Re: What is monetary reform?
- I think we have to be careful in specifying X dollars = Y amount of
Land, or some such Land-like basket (some people have suggested using
commodities, gold or silver, but that has similar issues). This is not
George's position and he would argue that the free market should
determine what a given amount of land is worth, but than we should
collect the land rent for public purposes.
People are always worried gov't will over-produce sovereign money, but
historically, it is the private sector that has created credit bubbles,
and gov't that has somehow had to mop up the mess when they burst. The
Lincoln greenbacks were certainly under-produced, whether through policy
or, more likely, private bank bribery of congress.
Even if we had dual currencies - gov't USNs produced by gov't and FRNs
produced by the private sector, that would go a long way towards
monetary reform and stability, while introducing healthy competition
into the mix. One thing that became clear when reading George's article
in the Standard, was that there were a lot more kinds of currencies in
his day (nine!), and today, with the exception of some very tiny
regional LETS, and collector's currency, we basically have only one -
FRNs including their electronic equivalent. We need checks and balances
in the monetary system as we do in the political system.
That, I think, and an honest attempt to produce money sufficient to meet
our productive capacity, and no more, would go a long way towards
achieving prosperity and social justice.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Scott on the Spot" ssbaker305@
> > Mine emphasized George's support for Greenbacking, introduced by his
> > part-contemporary, president Lincoln. In fact, he wrote in the
> > that out of the nine types of currency in circulation in his time(we
> > are currency-deprived today), he though Greenbacks, money issuedof
> > directly by governemnt, was the best. He had no patience for gold
> > backed money and presumably would not have thought much of a basket
> > commodities for much the same reasons, either.here:
> > Not to say George always has the last word, but he's always worth
> > reading.
> Interesting read. I also came across a post of yours in this article
>money (USNs) while the private banks produce a PRIVATE one (FRNs)
> "But the advantages to having government produce a PUBLIC option for
>beautiful symmetry in this if you think about it in conjunction with
> I'm sure I'm not the first one to realize this, but there is a
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...me that they are missing out on a piece that can adress, among other
> I like the MMT analysis, but without including land rents, it seems to
- --- 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