RE: [LandCafe] anti-hoarded money
- Dan Sullivan is, of course,absolutely right( Something I have n't said very often).Keynes's method of discouraging hoarding by inducing a "mild and constant inflation" ( a well-turned phrase) is a great deal less fiddly then Stamp Scrip and is also thoroughly mainstream.
It would be possible to arrive at a consensus based on : Keynesian stimuli to prevent money being laid up on deposit and LVT to prevent this money,when circulated, being hoaded instead as land values.Proposed settlement: Keynes + George .
Despite Dan's best efforts to bring peace,Scott's comments (Gesell is too inane to be worth rebutting) are more what I had in mind when venturing/ daring to mention him.
(I have suggested several minor amendments to the Georgist line on LVT: calling it land value repayment to imply/implant in the terminology that land values are created by society, less insistence on talking of rental values which confuse the public.Neither of these proposals has gone down very well. )
Gesell is a good a place as any to start: Keynes produced a more practicable method of stopping money hoading; unfortunately he could not comprehend (in his "General Theory )why Gesell accompanied his work on money with a massive compensated land nationalisation scheme which Keynes put down to the influence of Henry George whom he thought of as of secondary interest.
As far as I can see the whole money argument was settled in 1936 when Keynes produced his "General Theory ..." and supporters of Gesell pointed out that freeing up the money supply would lead to massive demand for land and natural resources.
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 23:28:57 -0600
Subject: RE: [LandCafe] anti-hoarded money
Quoting Dan Sullivan on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:33:24 -0400:
Silvio Gesell, who applied anti-hoarding principles to
both land and money, is a case in point. Whether lovers
of the gold standard, commodity money, brick money or
whatever else takes their fancy, all land cafe patrons
unite to condemn Gesell despite Keynes' high praise for him.
Now we have a sweeping and completely unwarranted generalization.
Searching the entire Yahoo archives of this list, which go back to 2004,
for "Gesell" I have found only one solitary critic, Harry Pollard.
Because Gesell's "anti-hoarding" diatribe was too inane
to be worth the bother of rebutting. (And it would take
a lot of translation work to see how fair its English-
language press is.) Post that the sky at noonday be red,
and most won't bother to refute it. Had he changed his
tack to abolishing onerous, unpayable debt, we may have
a basis for a worthwhile discussion. I suppose I'll have
to polish up my German. Why won't opening the mint to
gold (silver, etc., though probably not bricks) suffice?
I take it "Freigeld" have a rather different connotation.
http://userpage. fu-berlin. de/~roehrigw/
(I happen to like Gesell, although it seems to me that
his method of devaluing money is far more cumbersome than
just maintaining a mild and constant rate of inflation.)
Thank you, Professor Friedman. Why can't mining, brick
production, grain growing and storage, etc. keep up with
the population's need for such goods? Is this something
about the contention in the Mercier Files that gold
mining (after only 2 or 3 decades on the gold standard)
couldn't keep up with the demands of finance? Will you
have a growing population eat inflated grain tokens?
(That must be what "beware the leaven of the Pharisees" means!)
There are many good places to start.
There are the writings of Alexander Del Mar:
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Alexander_ del_Mar
The writings of US Congressman Benjamin Butler:
http://savingcommun ities.org/ docs/butlerbenja minf/finance. html
Terence Powderly on "The Circulating Medium":
http://savingcommun ities.org/ docs/powderly. terence/30years0 9.html
Richard Douthwaite's "The Ecology of Money,"
http://www.feasta. org/documents/ moneyecology/ contents. htm
Steven Zarlenga's "The Lost Science of Money,"
http://www.monetary .org/lostscience ofmoney.html
Zarlenga's essay, "Henry George's Concept of Money"
http://www.monetary .org/henrygeorge conceptofmoney. htm
And, of course, the video, "Money as Debt."
http://video. google.com/ videoplay? docid=-255015645 3790090544
That's quite a homework assignment!
Reminds me of the reading for Intellectual Traditions of the West.
I don't quite trust Stephen Zarlenga's analyses
of Henry George, and hope someone can step up to
the task of an independent and objective analysis.
" Upgrade to Internet Explorer 8 Optimised for MSN. " Download Now
Or the tedious argumentation between Roy Langston and Dan Sullivan.
Actually, unless you agree somewhat with Roy, one can expect tedious line by line rebuttal. His rebuttals are always correct because he tells they are.
So, the choice is either to ignore them – my preference. Or, to answer one or two points to keep the tedium down.
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91043
Tel: 818 352-4141
(This message did indeed get caught in the yahoo Groups spam catcher, and based on much of what I see below, it must also have a certain intelligence working there. To my taste, this post concerning Bergson's troubles reading Reed's post should have been handled through a private message between the two of them. The rest is simply a bit too nasty and personal for my taste. But that’s why I no longer read this forum. Only when someone is misbehaving (again). Eric Britton)
Retry of posting. If there be something illegal (by
Yahoo!'s arcane rules) about this, please let me
and the list know in order to avoid its repetition.
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:48:00 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@...>
Subject: RE: [LandCafe] anti-hoarded money
I can't even read David Reed's posts until
giving my secret decoder ring an exhausting
workout, and while your posts are generally
in plaintext, your responses to him get
infected with some of that RTF illegibility.
