Hello from new subscriber
- Hello all,This is just a hello message as a new subscriber to the group. I'm an economic journalist for the Financial Times. I wrote an article about economic rents last year (a copy, presumably illegal, is posted here: http://www.relooney.info/NS4053e/Entrepreneurship_7.pdf) which should give some idea of my perspective. The article was tolerably successful but I got some deserved criticism for a throwaway mention of land rents. I'm signing up here to learn more.I would like to write more on land rents but to do so I need a good tale to tell: ideally an egregious example of self-enrichment via manipulation of planning and zoning processes to increase the value of land. I'd also be interested in an example of where somebody has successfully captured a natural resource rent for private profit. If anybody has any ideas, or stumbles across a good subject for reporting, then please do drop me a line.all best wishes,Robin
- Great:the usual suspects are at it again.The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.
There is not a cigarette paper's width of difference between the consequences of what they believe.JDK supports Rerum Novarum's literally ex cathedra judgement that every family should own its own home: RL believes that large families should not pay any land tax.But still they wrangle.
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:28:17 +0000
Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Hello from new subscriber
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski wrote:
> I just not willing to buy onto the idea that "homeowners are privileged in
> their function as landowners as well as any other landowner", so long as the homeowner is not using more than his fair share.
But he's not just using it. He's owning it, and as explained, there is no fair exclusive share of something he has no exclusive right to any of.
He's also likely paying mortgage interest to a parasite, and will, qua parasite himself, collect the discounted present value of future publicly created land rents from a future homeowner.
> A person living someplace is not the same as a corporate use of land is not
> the same as the idle speculation holding land out of production. There are
> distinctions among landowners. The primary one is that there are landowners
> who have a place to live that is not more than a fair share (whatever that means) and there is everything else.
I don't see what would make that the central distinction.
> *So, the generic complaint about against any private property in land is kind of ideological off putting talk.* That's a dead end.
In your opinion. IMO we have to start with fundamental truths, and if people find them upsetting, as slave owners also did, that's just tough. My extensive debates with anti-LVT people have convinced me that we can't cede that moral high ground and hope to prevail.
> Even George
> realized that making a very nuance distinction between ownership and
> possession, but basically come down to current system of private ownership plus Land Tax equals justice.
I think I've demonstrated that it doesn't without the UIE.
> * To say that people can't own their home and the land under it and around it - is pretty radical.*
Which fits with the fact that our reform is pretty radical.
> I DO NOT think that taxing
> wages or the fruits of capital is theft by the government.)
The problem is that though it isn't theft legally, economically, it is. There is no economic difference between the exactions of government taxation of economic activity and those of a protection racket or landowner.
> My point is only that if the land is for all of us, the "US" does not include corporations or businesses.
I agree. Just as the rights to free speech, trial by jury, legal counsel, representation in government, habeas corpus, etc. are not for corporations or businesses.
> And if the homeowner is not using more
> than his fair share, I don't get how one justifies the taxation on the basis of the land is for every one.
He's not letting anyone else use it.
> The only way you justify the taxation
> of land of homeowners not using more than there fair share is to agree that
> governments have the right to tax for the common good subject to the
> proviso that they can't tax someone literally to death (which is seldom truly the case).
> I really don't know what Roy means when he describes the right to liberty is the right to non-exclusive use of the land. I don't understand the concept.
Think about how people used land before any of it was ever owned. That's the concept.
> If I am standing in a location, how can that not be exclusive use
> - no one else can stand where I am standing.
That's just a physical fact, not a moral premise. When you move aside, someone else is free to stand there. But if you own it, they aren't.
-- Roy Langston