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

Re: [LandCafe] Digest Number 1252

Expand Messages
  • Bernard Rooney
    This is one in a series of excellent articles by Hudson on the financial crisis. I hope everyone is reading
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 2, 2008
      <http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson11262008.html>

      This is one in a series of excellent articles by Hudson on the financial crisis. I hope everyone  is reading these.

      It's interesting that both the Austrian school (with their focus on credit creation) and the Georgist school (with their focus on speculative advance of land values) have commentary on the financial crisis, but the Marxist school is absent. At any rate, I'm not seeing it. The fact is of course, Marxist economic analysis is so fundamentally flawed, I dont think there's much for them to say. Sociological and political analysis is their strength (and the corresponding weakness of Georgism).

      Znet is a case in point: they didnt see the crash coming and havent had much useful commentary on it.

      For mine, Hudson has been providing the best analysis bar none. And he's been doing it in the right place: a leftist magazine like Counterpunch. For 100 years and more the left had been sitting there begging for some analysis of 'capitalism' and the Georgist movement has deigned not to provide it because it's opposed to 'socialism'. Hudson's move is thus a breakthrough.

      Georgism needs to start openly calling itself socialist and communist and anarchist and be done with it. Instead its got a near hysterical anxiety about being branded commie and insists everywhere that it's fully capitalist and free market.

      I have one question here though:
       
      * In the sphere of bad-debt banking, when a government agency takes over a
      bank or company that has negative net worth, the stockholders must be wiped
      out as their stock has lost all market value. Bondholders must stand in line
      behind the government in case of insolvency.

      These and other recommendations are of course excellent and the least that could be done.  But why not wipe out bondholders (and management, and their bonuses) instead of merely having them 'stand in line behind' government?

      Surely if a bank or corporation is bust then it gets nothing (except perhaps prosecutions) and the taxpayer gets everything?
    • Bernard Rooney
      This is one in a series of excellent articles by Hudson on the financial crisis. I hope everyone is reading
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 2, 2008
        <http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson11262008.html>

        This is one in a series of excellent articles by Hudson on the financial crisis. I hope everyone  is reading these.

        It's interesting that both the Austrian school (with their focus on credit creation) and the Georgist school (with their focus on speculative advance of land values) have commentary on the financial crisis, but the Marxist school is absent. At any rate, I'm not seeing it. The fact is of course, Marxist economic analysis is so fundamentally flawed, I dont think there's much for them to say. Sociological and political analysis is their strength (and the corresponding weakness of Georgism).

        Znet is a case in point: they didnt see the crash coming and havent had much useful commentary on it.

        For mine, Hudson has been providing the best analysis bar none. And he's been doing it in the right place: a leftist magazine like Counterpunch. For 100 years and more the left had been sitting there begging for some analysis of 'capitalism' and the Georgist movement has deigned not to provide it because it's opposed to 'socialism'. Hudson's move is thus a breakthrough.

        Georgism needs to start openly calling itself socialist and communist and anarchist and be done with it. Instead its got a near hysterical anxiety about being branded commie and insists everywhere that it's fully capitalist and free market.

        I have one question here though:
         
        * In the sphere of bad-debt banking, when a government agency takes over a
        bank or company that has negative net worth, the stockholders must be wiped
        out as their stock has lost all market value. Bondholders must stand in line
        behind the government in case of insolvency.

        These and other recommendations are of course excellent and the least that could be done.  But why not wipe out bondholders (and management, and their bonuses) instead of merely having them 'stand in line behind' government?

        Surely if a bank or corporation is bust then it gets nothing (except perhaps prosecutions) and the taxpayer gets everything?
      • Walter Horn
        ... communist and ... Even if it isn t? ... That s certainly true of some Georgists, but I m not sure the solution to that is to assume a hysterical anxiety
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 2, 2008
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Bernard Rooney" <bernardrooney@...>
          wrote:
          > Georgism needs to start openly calling itself socialist and
          communist and
          > anarchist and be done with it.

          Even if it isn't?


          > Instead its got a near hysterical anxiety
          > about being branded commie and insists everywhere that it's fully
          > capitalist and free market.

          That's certainly true of some Georgists, but I'm not sure the
          solution to that is to assume a hysterical anxiety about being
          branded capitalist or free market. It is what it is, viz., a
          proposal to give all land values back to the citizenry. I don't see
          why it's essential to categorize this as being either essentially
          communist/anarchist or capitalist/free market.


          >
          > I have one question here though:
          >
          >
          > > * In the sphere of bad-debt banking, when a government agency
          takes over a
          > > bank or company that has negative net worth, the stockholders
          must be wiped
          > > out as their stock has lost all market value. Bondholders must
          stand in
          > > line
          > > behind the government in case of insolvency.
          >
          >
          > These and other recommendations are of course excellent and the
          least that
          > could be done. But why not wipe out bondholders (and management,
          and their
          > bonuses) instead of merely having them 'stand in line behind'
          government?

