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

Max Kiezer & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

Expand Messages
  • John
    A good spot on Max Keizer s show. It highlights the harm of (economic rent seeking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drt-LDn4mdc
    Message 1 of 26 , Aug 10, 2013
      A good spot on Max Keizer's show. It highlights the harm of "(economic rent seeking"

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drt-LDn4mdc
    • John
      ... It is about time (economic) rent seekers , in short economic freeloaders, are exposed and the points where it is occurring exposed and plugged. The
      Message 2 of 26 , Aug 10, 2013
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
        >
        > A good spot on Max Keizer's show. It
        > highlights the harm of "(economic rent seeking"
        >
        > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drt-LDn4mdc
        >

        It is about time "(economic) rent seekers", in short economic freeloaders, are exposed and the points where it is occurring exposed and plugged. The mechanism to plug it is of course Geonomics.

        Max Kiezer said, "there has been a massive transference of wealth from the masses to a few speculators".

        Nice points by Ross and Max that "economic rent" (when there is no enterprise or cost of production), aka "economic freeloading", is passed off as being Capitalist. It is so far from the free market and what Capitalism is.
      • walto
        I generally agree with you, John. I just point out that there are those who think that some forms of rent (copyrights and patents) are necessary to preserve
        Message 3 of 26 , Aug 10, 2013
          I generally agree with you, John. I just point out that there are those who think that some forms of rent (copyrights and patents) are necessary to preserve initiative and hard work, and eliminate the "freeloading" that seems to exist when you work hard to discover something and use it to make my fortune without paying you a penny.

          I'm not suggesting that no changes should be made to the current copyright laws, which seem to me economically harmful as well as cruel. My point is that the particular type of freeloading that geoism has long derided is that of profiting from the even more harmful and cruel enclosing and monopolization of natural resources. Trying to make money by discovering or creating something is quite different from trying to make it by monopolizing all the fresh water in the vicinity, even if it also may be exploitative if the right do so is unlimited. Anyhow, it's my view that land/nature must always remain our focus (even if we dump the "God-given" biz). Monetary and and patent/copyright changes may each be extremely important in their own right: I don't doubt this, certainly--but each also brings its own batch of opponents, technical complications, and bruhahas. Each dilutes our focus without helping our cause.

          OTOH, I think Roy is dead right on the importance of moving the focus off of George, partly by complete incorporation of the IUE and RPE, neither of which can be found in George's corpus and each of which seems to me essential for widespread political success. A platform of that particular array has never really been tried anywhere, and would do immeasurable good for its citizenry. The point is not to broaden the areas in which we might improve the world, but to improve our chances of prevailing.

          W

          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
          > >
          > > A good spot on Max Keizer's show. It
          > > highlights the harm of "(economic rent seeking"
          > >
          > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drt-LDn4mdc
          > >
          >
          > It is about time "(economic) rent seekers", in short economic freeloaders, are exposed and the points where it is occurring exposed and plugged. The mechanism to plug it is of course Geonomics.
          >
          > Max Kiezer said, "there has been a massive transference of wealth from the masses to a few speculators".
          >
          > Nice points by Ross and Max that "economic rent" (when there is no enterprise or cost of production), aka "economic freeloading", is passed off as being Capitalist. It is so far from the free market and what Capitalism is.
          >
        • roy_langston
          ... I run into that false and absurd claim all the time. No one has ever been able to defend it. There are no patents or copyrights in the fashion industry.
          Message 4 of 26 , Aug 10, 2013
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

            > I just point out that there are those who think that some forms of rent (copyrights and patents) are necessary to preserve initiative and hard work,

            I run into that false and absurd claim all the time. No one has ever been able to defend it. There are no patents or copyrights in the fashion industry. Is the fashion industry notable for a lack of initiative? Of hard work? Perhaps of creativity or innovation? The notion is self-evidently absurd.

            > and eliminate the "freeloading" that seems to exist when you work hard to discover something and [I] use it to make my fortune without paying you a penny.

            There is no freeloading involved. If you are making a fortune without a rent collection privilege, it is because you are creating that much value. How else are you making that fortune when everyone else has just as much right to use the discovery as you -- and even to copy your use of it?

            All the nonsense about "freeloaders" "stealing" the fruits of others' intellectual labor is just risible poppycock. Yet I see it all the time: "If I wrote a book that a million people wanted to buy, some big publisher could just copy it, print a million copies cheaply, undercut my price, and make a fortune from my work, while I would get nothing!" What utter stupidity. How would he make a fortune, when you and everyone else would be free to compete the price he gets down to the marginal cost of production? How would he even know WHICH book (of the millions published) to print a million copies of, before it had proved its value through the commercial success of your first editions, which would ensure you had already been paid for your labor?

            > My point is that the particular type of freeloading that geoism has long derided is that of profiting from the even more harmful and cruel enclosing and monopolization of natural resources.

            IMO we should shift our focus from monopolization of natural resources to monopolization of access to the services and infrastructure producers' and consumers' taxes pay for. That's the low-hanging political fruit. The tax-funded subsidy to location owners is just flat-out indefensible, on any terms.

            > Trying to make money by discovering or creating something is quite different from trying to make it by monopolizing all the fresh water in the vicinity, even if it also may be exploitative if the right do so is unlimited.

            Agreed. Just as trying to make money by driving a taxi is quite different from charging tolls on a public road -- while making money by owning a taxi medallion, OTOH, is not very different at all. There is no evidence that monopoly privilege is the only possible way to make money by discovering or creating something, and ample evidence that it isn't. More effective ways of doing so just won't be developed until the monopoly privilege way is no longer available.

            > Anyhow, it's my view that land/nature must always remain our focus (even if we dump the "God-given" biz).

            Of course ownership of land/nature is the fundamental wrong; but consider the political advantage to be obtained by shifting the primary focus to the location owner subsidy.

            WHY ARE YOU ALSO PAYING LANDOWNERS FOR ACCESS TO THE SAME SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE YOUR TAXES JUST PAID FOR?? IF YOU DON'T LIKE TAXES, WHY DO YOU INSIST ON EVERYONE PAYING FOR GOVERNMENT _TWICE_???

            > Monetary and and patent/copyright changes may each be extremely important in their own right: I don't doubt this, certainly--but each also brings its own batch of opponents, technical complications, and bruhahas. Each dilutes our focus without helping our cause.

            I agree that private appropriation of natural resources -- especially locations -- is the most obvious and egregious wrong we must address, and the one we should focus on, especially as it is primarily their ownership of LOCATIONS that enables the privileged to pocket others' taxes.

            However, control of the money supply is also an egregious privilege; and IMO, for reasons I have explained, LSR can't fully succeed on a large (especially national) scale unless money is disentangled from debt.

            I do agree that IP monopolies should be well back in third place in our priorities (if not fourth after labor monopolies)... but also warn that even if we succeed in eliminating landowner privilege and bankster privilege, if we do not rein in IP monopoly privilege, we will soon be back in thrall to rich, greedy takers through their expanding ownership of culture and technology. Take it to the bank.

