RE: [LandCafe] Re: What is monetary reform?
In 1690 Nicholas Barbon( See Wikipedia) set up a National Land Bank in England which issued" loans in the form of mortgages" against land values.There were a number of these schemes some of them quite disreputable, some famously so.
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:35:20 +0000
Subject: [LandCafe] Re: What is monetary reform?
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Scott on the Spot" <ssbaker305@...> wrote:
> Mine emphasized George's support for Greenbacking, introduced by his
> part-contemporary, president Lincoln. In fact, he wrote in the Standard
> that out of the nine types of currency in circulation in his time (we
> are currency-deprived today), he though Greenbacks, money issued
> directly by governemnt, was the best. He had no patience for gold
> backed money and presumably would not have thought much of a basket of
> commodities for much the same reasons, either.
> Not to say George always has the last word, but he's always worth
Interesting read. I also came across a post of yours in this article here:
"But the advantages to having government produce a PUBLIC option for money (USNs) while the private banks produce a PRIVATE one (FRNs) are..."
I'm sure I'm not the first one to realize this, but there is a beautiful symmetry in this if you think about it in conjunction with land value taxation. Government creates IOUs that pay for services, the public pays government back for access to those services, through rental the value of land. The government IOUs can then be viewed as secured on the rental value of land. Private FRN's are made, secured on wealth produced in the private sector, but fundamentally measured against government IOUs and the rental value of land, and their ability to pay for access to land.
If that makes any sense...
I like the MMT analysis, but without including land rents, it seems to me that they are missing out on a piece that can adress, among other things, inflation.
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <harrypollard@...> wrote:
> HP > Let's not pursue this. Ownership in a full rent collection economy is fine and harms no-one.Very simply: a geoist economy will likely distribute exclusive tenure more widely (i.e., a larger fraction of the population will end up as direct landholders). But if people OWN land in a Georgist economy, they have a very good reason to VOTE AGAINST that Georgist economy, thus voting themselves a privilege of pocketing "their" land's rent.
> RL: Not so. Once it is conceded that land is owned as the fruits of one's
> labor are owned, how does one justify taxing one and not the other?
> In a Georgist economy, how on earth does ownership of land harm anyone, whereas "security of tenure", which you favor, doesn't?
It is going to be monumentally difficult to implement a geoist economy. In fact, it may be the most difficult task that will ever be accomplished by human beings. It is therefore crucial that the implementation make it even more difficult to undo than it is to do.
> You apparently seeOTC, because it so resembles leasehold tenure, I don't see how one can honestly call secure, exclusive land tenure in a geoist economy "ownership."
> no practical difference between security of tenure and ownership.
> Neither the "fruits" nor land should be taxed. However, in a GeorgistIt's true that unlike income tax or other taxes, land rent recovery is a voluntary, market-based, value-for-value transaction. It is the only possible way government can be made self-financing. But all that claiming "it's not a tax" will get is a popular perception of disingenuousness.
> economy, if your location benefits from the surrounding community, you will
> pay that advantage back to them. This isn't a tax. It's a fee - you pay for what you get.
-- Roy Langston