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

Re: more crackpottery

Expand Messages
  • Bernard Rooney
    ... Well, I guess I m joking a bit here, right? :) But you get the point of what I m saying, no? cheers, bernard
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 10, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Yisroel <yisroel@...> wrote:

      > Bernard Rooney wrote: "Arrest people who made loans based on land price."
      >
      > This sounds looney and scary to me.
      >
      > Are you sharpening the guillotine, too, Mr. Rooney?
      >
      > Yisroel Pensack

      Well, I guess I'm joking a bit here, right? :)

      But you get the point of what I'm saying, no?

      cheers,
      bernard


      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Rooney"
      > <bernardrooney@...>
      > To: <land-theory@yahoogroups.com>
      > Cc: "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...>; "Yisroel"
      > <yisroel@...>; "Jeffery J. Smith" <jjs@...>; "Frank
      > Walker" <frank_walker@...>; "Land Theory" <landtheory@yahoogroups.com>;
      > "Land-Cafe-Group lcf1)" <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; "Fred Foldvary"
      > <fred@...>; "Michael Hudson" <michael.hudson@...>
      > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 4:30 PM
      > Subject: Re: [land-theory] RE: Georgists & the Rothbard Fallacy
      >
      >
      >> This subject has also been done to death in Australia as well, going
      >> back as much as 80 years.
      >>
      >> Here are my reflections/conclusions on the epic debate:
      >>
      >> 1. He was awfully clever, the first guy who figured that if you taxed
      >> away all rent there would be no landvalue to tax!
      >>
      >> Reminds me of the argument of the flat-earther, who is also
      >> (naturally) opposed to the science of global warming: "And if there's
      >> no globe, then there's no global warming!"
      >>
      >> Apparently this is now known as the Rothbard Fallacy (stick it to
      >> those right-libertarians, I dont like them a bit), but IIRC a guy
      >> named Hodgkiss discussed this in Victoria way back in the 1920s.
      >>
      >> 2. In Utopia, there would no more be a 'selling price' for land than
      >> there would be an 'auction price' for slaves once slavery is
      >> abolished. Selling price is by definition the capitalised value of
      >> rent. This is what I call Kapital (what Marx & George called
      >> 'fictitious capital' - distinguished from real capital): the
      >> kapitalised (exchange) value of a politically guaranteed unearned
      >> income. Currently it must provide some 70-80% or more of the
      >> 'capital', 'assets', 'property', 'wealth' or 'riches' of society. All
      >> of this is abolished to nothing in a liberated society. I dont think
      >> many Georgists have properly understood this point.
      >>
      >> 3. Also in Utopia there would no more be a government
      >> 'Valuer-General's' department than there would be a 'Fish-value'
      >> Department. The market sets the values and prices. Government could
      >> check on it as a matter of research or statistics if you like.
      >>
      >> The key is to separate the site from the property (building,
      >> improvements). The site can be auction-leased by the public authority
      >> on an annual basis, but the property cannot be touched by the site
      >> holder unless he reaches agreement with its owner. The leaseholder can
      >> however demand that someone else's property be removed (demolished)
      >> from his site. So come to terms.
      >>
      >> 4. An immediate switch to valuing of rents rather than sale price for
      >> purposes of revenue collection is probably a good idea. This was
      >> advocated by former NSW Deputy Valuer-General Doug Herps. According to
      >> him and others there are a number of good reasons for this:
      >>
      >> A. 'Any valuer worth his salt' could value site rentals, according to
      >> Herps. People say you couldnt do it (they say you cant value selling
      >> price either) but Herps dismissed this argument.
      >>
      >> B. As you take more of the rent selling price goes down, so
      >> concentrate at the outset on the main game (rent).
      >>
      >> C. Rental values are more steady and accurate. Selling prices, a kind
      >> of artificial value in the first place (see above), are subject to
      >> considerable fluctuation, as we see in the current land & bank bust.
      >>
      >> D. Valuations of rent will give us an immediate indication of the
      >> percentage of rent in GDP and the revenue potential. And I will say of
      >> course, invest the land revenue in public infrastructure that is in
      >> the nature of a natural monopoly, which in turn increases revenue and
      >> builds civilisation. This I call the Tea Cup Revenue Principle. (T-CWP
      >> by LR: Investment in infrastructure - Transport, Communications,
      >> Water, Power - funded by Land Revenue)
      >>
      >> 5. Finally I wish we had a bit more debate about the land & bank bust:
      >> this is a real beauty just as Henry George/ Homer Hoyt/ Fred Harrison
      >> would have expected. It seems that the banks, perhaps more so than
      >> ever before, have piled debt on the collateral of land selling price,
      >> meaning that if land values go down 20-40%, every major Western bank
      >> could be insolvent, including the big five in Australia. They wont
      >> lend money to each other because each suspects the other is insolvent,
      >> probably not a bad intuition when they check their own books.
      >>
      >> The government or treasury should have immediate access to the books.
      >> Chifley was right - the banking sector probably needs to be
      >> nationalised - wipe out the shareholders, the bondholders and the
      >> management. Arrest people who made loans based on land price. And a
      >> big Jubilee too - wipe out debts all over the place. Combined with a
      >> bunch of to-the-point regulations to encourage lending on actual
      >> production, not on land price hikes. All of this of course is a stop
      >> gap until we reach the single tax utopia.
      >>
      >> Instead we get the Wall St bailout - the invisible hand of the finance
      >> market has reached into the pocket of the taxpayer and lifted $700b,
      >> and given an invisible two fingers to the chumps on the way back.
      >>
      >> Even crazier than this is a proposition seriously advanced by some -
      >> to buy up housing stock and demolish it in an attempt to keep home
      >> prices afloat. Shows how much removed we are from a real understanding
      >> of what the underlying problem is. Land price is not property, it is
      >> robbery. Abolish it.
      >>
      >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Mason Gaffney <m.gaffney@...>
      >> wrote:
      >>>
      >>> As we near Utopia I'd be glad to consider taxing rent instead of selling
      >>> price, but in our lifetimes selling price is better, as we segue from
      >>> here
      >>> towards there. By all means let us dream great dreams, but during our
      >>> waking
      >>> hours also get our hands dirty with life as it is.
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.