            > OTOH, I think Roy is dead right on the importance of moving the focus off of George, partly by complete incorporation of the IUE and RPE, neither of which can be found in George's corpus and each of which seems to me essential for widespread political success.

            If we want to be even more politically acceptable to homeowners, as Dave Wetzel urges, we could make the RPE into a full Purchase Value Exemption. It would be close enough to zero for properties owned for more than a few decades anyway, and would be at least asymptotically self-extinguishing. It would also, unlike the Mills' "sometime real soon now" tax, permit recovery of large amounts of revenue from the outset.

            > A platform of that particular array has never really been tried anywhere, and would do immeasurable good for its citizenry.

            And that is key. We have to implement LSR, and the implementation HAS TO WORK. There is no point in implementing a system that doesn't prove we are right pretty much right away. That lets out both the Mills' tax and the blanket exemption for occupied residential land.

            > The point is not to broaden the areas in which we might improve the world, but to improve our chances of prevailing.

            Well said. My disagreement with Dave Wetzel is not over the importance of achieving political success, or of seizing the moment of opportunity, but over the most effective means of doing so.

            -- Roy Langston
          • John
            Walt, I agree the patent and copyright laws need looking at again. Yes, Roy is dead right on the importance of moving the focus off of George and especially
            Message 5 of 26 , Aug 12, 2013

              Walt, I agree the patent and copyright laws need looking at again.

              Yes, Roy is dead right on the importance of moving the focus off of George and especially the Single Tax. No has bought it in about 130 years and are unlikely to.

              What does not help is the likes of the standard economic intro text book in the USA. Mankiw writes Principles of Economics, and dismisses the Georgist argument in his textbook, stating most economists do not buy the argument that the land values are created by the community. It says, the value of land often comes from the improvements, clearing trees, building sewers and roads. This is myopic. Sewers and roads are paid for by others, not the landowners. The roads and sewers are paid for by the community. Their efforts soaks into the land and crystalizes as land values. The landowner did not create the land value. Here is his treatment of Henry George

              http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jZKTe5Rajvo/Ub0MmWTMDiI/AAAAAAAAAvA/XYK5A2jlc8k/s1600/Screen+Shot+2013-06-16+at+10.16.33+AM.png

              The reason many economists do not think LVT and Geonomics is a good thing is because they know little of it. Neo-classical economics erased land from economics. Mankiw, appears not to understand many basic aspects of land. Some economists do not like the idea of the Single Tax, neither do I, and that is fine. But it is the lack of basic understanding of land values and where they
              come from that is harmful.

              Reversing neo-classical economics is essential to progress. Much ignorance that
              has spread through the world regarding land will then dissolve making the hard
              path ahead slightly easier.

              http://ckmurray.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/mankiws-principles-of-economics-most.html?m=1

            • mattbieker
              ... Good god. You know, I get that there s some difference of opinion about basic economic matters, but it s so irritating to see someone argue against the
              Message 6 of 26 , Aug 12, 2013
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > Walt, I agree the patent and copyright laws need looking at again.
                >
                > Yes, Roy is dead right on the importance of moving the focus off of
                > George and especially the Single Tax. No has bought it in about 130
                > years and are unlikely to.
                >
                > What does not help is the likes of the standard economic intro text book
                > in the USA. Mankiw writes Principles of Economics, and dismisses the
                > Georgist argument in his textbook, stating most economists do not buy
                > the argument that the land values are created by the community. It says,
                > the value of land often comes from the improvements, clearing trees,
                > building sewers and roads. This is myopic. Sewers and roads are paid for
                > by others, not the landowners. The roads and sewers are paid for by the
                > community. Their efforts soaks into the land and crystalizes as land
                > values. The landowner did not create the land value. Here is his
                > treatment of Henry George
                >
                > http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jZKTe5Rajvo/Ub0MmWTMDiI/AAAAAAAAAvA/XYK5A2jlc8\
                > k/s1600/Screen+Shot+2013-06-16+at+10.16.33+AM.png
                > <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jZKTe5Rajvo/Ub0MmWTMDiI/AAAAAAAAAvA/XYK5A2jlc\
                > 8k/s1600/Screen+Shot+2013-06-16+at+10.16.33+AM.png>

                Good god. You know, I get that there's some difference of opinion about basic economic matters, but it's so irritating to see someone argue against the LVT because "[it] would not raise enough revenue to pay for the much larger government we have today." That's just an inane argument. Even if it's completely true that land rent is an insufficient base for funding all of government, that doesn't somehow mean that we shouldn't exhaust its potential. Who ever said it's an all or nothing proposition? Anti-geoists are just shameless in their opposition.
              • walto
                Mankiw s critique is weak. He seems to understand that George s proposal was to tax only the UNimproved value of land, but then frets about sewers and cleared
                Message 7 of 26 , Aug 12, 2013
                  Mankiw's critique is weak. He seems to understand that George's proposal was to tax only the UNimproved value of land, but then frets about sewers and cleared trees. Maybe he's just worrying about assessment difficuties, but those are hardly insurmountable.
                  And, while he says some correct things about the economic efficiencies of taxes on land, he seems entirely blind to any questions of fairness.

                  Really mediocre stuff.

                  W

                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Walt, I agree the patent and copyright laws need looking at again.
                  >
                  > Yes, Roy is dead right on the importance of moving the focus off of
                  > George and especially the Single Tax. No has bought it in about 130
                  > years and are unlikely to.
                  >
                  > What does not help is the likes of the standard economic intro text book
                  > in the USA. Mankiw writes Principles of Economics, and dismisses the
                  > Georgist argument in his textbook, stating most economists do not buy
                  > the argument that the land values are created by the community. It says,
                  > the value of land often comes from the improvements, clearing trees,
                  > building sewers and roads. This is myopic. Sewers and roads are paid for
                  > by others, not the landowners. The roads and sewers are paid for by the
                  > community. Their efforts soaks into the land and crystalizes as land
                  > values. The landowner did not create the land value. Here is his
                  > treatment of Henry George
                  >
                  > http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jZKTe5Rajvo/Ub0MmWTMDiI/AAAAAAAAAvA/XYK5A2jlc8\
                  > k/s1600/Screen+Shot+2013-06-16+at+10.16.33+AM.png
                  > <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jZKTe5Rajvo/Ub0MmWTMDiI/AAAAAAAAAvA/XYK5A2jlc\
                  > 8k/s1600/Screen+Shot+2013-06-16+at+10.16.33+AM.png>
                  >
                  > The reason many economists do not think LVT and Geonomics is a good
                  > thing is because they know little of it. Neo-classical economics erased
                  > land from economics. Mankiw, appears not to understand many basic
                  > aspects of land. Some economists do not like the idea of the Single Tax,
                  > neither do I, and that is fine. But it is the lack of basic
                  > understanding of land values and where they
                  > come from that is harmful.
                  >
                  > Reversing neo-classical economics is essential to progress. Much
                  > ignorance that
                  > has spread through the world regarding land will then dissolve making
                  > the hard
                  > path ahead slightly easier.
                  >
                  > http://ckmurray.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/mankiws-principles-of-economics-\
                  > most.html?m=1
                  > <http://ckmurray.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/mankiws-principles-of-economics\
                  > -most.html?m=1>
                  >
                • John
                  ... Yes, but his warped and incorrect writings sway millions into the wrong mindset. Fred Harrison: The investor has to spend time and money to upgrade
                  Message 8 of 26 , Aug 13, 2013
                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Mankiw's critique is weak. He seems to understand that George's proposal was to tax only the UNimproved value of land, but then frets about sewers and cleared trees. Maybe he's just worrying about assessment difficuties, but those are hardly insurmountable.
                    > And, while he says some correct things about the economic efficiencies of taxes on land, he seems entirely blind to any questions of fairness.
                    >
                    > Really mediocre stuff.