          I can see the ire at "management and their bonuses" but I don't
          really get the hatred of lenders. If all you do is make it stupid to
          lend anybody anything, nobody will lend anybody anything and the
          world will be worse, rather than better.

          > Surely if a bank or corporation is bust then it gets nothing
          (except perhaps
          > prosecutions) and the taxpayer gets everything?
          >

          If I'm a depositor in that bank, why do I have less rights than a
          taxpayer who has put no money in it?

          W
        • Jeffery J. Smith
          On Dec 2, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Bernard Rooney wrote: For 100 years and more the left had been sitting there begging for some analysis of capitalism and the
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 2, 2008
            On Dec 2, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Bernard Rooney wrote:

            For 100 years and more the left had been sitting there begging for some analysis of 'capitalism' and the Georgist movement has deigned not to provide it

            JS: Not my experience with my leftist friends. No ideologue I know begs for competing ideas.

            because it's opposed to 'socialism'. Hudson's move is thus a breakthrough.
            Georgism needs to start openly calling itself socialist and communist and anarchist and be done with it. Instead its got a near hysterical anxiety about being branded commie and insists everywhere that it's fully capitalist and free market.

            JS: No Georgist I know does that. All I know try to show how the fact labor has the left, how the factor has the right, and how land has us, the only actual freed marketeers.

            Surely if a bank or corporation is bust then it gets nothing (except perhaps prosecutions) and the taxpayer gets everything?

            JS: Usually, the taxpayer gets everything up the rear. If one lives bent over, one must expect others to stick it to ya. Act like a peasant, get treated like a peasant. Better policy than economic meddling is to demand rights and a government to defend them.

            SMITH, Jeffery J.
            President, Forum on Geonomics
            Share Earth's worth to prosper and conserve.

          • Bernard Rooney
            This is one in a series of excellent articles by Hudson on the financial crisis. I hope everyone is reading
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 2, 2008
              <http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson11262008.html>

              This is one in a series of excellent articles by Hudson on the financial crisis. I hope everyone  is reading these.

              It's interesting that both the Austrian school (with their focus on credit creation) and the Georgist school (with their focus on speculative advance of land values) have commentary on the financial crisis, but the Marxist school is absent. At any rate, I'm not seeing it. The fact is of course, Marxist economic analysis is so fundamentally flawed, I dont think there's much for them to say. Sociological and political analysis is their strength (and the corresponding weakness of Georgism).

              Znet is a case in point: they didnt see the crash coming and havent had much useful commentary on it.

              For mine, Hudson has been providing the best analysis bar none. And he's been doing it in the right place: a leftist magazine like Counterpunch. For 100 years and more the left had been sitting there begging for some analysis of 'capitalism' and the Georgist movement has deigned not to provide it because it's opposed to 'socialism'. Hudson's move is thus a breakthrough.

              Georgism needs to start openly calling itself socialist and communist and anarchist and be done with it. Instead its got a near hysterical anxiety about being branded commie and insists everywhere that it's fully capitalist and free market.

              I have one question here though:
               
              * In the sphere of bad-debt banking, when a government agency takes over a
              bank or company that has negative net worth, the stockholders must be wiped
              out as their stock has lost all market value. Bondholders must stand in line
              behind the government in case of insolvency.

              These and other recommendations are of course excellent and the least that could be done.  But why not wipe out bondholders (and management, and their bonuses) instead of merely having them 'stand in line behind' government?

              Surely if a bank or corporation is bust then it gets nothing (except perhaps prosecutions) and the taxpayer gets everything?
            • Roy Langston
              ... ??? IME the left, far from begging for an analysis of capitalism, dismisses any analysis of capitalism but its own, because it wants to continue making
              Message 6 of 6 , Dec 3, 2008
                Bernard Rooney wrote:

                >For 100 years and more the left had been sitting there
                >begging for some analysis of 'capitalism' and the
                >Georgist movement has deigned not to provide it
                >because it's opposed to 'socialism'. Hudson's move is
                >thus a breakthrough.

                ??? IME the left, far from begging for an analysis of
                capitalism, dismisses any analysis of capitalism but
                its own, because it wants to continue making the same
                mistake as capitalism: conflating land and capital.

                >Georgism needs to start openly calling itself socialist
                >and communist and anarchist and be done with it.

                ??? That would be absurd, because it isn't.

                >Instead its got a near hysterical anxiety about being
                >branded commie and insists everywhere that it's fully
                >capitalist and free market.

                Some geoists claim to be capitalists, which is imprecise
                thinking. But we have enough anti-geoists lying about
                what we propose that we don't need to start lying about
                it ourselves.

                >But why not wipe out bondholders (and management, and
                >their bonuses) instead of merely having them 'stand in
                >line behind' government?

                Because bankruptcy is not nationalization. It means not
                all creditors will be satisfied, and there is an order
                of priority in deciding who has first claim on the assets.

                -- Roy Langston


                __________________________________________________________________
                Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.