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

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

Expand Messages
  • Harry Pollard
    Quite right, Roy. Conditions were bad for the workers in the 19th century, I recall a description of Manchester workers returning to their hovels, for which
    Message 1 of 87 , Dec 25, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Quite  right, Roy.

      Conditions were bad for the workers in the 19th century, I recall a description of Manchester workers returning to their hovels, for which they paid an exorbitant rental, and "enjoying" living with floors flooded with water. Attempts to improve conditions began in Parliament, rather than with the left, with a series of Factory Acts - I forget how many - that failed however to remedy the real problem - only some of its effects.

      Marx did deal with rent - or maybe it was Engels - when in Vol. III of 'Capital' he pointed out that surplus value disappears into rent. (So, if you collect rent, you collect surplus value.)

      I think they said "inevitably" but it's many decades since I last looked at 'Capital' and I have no intention of wading through the tedium again. (Recall that Progress & Poverty has been used as an example of good writing in University English classes.)

      We disagree on "ability to pay" which perhaps conflicts with equality of the tax burden.

      I forgot to reply to your question about "differential taxation". It's simply that those taxed do not pay the same. If identical apartments are built around the city and improvement taxes are imposed, the taxes will be passed on to the occupants. If LVT is imposed, the tax will be different for each location and cannot be passed on.

      Harry

      ********************
      The Alumni Group 
      The Henry George School
      of Los Angeles
      Tujunga   CA   90243
      ********************



      On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:07 PM, roy_langston <roy_langston@...> wrote:
       

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

      > In the UK the problem has been that Amazon pays no Corporation Tax, ( although it pay a lot of rent!).Obviously smaller bookshops ,even chains, have a genuine beef about this because Amazon does not pay Corp Tax and they do.

      They have a genuine beef in that whether or not Amazon pays it, corporation tax is an arbitrary, unjust, economically harmful impost unrelated to either of the two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of sound taxation policy: ability to pay and beneficiary pay.

      > As a non land -based entity, Amazon presents a problem for LVT

      No, it only presents a problem for those who incorrectly imagine that earning profits by serving consumers is an activity that should rightly be punished by taxation.

      > ,though I understood that post-Leegin Amazon would be constrained by Resale Price Maintenance legislation which would prevent predatory discounting by the big corporations, a considerable bonus.

      To obsolete and inefficient retailers, at the expense of consumers.

      > Plenty of places in UK have lost a third of their shops.

      Freeing up land, labor and capital for more productive uses -- if the UK government would only refrain from first preventing, and then when that fails, punishing productive uses.

      > HMV the recorded music chain is the latest to face the chop because of Amazon.

      No, HMV's actual "problem" is that content is downloadable, and people no longer have any need to waste time going to shops and searching through racks of physical recordings to get the content they want.

      > NB see title above > Communist Manifesto
      1".....application of all rents of land to public purposes
      5 Centralisation of credit in the banks of the State,by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."

      Yes, and 10 "... Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form...." Marx and Engels were also right in believing that 2+2=4. That doesn't mean they were right about anything else, or that anyone who agrees with them that 2+2=4 is a communist.

      > Marx and Engels also tackled surplus value which, Marx rightly complains, George did n't touch.

      Absurd. To the extent that it makes any sense at all, the concept of "surplus value" refers to rent (the "produit net" of the physiocrats), which George understood and analyzed far better than Marx.

      > No wonder M thought G a bit of a lightweight.

      Yes, well, these German obscurantists always try to make simple things hard to understand, mistaking obscurity for profundity, and Marx is right up there with Kant, Hegel and (sorry, Walter) Wittgenstein. George's clarity -- he was an incomparably superior writer to Marx -- was always going to be a professional reproach to Marx, so the latter had to make a show of scorning him. I suspect he knew privately that George had refuted and surpassed him.

      -- 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
      • 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.