                    Yes, but his warped and incorrect writings sway millions into the wrong mindset.

                    Fred Harrison:

                    "The investor has to spend time and money to upgrade buildings to meet the needs of buyers or tenants. Paying attention to the improvements on top of a pieces of land is necessary, to unlock the residual value that is anchored in the location.
                    ..
                    ..
                    "The owner of a building does add value, and for that he is entitled to a return on his labour and capital. But as for the rest [the land] it is pure unearned income. Capital gains."
                  • John
                    ... Fred Harrison nailed it. Many speculators think that because they spent x amount on the building (The capital), they think their efforts, which is
                    Message 9 of 26 , Aug 14, 2013
                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:

                      > > Really mediocre stuff.
                      >
                      > Yes, but his warped and incorrect writings
                      > sway millions into the wrong mindset.
                      >
                      > Fred Harrison:
                      >
                      > "The investor has to spend time and money to upgrade buildings to meet the needs of buyers or tenants. Paying attention to the improvements on top of a pieces of land is necessary, to unlock the residual value that is anchored in the location.
                      > ..
                      > ..
                      > "The owner of a building does add value, and for that he is entitled to a return on his labour and capital. But as for the rest [the land] it is pure unearned income. Capital gains."
                      >

                      Fred Harrison nailed it. Many speculators think that because they spent "x" amount on the building (The capital), they think their efforts, which is enterprise, also created the land values. The land values was not created by their enterprise. This is where their confusion arises. Their efforts they view as creating values in the land, when all they have done is unlock the community created value anchored I under the Capital - the building.
                    • John
                      ... the needs of buyers or tenants. Paying attention to the improvements on top of a pieces of land is necessary, to unlock the residual value that is anchored
                      Message 10 of 26 , Aug 14, 2013

                        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:

                        >
                        >
                        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:

                        > > Really mediocre stuff.
                        >
                        > Yes, but his warped and incorrect writings
                        > sway millions into the wrong mindset.
                        >
                        > Fred Harrison:
                        >
                        > "The investor has to spend time and money to upgrade buildings to meet the
                        needs of buyers or tenants. Paying attention to the improvements on top of a
                        pieces of land is necessary, to unlock the residual value that is anchored in
                        the location.
                        > ..
                        > ..
                        > "The owner of a building does add value, and for that he is entitled to a
                        return on his labour and capital. But as for the rest [the land] it is pure
                        unearned income. Capital gains."
                        >

                        Fred Harrison nailed it. Many speculators think that because they spent "x"
                        amount on the building (The capital), they think their efforts, which is
                        enterprise, also created the land values. The land values was not created by
                        their enterprise. This is where their confusion arises. Their efforts they view
                        as creating values in the land, when all they have done is unlock the community
                        created value anchored under the Capital - the building.

                        1. The community has no right to take any of his labour or capital efforts - wealth he created.
                        2. The landowner has no right to appropriate wealth created by the community.
                      • Harry Pollard
                        It is not the profiting from monopolization of natural resources that concerns us - it is the act itself. Rather as our not wanting to end slavery because the
                        Message 11 of 26 , Aug 21, 2013
                          It is not the profiting from monopolization of natural resources that concerns us - it is the act itself.

                          Rather as our not wanting to end slavery because the owner gets profits over the life of the slave, but rather that we want to end slavery because the act itself is wrong.

                          Why stress the difference? Because we seem to spend too much time on the amount of rack-rent rather than the reason for ending it.

                          Harry

                          ******************************
                          The Alumni Group
                          Henry George School of Los Angeles
                          Tujunga  CA  California
                          818-352-4141
                          ******************************



                          To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          From: calhorn@...
                          Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:07:55 +0000
                          Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Max Kiezer & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

                           
                          I generally agree with you, John. I just point out that there are those who think that some forms of rent (copyrights and patents) are necessary to preserve initiative and hard work, and eliminate the "freeloading" that seems to exist when you work hard to discover something and use it to make my fortune without paying you a penny.

                          I'm not suggesting that no changes should be made to the current copyright laws, which seem to me economically harmful as well as cruel. My point is that the particular type of freeloading that geoism has long derided is that of profiting from the even more harmful and cruel enclosing and monopolization of natural resources. Trying to make money by discovering or creating something is quite different from trying to make it by monopolizing all the fresh water in the vicinity, even if it also may be exploitative if the right do so is unlimited. Anyhow, it's my view that land/nature must always remain our focus (even if we dump the "God-given" biz). Monetary and and patent/copyright changes may each be extremely important in their own right: I don't doubt this, certainly--but each also brings its own batch of opponents, technical complications, and bruhahas. Each dilutes our focus without helping our cause.

                          OTOH, I think Roy is dead right on the importance of moving the focus off of George, partly by complete incorporation of the IUE and RPE, neither of which can be found in George's corpus and each of which seems to me essential for widespread political success. A platform of that particular array has never really been tried anywhere, and would do immeasurable good for its citizenry. The point is not to broaden the areas in which we might improve the world, but to improve our chances of prevailing.

