefit or pocketed by private landowners.

      -- Roy Langston

    • Harry Pollard
      It all depends on what you are writing and who will be the reader. Unfortunately, modern schooling isn t great at producing readers so material must be made
      Message 87 of 87 , Dec 30, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        It all depends on what you are writing and who will be the reader.

        Unfortunately, modern schooling isn't great at producing readers so material must be made simple for them. Which point doesn't throw out other writing which may be more complicated as it conveys more subtle directions..

        Harry


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


        On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:55 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
         

        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
        >
        > However, I suppose the short sentence is now
        > the thing, which may or may not be an improvement.

        Harry, tabloid newspapers use short sentences. People are familiar with that. So, you have to write to what they can easily understand. If they have to do double-takes they lose interest. It is that simple. Churchill realised that a long time ago. His books on WW2 and super easy to understand. The proof readers would highlight parts of the book(s) and he would override them. In the end they thanked him for teaching them how to write simple English.


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