Re: more crackpottery
- On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Yisroel <yisroel@...> wrote:
> Bernard Rooney wrote: "Arrest people who made loans based on land price."Well, I guess I'm joking a bit here, right? :)
> This sounds looney and scary to me.
> Are you sharpening the guillotine, too, Mr. Rooney?
> Yisroel Pensack
But you get the point of what I'm saying, no?
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Rooney"
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...>; "Yisroel"
> <yisroel@...>; "Jeffery J. Smith" <jjs@...>; "Frank
> Walker" <frank_walker@...>; "Land Theory" <email@example.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@...>
>>> 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
>>> towards there. By all means let us dream great dreams, but during our
>>> hours also get our hands dirty with life as it is.