                          W

                          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > A good spot on Max Keizer's show. It
                          > > highlights the harm of "(economic rent seeking"
                          > >
                          > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drt-LDn4mdc
                          > >
                          >
                          > It is about time "(economic) rent seekers", in short economic freeloaders, are exposed and the points where it is occurring exposed and plugged. The mechanism to plug it is of course Geonomics.
                          >
                          > Max Kiezer said, "there has been a massive transference of wealth from the masses to a few speculators".
                          >
                          > Nice points by Ross and Max that "economic rent" (when there is no enterprise or cost of production), aka "economic freeloading", is passed off as being Capitalist. It is so far from the free market and what Capitalism is.
                          >


                        • David Reed
                          Oh No! another Roy Langston abbreviation ! The PVE comes hard on the heels of LSR and all the alphabet soup stretching way back into the kitchen. ( I agreed
                          Message 12 of 26 , Sep 4, 2013
                            Oh No! another Roy Langston abbreviation ! The PVE comes hard on the heels of LSR and all the alphabet soup stretching way back into the kitchen. ( I agreed with LVR
                            because its not too far from LVT, making the alteration of T to R, for repayment, significant.)
                            And PVE does not make any sense  either. People who bought houses a long time ago will be whacked by tax just as they retire or their incomes go down while they won't have the live-in children that might exempt the tax (sorry, repayment ) demand to zero. Seniors might be living in the old home alone. Not a group we'd want to alienate or make look like victims.They vote like mad.The poor widows will go viral.
                            There is far too much concern with how much tax LVR will raise. The pressing concern is in stopping  any increases in the money supply from increasing land values instead of increasing the total of goods and services. Land taxes are an anti -inflation device ( the best there is) while the real heavy lifting in a reformed economy is done by Keynesian demand stimulus via the money supply.The tax take from the LVR could be zero as long as land and house prices stay flat.
                            Clearly the Mill form of land tax would probably work best.Not "some time soon" as RL snides but intro'd with a specified start-up date.This would allow the market to adjust ahead of the deadline. Predictably downward as people realised investment in housing was not a one-way bet.  As Max Keiser has been saying in England: house prices have to come down; housing market reform is pointless without a reduction.
                            The Dave Wetzel notion that the  residential housing market should not be governed by the anti inflationary influence of land taxes is a perverse recipe for
                            making house price inflation worse and permanent. House price inflation has to be removed from the economic debate and the simple solution is to stop land values inflating without wiping out the house values voters now have, an electoral disaster.
                            From: roy_langston@...
                            To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:03:58 +0000
                            Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Max Kiezer & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

                             
                            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

                            > I just point out that there are those who think that some forms of rent (copyrights and patents) are necessary to preserve initiative and hard work,

                            I run into that false and absurd claim all the time. No one has ever been able to defend it. There are no patents or copyrights in the fashion industry. Is the fashion industry notable for a lack of initiative? Of hard work? Perhaps of creativity or innovation? The notion is self-evidently absurd.

                            > and eliminate the "freeloading" that seems to exist when you work hard to discover something and [I] use it to make my fortune without paying you a penny.

                            There is no freeloading involved. If you are making a fortune without a rent collection privilege, it is because you are creating that much value. How else are you making that fortune when everyone else has just as much right to use the discovery as you -- and even to copy your use of it?

                            All the nonsense about "freeloaders" "stealing" the fruits of others' intellectual labor is just risible poppycock. Yet I see it all the time: "If I wrote a book that a million people wanted to buy, some big publisher could just copy it, print a million copies cheaply, undercut my price, and make a fortune from my work, while I would get nothing!" What utter stupidity. How would he make a fortune, when you and everyone else would be free to compete the price he gets down to the marginal cost of production? How would he even know WHICH book (of the millions published) to print a million copies of, before it had proved its value through the commercial success of your first editions, which would ensure you had already been paid for your labor?

                            > My point is that the particular type of freeloading that geoism has long derided is that of profiting from the even more harmful and cruel enclosing and monopolization of natural resources.

                            IMO we should shift our focus from monopolization of natural resources to monopolization of access to the services and infrastructure producers' and consumers' taxes pay for. That's the low-hanging political fruit. The tax-funded subsidy to location owners is just flat-out indefensible, on any terms.

                            > Trying to make money by discovering or creating something is quite different from trying to make it by monopolizing all the fresh water in the vicinity, even if it also may be exploitative if the right do so is unlimited.

                            Agreed. Just as trying to make money by driving a taxi is quite different from charging tolls on a public road -- while making money by owning a taxi medallion, OTOH, is not very different at all. There is no evidence that monopoly privilege is the only possible way to make money by discovering or creating something, and ample evidence that it isn't. More effective ways of doing so just won't be developed until the monopoly privilege way is no longer available.

                            > Anyhow, it's my view that land/nature must always remain our focus (even if we dump the "God-given" biz).

                            Of course ownership of land/nature is the fundamental wrong; but consider the political advantage to be obtained by shifting the primary focus to the location owner subsidy.

                            WHY ARE YOU ALSO PAYING LANDOWNERS FOR ACCESS TO THE SAME SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE YOUR TAXES JUST PAID FOR?? IF YOU DON'T LIKE TAXES, WHY DO YOU INSIST ON EVERYONE PAYING FOR GOVERNMENT _TWICE_???

                            > Monetary and and patent/copyright changes may each be extremely important in their own right: I don't doubt this, certainly--but each also brings its own batch of opponents, technical complications, and bruhahas. Each dilutes our focus without helping our cause.

                            I agree that private appropriation of natural resources -- especially locations -- is the most obvious and egregious wrong we must address, and the one we should focus on, especially as it is primarily their ownership of LOCATIONS that enables the privileged to pocket others' taxes.

                            However, control of the money supply is also an egregious privilege; and IMO, for reasons I have explained, LSR can't fully succeed on a large (especially national) scale unless money is disentangled from debt.

                            I do agree that IP monopolies should be well back in third place in our priorities (if not fourth after labor monopolies)... but also warn that even if we succeed in eliminating landowner privilege and bankster privilege, if we do not rein in IP monopoly privilege, we will soon be back in thrall to rich, greedy takers through their expanding ownership of culture and technology. Take it to the bank.

                            > OTOH, I think Roy is dead right on the importance of moving the focus off of George, partly by complete incorporation of the IUE and RPE, neither of which can be found in George's corpus and each of which seems to me essential for widespread political success.

                            If we want to be even more politically acceptable to homeowners, as Dave Wetzel urges, we could make the RPE into a full Purchase Value Exemption. It would be close enough to zero for properties owned for more than a few decades anyway, and would be at least asymptotically self-extinguishing. It would also, unlike the Mills' "sometime real soon now" tax, permit recovery of large amounts of revenue from the outset.

                            > A platform of that particular array has never really been tried anywhere, and would do immeasurable good for its citizenry.

                            And that is key. We have to implement LSR, and the implementation HAS TO WORK. There is no point in implementing a system that doesn't prove we are right pretty much right away. That lets out both the Mills' tax and the blanket exemption for occupied residential land.

                            > The point is not to broaden the areas in which we might improve the world, but to improve our chances of prevailing.

                            Well said. My disagreement with Dave Wetzel is not over the importance of achieving political success, or of seizing the moment of opportunity, but over the most effective means of doing so.

                            -- Roy Langston


                          • mattbieker
                            ... How, David? How would it work? This is not an insignificant objection to such a scheme. There doesn t seem to be any way to implement it. ... What do
                            Message 13 of 26 , Sep 5, 2013
                              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Clearly the Mill form of land tax would probably work best.

                              How, David? How would it work? This is not an insignificant objection to such a scheme. There doesn't seem to be any way to implement it.

