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

RE: [LandCafe] Re: Max Keiser & Ross Ashcroft on rent seekers.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Sep 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 26 , Sep 8, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        --- 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 3 of 26 , Sep 10, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          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 4 of 26 , Sep 10, 2013
          • 0 Attachment

            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 5 of 26 , Sep 10, 2013
            • 0 Attachment

              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 6 of 26 , Sep 12, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 26 , Sep 13, 2013
                • 0 Attachment

                  --- 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 8 of 26 , Oct 6, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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.