Aye, well. This reply may resemble the tedious
argumentation between Roy Langston and Harry Pollard.
Quoting Dan Sullivan on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:41:53 -0400:
If there is anything more ironic than David
referring to "Dan's best efforts to bring peace",
it's Scott's recent diatribe calling me a "statist".
"Wow" is right. I don't recall calling you a
"statist", esp. not on this list. I did once
use the word "statistic" in a reply to you:
CPI gets changed whenever politically convenient to do so,
That really isn't true. It's just knee-jerk libertarian hype.
Read up on the history of that statistic and its application.
IOW; Specifics, please!
-=-=- End External Quotes -=-=-
(Roy, nearly so: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/message/4016 )
I have long been saying that those who try
to reach a consensus based on principle will
be vilified by both the left and the right.
As should be expected, "left" and "right"
being respectively usurer and royalist terms.
Scott comes from the libertarian right and also saw only part
of George's genius, and is now reacting vociferously against
George's strong differences with some libertarian dogma.
That I have a strong libertarian right background
I don't dispute, but remain unconvinced that what
I react vociferously against be George's rather
than Zarlenga's (copied so this won't be behind
his back) spin. Okay, my summer reading assignment:
Progress and Poverty, by Henry George, Edicted
and abridged for modern readers by Bob Drake.
Available from the Robert Schalkenback Foundation
The reason Scott's reaction is more ironic than
David's is that, years ago, Scott asked me to join the
Utah libertarian discussion list to show them why land
value tax is consistent with libertarian principles.
I don't so consider it. While perhaps linguistic
quibbling, "land value" stipulates a "loan value"
(price) (See Woody Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land"),
tax (task, meddle, exact) is inimical to libertarian
principles. (I better watch it, before Roy think I
be a convert to his camp.) Most of the opposition on
that list to site fees came from the TriJimvirate. Jim
Dexter, then LPU Chair and list moderator, has nearly
abandoned LP participation except convention attendance,
and is now mostly involved in GOP conservatism.
Utah is arguably the most conservative state in the nation,
so you can imagine what Utah libertarians would be like.
Utah is the most Communist (reddest). Montana
is arguably the most "conservative" state in the
nation. (If that be defined as least accepting
of federal intrusion. Utah's Sagebrush Rebellion
is, IMO, insufficient evidence for your premise.)
Anyhow, I carefully explained George's ideas, over and
over, dissecting the illogic of libertarian diatribes
against them and responding to charges that I was a
socialist, communist and statist by quoting the vast
number of libertarian icons who took the same view fo
monopoly in land as I had taken. Of course, they could
not handle the cognitive dissonance of hearing that their
whole identities were wrapped around misinformation -
not only misinformation about the nature of property, but
misinformation about what their heroes had actually believed.
Jim Dexter is a frustrated Perotista. I
won't try to explain the others' motivations.
they came up with the pretext that the list
was for Utah libertarians only, and that anyone
not from Utah was to be removed from the list.
While Dexter controlled the list, an exception to that
policy seems to have been afforded R. Lee Wrights,
Editor-in-chief, Libertyforall.net http://www.libertyforall.net/
Vice-Chairman, Libertarian Party of North Carolina http://www.lpnc.org/
Editor, Rational Review News http://www.rationalreview.com/news/index.html
Contributing Editor, Rational Review http://www.rationalreview.com/
Editor, The Choice Channel http://tinyurl.com/fau3f
the Utah LP [is] the only political party of any
significance that operates as a secret society.
Change tense to past, but yes, it was something of a "Know Nothing" party.
I have not heard much about the Utah LP as late, but
the interesting thing here is Scott's role reversal.
Scott "got it" with regard to the land question, and
courageously stood up to the vociferous dogma-spouting
and name-calling of his Utah colleagues who did not
get it. Yet because Scott has not (yet) apprehended
the money question, he has been engaging in the same
kind of dogma-spouting and name-calling that had been
used on him and me with regard to the land question.
What I "apprehend" is that misuse of property tax and
mortgage interest (broadly also including fees, licensing
privileges, etc.) is theft, every bit as much as revoking
the purchasing power of people's justly-earned money (or
capital assets) if they don't spend it promptly. That and
the war on chemistry were my primary motivations in becoming
libertarian. That usury is also theft doesn't make countertheft
right. Just quit imposing debt, especially with interest and
fees, on people, and let them keep the fruits of their labour,
regardless when or how they choose to use or spend them.
Perhaps your view on this is somewhat biased, since
Pennsylvania, unlike Hatu (the backward State of Utah) affords
some protections against garnishment, as well as upon taxation
of necessities. (Hey, I told you Hatu is the most Communist
state. You explain why Pennsylvania has local wage taxes.)
Fred and Harry differ from Scott primarily in
the sense that Fred's dogma is backed up by more
sophisticated analysis and Harry's by a clever and
entertaining style. They both sincerely believe they
are right, but so does Scott, and so did Jim Dexter.
I'm slow, so please explain again why confiscation
of earned purchasing power be "right".
there is Georgist and quasi-Georgist dogma, some of
which has to do with things George said or did that
might have been mistaken, and some having to do
with assumptions about George by his followers that
are contradicted by his own writings. Here, too,
we have dogmatic defenses and hyperbolic attacks.
That seems to be the question regarding George's monetary dogma.