                              > Not "some time soon" as RL snides but intro'd with a specified start-up date.This would allow the market to adjust ahead of the deadline.

                              What do you mean? You'd presumably only raise any money at all if home prices increased beyond the levels the were at when you instituted the scheme. Once instituted, no one'd have any clue when it'd raise any funds at all, never mind how much. And, once again, I'd like to know how you envision such a scheme being implemented: the basic mechanics of the scheme.
                            • David Reed
                              @MB JS Mill organised the Land Tenure Reform Association which drew up a programme, dated 1871 which can be found on the Online Library of Liberty website.
                              Message 14 of 26 , Sep 5, 2013
                                @MB
                                JS Mill organised the Land Tenure Reform Association
                                which drew up a programme, dated 1871 which can be found on the Online Library of Liberty website.  This would  appear to answer quite a lot of practical queries( as well as showing from whence Henry George derived  much of "his" theory).

                                To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                From: agrarian.justice@...
                                Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 13:10:05 +0000
                                Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Max Keiser & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

                                 
                                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Clearly the Mill form of land tax would probably work best.

                                How, David? How would it work? This is not an insignificant objection to such a scheme. There doesn't seem to be any way to implement it.

                                > Not "some time soon" as RL snides but intro'd with a specified start-up date.This would allow the market to adjust ahead of the deadline.

                                What do you mean? You'd presumably only raise any money at all if home prices increased beyond the levels the were at when you instituted the scheme. Once instituted, no one'd have any clue when it'd raise any funds at all, never mind how much. And, once again, I'd like to know how you envision such a scheme being implemented: the basic mechanics of the scheme.


                              • walterhorn
                                (As I ve mentioned before), as somebody who drafted a land gains bill for the Mass. Legislature, I can attest that the practical difficulties are not trivial.
                                Message 15 of 26 , Sep 6, 2013

                                  (As I've mentioned before), as somebody who drafted a land gains bill for the Mass. Legislature, I can attest that the practical difficulties are not trivial.  There are important considerations of building gains, maintenance, amortization, inflation, depreciation, etc., etc. 


                                  It was kind of a nightmare, actually.


                                  W



                                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                  @MB
                                  JS Mill organised the Land Tenure Reform Association
                                  which drew up a programme, dated 1871 which can be found on the Online Library of Liberty website.  This would  appear to answer quite a lot of practical queries( as well as showing from whence Henry George derived  much of "his" theory).

                                  To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                  From: agrarian.justice@...
                                  Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 13:10:05 +0000
                                  Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Max Keiser & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

                                   
                                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Clearly the Mill form of land tax would probably work best.

                                  How, David? How would it work? This is not an insignificant objection to such a scheme. There doesn't seem to be any way to implement it.

                                  > Not "some time soon" as RL snides but intro'd with a specified start-up date.This would allow the market to adjust ahead of the deadline.

                                  What do you mean? You'd presumably only raise any money at all if home prices increased beyond the levels the were at when you instituted the scheme. Once instituted, no one'd have any clue when it'd raise any funds at all, never mind how much. And, once again, I'd like to know how you envision such a scheme being implemented: the basic mechanics of the scheme.


                                • roy_langston
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Sep 7, 2013

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


                                    > @MB
                                    JS Mill organised the Land Tenure Reform Association
                                    which drew up a programme, dated 1871 which can be found on the Online Library of Liberty website.  This would  appear to answer quite a lot of practical queries( as well as showing from whence Henry George derived  much of "his" theory).

                                    It might, if it is actually there.  I've been looking for the last half hour, and I don't see anything that looks like it under 1871 or any year close to that, in either Economics or Politics.  Maybe David could provide a url, or at least a title.

                                    -- Roy Langston

                                  • derekrss
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Sep 7, 2013

                                      The Land Tenure Reform Association document can be found here


                                      http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=232&chapter=16736&layout=html&Itemid=27


                                      Cheers


                                      Derek


                                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

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


                                      > @MB
                                      JS Mill organised the Land Tenure Reform Association
                                      which drew up a programme, dated 1871 which can be found on the Online Library of Liberty website.  This would  appear to answer quite a lot of practical queries( as well as showing from whence Henry George derived  much of "his" theory).

                                      It might, if it is actually there.  I've been looking for the last half hour, and I don't see anything that looks like it under 1871 or any year close to that, in either Economics or Politics.  Maybe David could provide a url, or at least a title.

                                      -- Roy Langston

                                    • roy_langston
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Sep 7, 2013

                                         



                                        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                        > The Land Tenure Reform Association document can be found here


                                        http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=232&chapter=16736&layout=html&Itemid=27


                                        Sorry, but that document is very far from describing an actual mechanism for recovering rent increments.  How are value increases to be measured, when buyers will be aware that rent increments above the reference level will be taxed away?


                                        -- Roy Langston

                                      • David Reed
                                        Somewhat surprised that Roy is looking at the Land Tenure Reform Association for the first time. I really thought (and I am not being sarcastic) that his
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Sep 8, 2013
                                          Somewhat surprised that Roy is looking at the Land Tenure Reform Association for the first time. I really thought (and I am not being sarcastic) that his learned dismissals of their ideas over all these months stemmed from a thorough knowledge of the published works.
                                          As to his one criticism : this applies to all forms of LVT including his own.I would have thought the obvious answer is that buyers would buy the property knowing the land would not increase in value over and above the level of general or background inflation (to answer one of Walto's more informed criticisms) .This would eradicate the problem of speculative land price inflation ( as Henry George admitted) "Mr Mill's plan for nationalising the future 'unearned increase in the value of land' by fixing the present market value of all lands and appropriating to the state the future increase in value, would not add to the injustice of the present distribution of wealth, but it would not remedy it. Further speculative advance of rent would cease..."P&P chap 21
                                           
                                           
                                          Since wealth would ,in a modern economy, stem from monetary policy, being able to stop the future speculative advance of rent is not the minor matter George deems it but the crux of the  present economic problem:  that it is not possible to increase the money supply without setting off land price/housing bubbles , the last one(s) having KO'd the world economy.
                                           
                                          It is all very well arguing among ourselves (all too often out of personal vanity) but the  world is suffering from problems for which we (alone, it looks like) have the answers.We really must get our act together and look at the founding principles which were enunciated a long time ago , before George took over and, frankly, messed things up by trying to nationalise (his word and the right one) past increases in land value.   
                                          To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                          From: roy_langston@...
                                          Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 19:45:02 -0700
                                          Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Max Keiser & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

                                           

                                           



                                          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                          > The Land Tenure Reform Association document can be found here


                                          http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=232&chapter=16736&layout=html&Itemid=27



                                          Sorry, but that document is very far from describing an actual mechanism for recovering rent increments.  How are value increases to be measured, when buyers will be aware that rent increments above the reference level will be taxed away?



                                          -- Roy Langston


                                        • roy_langston
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Sep 8, 2013

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


                                            > Somewhat surprised that Roy is looking at the Land Tenure Reform Association for the first time. I really thought (and I am not being sarcastic) that his learned dismissals of their ideas over all these months stemmed from a thorough knowledge of the published works.

