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

[LandCafe] Re: Roy and Fred

Expand Messages
  • dwspain8
    Well said Harry, sounds to me like a pure note right on key. DS
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 28, 2013
      Well said Harry, sounds to me like a pure note right on key.

      DS


      > Roy,
      >
      >
      >
      > There is so much you don't know, but you are so busy preening yourself,
      > declaring your rightness while asserting you have proved something when you
      > haven't that you are unlikely to learn anything.
      >
      >
      >
      > A major result of full collection of Rent is that wages of those at the
      > bottom of the heap will rise from subsistence. There should be a shortage of
      > labor as a consequence of freeing land from speculation and releasing it to
      > the market.
      >
      >
      >
      > Wages generally will rise.
      >
      >
      >
      > Among your sillies is the idea that low ability people should be able to
      > compete for good land - presumably higher rent land. You said:
      >
      >
      >
      > "And if they don't, but don't have what it takes to compete with the most
      > productive for the good land, you claim that means they have "volunteered"
      > to be poor, and in fact INTEND to be poor."
      >
      >
      >
      > The "good land" doesn't supply a free lunch. It enables more able people to
      > do things not possible on lower rent land. But, if the user is not able to
      > take advantage of the good location, he will rapidly go broke. Including the
      > people you are worried about.
      >
      >
      >
      > Less able people in a Georgist society will not need welfare help of any
      > kind. They will have a reasonably good life with the possibility of saving
      > against contingencies. If they work hard, they will be able to live well.
      >
      >
      >
      > With present land speculation and rack-rents they must work hard for
      > subsistence level wages - to which is added welfare of various kinds.
      >
      >
      >
      > When land speculation and rack-renting is ended, welfare will be unnecessary
      > - including your much touted "exception".
      >
      >
      >
      > Unfortunates and those who encounter bad luck will easily be handled by
      > private charity something not possible now..
      >
      >
      >
      > Harry
      >
      >
      >
      > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      > Of roy_langston
      > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:16 PM
      > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Roy and Fred
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> , "Harry
      > Pollard" wrote:
      >
      >> You said in your reply to Fred:
      >>
      >> "> A worker who has bad work habits (always arrives late) and has
      > difficulty
      >> following instructions will have a low wage even with all barriers gone."
      >>
      >> "Bingo! And there are actually quite a few such workers. So THEY WILL
      > STILL BE POOR, and Harry's claim of an end to poverty is refuted."
      >>
      >> When one refers to poverty, it is involuntary poverty that is the
      > question. So obvious as not to require the adjective.
      >
      > So? Were you laboring under an erroneous apprehension that that was somehow
      > relevant? Low-productivity workers with poor skills, work habits, and/or
      > etc. don't "volunteer" to be poor. They just don't have it in them to earn
      > enough money to not be poor, and that also means not enough to pay the
      > market rent for access to opportunity.
      >
      >> If someone in a free society wants to live off scraps gleaned from garbage
      > cans that is his business.
      >
      > And if they don't, but don't have what it takes to compete with the most
      > productive for the good land, you claim that means they have "volunteered"
      > to be poor, and in fact INTEND to be poor.
      >
      > Grotesque.
      >
      >> The problem concerns those who want to live a worthwhile existence but
      > must scrape by on barely enough to survive.
      >
      > Which LVT alone doesn't fix.
      >
      >> Of course, they get welfare and would under your scheme of exemptions,
      >
      > No, they wouldn't under my scheme of exemptions, as I have already proved to
      > you multiple times, and you always ignore.
      >
      >> but that merely hides the situation - doesn't end it.
      >
      > Actually, the UIE _does_ effectively end it.
      >
      > -- Roy Langston
      >
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.