                                            I wouldn't call my knowledge "thorough," but it is adequate.  The learned dismissals were based on understanding of the conceptual problem with the Mill plan, which still apparently eludes David, as it did Mill and the Land Tenure Reform Association.  I had assumed that David must be referring to some better, more detailed, more practical plan for introducing the Mill tax.  I was mistaken.

                                            > As to his one criticism : this applies to all forms of LVT including his own.

                                            ??  How so?  LSR explicitly targets rental value, not exchange value, and the RPE (or PVE) simply converts past exchange values to fractions of current rental values when calculating the exemptions.

                                            > I would have thought the obvious answer is that buyers would buy the property knowing the land would not increase in value over and above the level of general or background inflation (to answer one of Walto's more informed criticisms) .

                                            Meaning they would never pay any tax on it.  Right.  And that is supposed to be a solution??

                                            > This would eradicate the problem of speculative land price inflation

                                            But that is a mere symptom of the REAL problem, which is private appropriation of publicly created land value.  As I have pointed out many times, David's exclusive focus on stopping land (or even more misguidedly, house!) values from increasing completely misses the point.

                                            > ( as Henry George admitted) "Mr Mill's plan for nationalising the future 'unearned increase in the value of land' by fixing the present market value of all lands and appropriating to the state the future increase in value, would not add to the injustice of the present distribution of wealth, but it would not remedy it. Further speculative advance of rent would cease..."P&P chap 21
                                             
                                            But in fact it WOULD add to the injustice, because it would still allow the owner to keep pocketing all the rent, including future increases in rent, which are typically not speculative.

                                            > Since wealth would ,in a modern economy, stem from monetary policy,

                                            Huh??  What happened to PRODUCTION?

                                            > being able to stop the future speculative advance of rent

                                            Now you are switching horses midstream.  The Mill plan would stop increases in VALUE, not RENT, and rent increases are in general not speculative anyway, as proved by the virtually unchanged rents in the face of the recent bubble and collapse.

                                            > is not the minor matter George deems it but the crux of the  present economic problem:  that it is not possible to increase the money supply without setting off land price/housing bubbles , the last one(s) having KO'd the world economy.

                                            No.  That problem -- which would easily be "solved" by just not increasing the money supply -- is NOT the crux of the present economic problem.  The crux of the present economic problem is that privilege, especially landowner privilege, diverts too much wealth into undeserving pockets.  Those who are getting something for nothing are getting it at the expense of those who get nothing for something.
                                             
                                            > It is all very well arguing among ourselves (all too often out of personal vanity) but the  world is suffering from problems for which we (alone, it looks like) have the answers.

                                            Unfortunately, not even the Georgists -- and certainly not David's Millists -- have the answers.  It is we geoists who have the answers, and that is why we are arguing with the Georgists and Millists.

                                            > We really must get our act together and look at the founding principles which were enunciated a long time ago ,

                                            Sorry, but those "founding principles," which were enunciated by the physiocrats a century before Mill, did not include the effect of the Henry George Theorem given greatly increased government spending as a fraction of GDP, nor did they comprehend the long-term effect of the Law of Rent given roughly exponential increases in technology, capital accumulation, and production.

                                            > before George took over and, frankly, messed things up by trying to nationalise (his word and the right one) past increases in land value.

                                            George was right on that point, because those "past" increases in land value are predicated on CURRENT and FUTURE spending of taxpayers' money to provide services and infrastructure that those taxpayers must then pay landowners full market value for.  To leave such rank injustice undisturbed -- and even to increase it as the future unfolds -- can be called many things, but "solution" is not one of them.

                                            -- Roy Langston
                                          • Harry Pollard
                                            Well said, Matt! Harry From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mattbieker Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 8:41 AM To:
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Sep 10, 2013

                                              Well said, Matt!

                                               

                                              Harry

                                               

                                              From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mattbieker
                                              Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 8:41 AM
                                              To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Max Kiezer & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

                                               

                                               



                                              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Walt, I agree the patent and copyright laws need looking at again.
                                              >
                                              > Yes, Roy is dead right on the importance of moving the focus off of
                                              > George and especially the Single Tax. No has bought it in about 130
                                              > years and are unlikely to.
                                              >
                                              > What does not help is the likes of the standard economic intro text book
                                              > in the USA. Mankiw writes Principles of Economics, and dismisses the
                                              > Georgist argument in his textbook, stating most economists do not buy
                                              > the argument that the land values are created by the community. It says,
                                              > the value of land often comes from the improvements, clearing trees,
                                              > building sewers and roads. This is myopic. Sewers and roads are paid for
                                              > by others, not the landowners. The roads and sewers are paid for by the
                                              > community. Their efforts soaks into the land and crystalizes as land
                                              > values. The landowner did not create the land value. Here is his
                                              > treatment of Henry George
                                              >
                                              > http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jZKTe5Rajvo/Ub0MmWTMDiI/AAAAAAAAAvA/XYK5A2jlc8\
                                              > k/s1600/Screen+Shot+2013-06-16+at+10.16.33+AM.png
                                              > <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jZKTe5Rajvo/Ub0MmWTMDiI/AAAAAAAAAvA/XYK5A2jlc\
                                              > 8k/s1600/Screen+Shot+2013-06-16+at+10.16.33+AM.png>

                                              Good god. You know, I get that there's some difference of opinion about basic economic matters, but it's so irritating to see someone argue against the LVT because "[it] would not raise enough revenue to pay for the much larger government we have today." That's just an inane argument. Even if it's completely true that land rent is an insufficient base for funding all of government, that doesn't somehow mean that we shouldn't exhaust its potential. Who ever said it's an all or nothing proposition? Anti-geoists are just shameless in their opposition.

                                            • Harry Pollard
                                              David, You quoted George: Mr Mill s plan for nationalising the future unearned increase in the value of land by fixing the present market value of all lands
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Sep 10, 2013

                                                David,

                                                 

                                                You quoted George:

                                                 

                                                "Mr Mill's plan for nationalising the future 'unearned increase in the value of land' by fixing the present market value of all lands and appropriating to the state the future increase in value, would not add to the injustice of the present distribution of wealth, but it would not remedy it. Further speculative advance of rent would cease..."P&P chap 21

                                                 

                                                However, you didn’t quote enough. George writes:

                                                 

                                                “But it would leave, for all the future, one class in possession of the enormous advantage over others which they now have. All that can be said of this plan is, that it might be better than nothing.”

                                                 

                                                Also, wealth in a modern economy does not “stem from monetary policy”. Wealth comes only from production as you will have read in George.

                                                 

                                                Harry

                                                 

                                                ******************************

                                                Alumni Group

                                                Henry George School of Los Angeles

                                                Tujunga  CA  91042

                                                818 352-4141

                                                ******************************

                                                 

                                                From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Reed
                                                Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 1:25 AM
                                                To: land cafe
                                                Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Max Keiser & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

                                                 

                                                 

                                                Somewhat surprised that Roy is looking at the Land Tenure Reform Association for the first time. I really thought (and I am not being sarcastic) that his learned dismissals of their ideas over all these months stemmed from a thorough knowledge of the published works.
                                                As to his one criticism : this applies to all forms of LVT including his own.I would have thought the obvious answer is that buyers would buy the property knowing the land would not increase in value over and above the level of general or background inflation (to answer one of Walto's more informed criticisms) .This would eradicate the problem of speculative land price inflation ( as Henry George admitted) "Mr Mill's plan for nationalising the future 'unearned increase in the value of land' by fixing the present market value of all lands and appropriating to the state the future increase in value, would not add to the injustice of the present distribution of wealth, but it would not remedy it. Further speculative advance of rent would cease..."P&P chap 21
                                                 
                                                 
                                                Since wealth would ,in a modern economy, stem from monetary policy, being able to stop the future speculative advance of rent is not the minor matter George deems it but the crux of the  present economic problem:  that it is not possible to increase the money supply without setting off land price/housing bubbles , the last one(s) having KO'd the world economy.
                                                 
                                                It is all very well arguing among ourselves (all too often out of personal vanity) but the  world is suffering from problems for which we (alone, it looks like) have the answers.We really must get our act together and look at the founding principles which were enunciated a long time ago , before George took over and, frankly, messed things up by trying to nationalise (his word and the right one) past increases in land value.   


                                                To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                                From: roy_langston@...
                                                Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 19:45:02 -0700
                                                Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Max Keiser & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

                                                 

                                                 



                                                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                                > The Land Tenure Reform Association document can be found here


                                                http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=232&chapter=16736&layout=html&Itemid=27



                                                Sorry, but that document is very far from describing an actual mechanism for recovering rent increments.  How are value increases to be measured, when buyers will be aware that rent increments above the reference level will be taxed away?


                                                -- Roy Langston

                                                 

                                              • Harry Pollard
                                                Mill’s discussion is not about a land-value tax but about the property tax, which at that time was the principal American tax. As land was a large component
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Sep 10, 2013

                                                  Mill’s discussion is not about a land-value tax but about the property tax, which at that time was the principal American tax. As land was a large component of property it meant that much land value was collected. As far as I know this situation continued throughout the 19th century.

                                                   

                                                  Harry

                                                   

                                                  ******************************

                                                  Alumni Group

                                                  Henry George School of Los Angeles

                                                  Tujunga  CA  91042

                                                  818 352-4141

                                                  ******************************

                                                   

                                                  From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of derekrss@...
                                                  Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 12:33 PM
                                                  To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Subject: RE: RE: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Max Keiser & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

                                                   

                                                   

                                                  The Land Tenure Reform Association document can be found here

                                                   

                                                  http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=232&chapter=16736&layout=html&Itemid=27

                                                   

                                                  Cheers

                                                   

                                                  Derek


                                                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

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

                                                   

                                                  > @MB
                                                  JS Mill organised the Land Tenure Reform Association
                                                  which drew up a programme, dated 1871 which can be found on the Online Library of Liberty website.  This would  appear to answer quite a lot of practical queries( as well as showing from whence Henry George derived  much of "his" theory).

                                                  It might, if it is actually there.  I've been looking for the last half hour, and I don't see anything that looks like it under 1871 or any year close to that, in either Economics or Politics.  Maybe David could provide a url, or at least a title.


                                                  -- Roy Langston

                                                   

                                                • David Reed
                                                  Dear Harry, You appear unsure of your ground lately, as in your more recent post mentioning downtown Phoenix the emptiness of which you ascribe to land
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Sep 12, 2013
                                                    Dear Harry,
                                                    You appear unsure of your ground lately, as in your more recent post mentioning downtown Phoenix the emptiness of which you ascribe to land speculation. But George admits  that the original proposals of Mill would deal with speculation. It was the mere fact of ownership George objected to.
                                                    But it was land speculation, not land ownership that prompted him to come up with the single tax *after he rode out to Oakland circa 1870 and found speculators trying to sell land for $1000 an acre because there was a chance of the transcontinental railway being extended from Sacramento.He offered this formulation after his brainwave "Like a flash it came upon that there was the reason was the reason of advancing poverty with advancing wealth.With the growth of population land grows in value and the men who worked must pay more for the privilege." But the Californian population had n't grown that much : it was half a million(now 37 million) The land was practically empty but still there was speculation (and rent seeking).
                                                     
                                                    You doubt  that wealth stems from Government monetary policy but the growth period in Phoenix ,during and after the Second World War stemmed from massive government spending (with some building of dams previously). The place was inundated with soldiers and defence contracts ,(some of them no doubt paid for by the British government under the cash and carry system/racket).
                                                     
                                                    Also downtown Phoenix seems to have suffered more than most places from the organised efforts of Big Auto to put mass transit electric trolley cars out of business and replace them with private automobiles ,something which Eric probably knows more about than anybody else. Things were especially rough in Phoenix where the trolley car depot mysteriously burned down destroying the system. Still that's freebooting laissez faire liberalism at its purest!
                                                     
                                                    * More likely George "borrowed" the ideas from JS Mill when he read Mill's Political Economy in Philadelphia Library when working up his racist views "utter heathens, treacherous, sensual, cowardly and cruel" which he published in his "The Chinese on the Pacific Coast" (1869)[Details from Henry George Jnr's Life of Henry George (1904)]. That's the problem with a free market in published ideas teetering over into plagiarism, as rashly proposed by some here who are free and easy about copyright. Ideas get distorted: George dropped the Mills' proviso about only taxing further land value increases "from here on" in the phrase used by Martin Wolf (in FT  8.vii.2010:) Keynes dropped land nationalisation from Gesell's scheme for speeding up the velocity of money.
                                                    Yours ,
                                                    DBC Reed
                                                     
                                                     
                                                    To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                                    From: harrypollard@...
                                                    Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:48:55 -0700
                                                    Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Max Keiser & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

                                                     

                                                    David,

                                                     

                                                    You quoted George:

                                                     

                                                    "Mr Mill's plan for nationalising the future 'unearned increase in the value of land' by fixing the present market value of all lands and appropriating to the state the future increase in value, would not add to the injustice of the present distribution of wealth, but it would not remedy it. Further speculative advance of rent would cease..."P&P chap 21

                                                     

                                                    However, you didn’t quote enough. George writes:

                                                     

                                                    “But it would leave, for all the future, one class in possession of the enormous advantage over others which they now have. All that can be said of this plan is, that it might be better than nothing.”

                                                     

                                                    Also, wealth in a modern economy does not “stem from monetary policy”. Wealth comes only from production as you will have read in George.

                                                     

                                                    Harry

                                                     

                                                    ******************************

                                                    Alumni Group

                                                    Henry George School of Los Angeles

                                                    Tujunga  CA  91042

                                                    818 352-4141

                                                    ******************************

                                                     

                                                    From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Reed
                                                    Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 1:25 AM
                                                    To: land cafe
                                                    Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Max Keiser & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

                                                     

                                                     

                                                    Somewhat surprised that Roy is looking at the Land Tenure Reform Association for the first time. I really thought (and I am not being sarcastic) that his learned dismissals of their ideas over all these months stemmed from a thorough knowledge of the published works.
                                                    As to his one criticism : this applies to all forms of LVT including his own.I would have thought the obvious answer is that buyers would buy the property knowing the land would not increase in value over and above the level of general or background inflation (to answer one of Walto's more informed criticisms) .This would eradicate the problem of speculative land price inflation ( as Henry George admitted) "Mr Mill's plan for nationalising the future 'unearned increase in the value of land' by fixing the present market value of all lands and appropriating to the state the future increase in value, would not add to the injustice of the present distribution of wealth, but it would not remedy it. Further speculative advance of rent would cease..."P&P chap 21
                                                     
                                                     
                                                    Since wealth would ,in a modern economy, stem from monetary policy, being able to stop the future speculative advance of rent is not the minor matter George deems it but the crux of the  present economic problem:  that it is not possible to increase the money supply without setting off land price/housing bubbles , the last one(s) having KO'd the world economy.
                                                     
                                                    It is all very well arguing among ourselves (all too often out of personal vanity) but the  world is suffering from problems for which we (alone, it looks like) have the answers.We really must get our act together and look at the founding principles which were enunciated a long time ago , before George took over and, frankly, messed things up by trying to nationalise (his word and the right one) past increases in land value.   


                                                    To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                                    From: roy_langston@...
                                                    Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 19:45:02 -0700
                                                    Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Max Keiser & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

                                                     

                                                     



                                                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                                    > The Land Tenure Reform Association document can be found here


                                                    http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=232&chapter=16736&layout=html&Itemid=27



                                                    Sorry, but that document is very far from describing an actual mechanism for recovering rent increments.  How are value increases to be measured, when buyers will be aware that rent increments above the reference level will be taxed away?


                                                    -- Roy Langston

                                                     


                                                  • roy_langston
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Sep 13, 2013

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


                                                      > Somewhat surprised that Roy is looking at the Land Tenure Reform Association for the first time. I really thought (and I am not being sarcastic) that his learned dismissals of their ideas over all these months stemmed from a thorough knowledge of the published works.

                                                      My knowledge of the published works is, I would venture, adequate rather than thorough.  I really thought (and I am not being sarcastic) that David believed he would refer us to a genuine plan of implementation for the Mills' "sometime real soon now" LVT system, rather than just pointing us again to the completely impractical proposals of the Land Tenure Reform Association, which we have all seen before.  The problem with the LTRA's proposal remains: how is an increase in land value to be measured when it doesn't occur because everyone knows it is to be taxed away?

                                                      > As to his one criticism: this applies to all forms of LVT including his own.

                                                      That is incorrect.  My proposal translates all exchange price data for land into contemporaneous land rents.  I see no proposed way -- nor can I discern a feasible way -- to do that under the Mill proposal.

                                                      > I would have thought the obvious answer is that buyers would buy the property knowing the land would not increase in value over and above the level of general or background inflation (to answer one of Walto's more informed criticisms) .

                                                      How is that an answer?  The land does not -- cannot -- increase in value, so the "tax" never raises any revenue, despite the steadily rising rent. 

                                                      > This would eradicate the problem of speculative land price inflation ( as Henry George admitted) "Mr Mill's plan for nationalising the future 'unearned increase in the value of land' by fixing the present market value of all lands and appropriating to the state the future increase in value, would not add to the injustice of the present distribution of wealth, but it would not remedy it. Further speculative advance of rent would cease..."P&P chap 21

                                                      This is merely a repetition of David's erroneous view that land price inflation is actually the problem, and not merely a symptom. And it is exchange value that advances speculatively, not land rent.
                                                       
                                                      > Since wealth would ,in a modern economy, stem from monetary policy,

                                                      That it cannot do.  Monetary policy can at best relieve the productive of the burden of supporting a wealthy, greedy, idle, parasitic bankster class.  It cannot substitute for the productive themselves.

                                                      > being able to stop the future speculative advance of rent

                                                      Total rent does not increase by speculation, Harry's speculations to the contrary.

                                                      > is not the minor matter George deems it but the crux of the  present economic problem:  that it is not possible to increase the money supply without setting off land price/housing bubbles , the last one(s) having KO'd the world economy.

                                                      That is not the crux of the present economic problem.  The crux of the present economic problem is that the Law of Rent transfers all increases in production into landowners' pockets, while the Henry George Theorem transfers all naive attempts to ameliorate that problem into landowners' pockets, too.

                                                      > It is all very well arguing among ourselves (all too often out of personal vanity) but the  world is suffering from problems for which we (alone, it looks like) have the answers.

                                                      We argue among ourselves because those of us who actually do have the answers must begin here if we are to find a way to get all the spurious, red herring answers out of people's heads.

                                                      > We really must get our act together and look at the founding principles which were enunciated a long time ago , before George took over and, frankly, messed things up by trying to nationalise (his word and the right one) past increases in land value.

                                                      Those past increases in land value are simply the measure of present and future injustice.  There is no path to justice -- or liberty or prosperity -- but by reversing them.

                                                      -- Roy Langston
                                                    • roy_langston
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Oct 6 12:07 PM
                                                        My apologies for the duplicate response partially quoted below.  When my first response to David's message did not appear in the group after five days, I assumed it must have simply vanished into the ether, and wrote another one which, as we see, has now appeared after three weeks (thanks, Eric!).  Actually, the first message's release for publication on the site was merely delayed for four weeks.  So, my bad.  Contrary to appearances, I am not losing my mind, trying to post multiple responses to the same message, or only now responding to messages posted a month ago.

                                                        It may be that some other messages I submitted to the group in the intervening four weeks will also now appear; but if I recall correctly at this somewhat remote juncture, there are no more duplicates.  Anyway, the end result was that in the interim the group wasn't burdened with any of those tiresome, back-and-forth discussions of competing views one typically engages in, and that everyone detests so much, so it's all good.


                                                        -- Roy Langston


                                                        ---In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

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


                                                        > Somewhat surprised that Roy is looking at the Land Tenure Reform Association for the first time. I really thought (and I am not being sarcastic) that his learned dismissals of their ideas over all these months stemmed from a thorough knowledge of the published works.

                                                        My knowledge of the published works is, I would venture, adequate rather than thorough.  I really thought (and I am not being sarcastic) that David believed he would refer us to a genuine plan of implementation for the Mills' "sometime real soon now" LVT system, rather than just pointing us again to the completely impractical proposals of the Land Tenure Reform Association, which we have all seen before.

                                                        <remainder mercifully snipped>
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.