marrying land & monetary reform
- I'm listening to a Max Keiser podcast where Max is explaining the global financial crisis and the part played by speculation both in real estate and financial derivatives. Two questions come to mind:
1) Say that Georgist policies with respect to land were to somehow become instituted nationwide in the U.S. (to start with). Would this tend to rein in speculation in other areas such as commodities, stocks, and currencies? If not, what other reforms would be necessary?
2) Since there is such a groundswell of public awareness involving the ill effects of the speculative vs. the real economy, and this is reaching the public via economists such as Keiser, Michael Hudson, et al, how can the Georgist movement harness this awareness to our message that the root of speculation lies in land?
3) Similarly, how can we harness the rising animosity against the idea of private monetary monopolists (inchoate though it may be at this point) and turn it against private land monopoly as well?
It would seem to be a simple thing to point out that much speculative credit creation traces back to private collection of rent, and that the injustice of "moneylords" taxing us to use the public medium of exhange, is founded on an older injustice of landlords taxing us for the use of the earth.
How are Georgist organizations attempting to work with monetary reformers to get broader awareness and action on both causes? Does anybody see a broad movement forming for monetary, land, and tax reform?
I realize that monetary reform generally is a national issue while land value taxation is normally approached from the bottom up. Has anyone tried to work out some way to put these complementary agendas together into a single platform, or anything resembling one?
4) How can we harness the anti-tax sentiment of the "Tea Party" faction, to try to introduce Georgist ideas there? Are many Georgist
activists out there working toward that aim?
- Amazing that people argue about things like this. I mean, we can take the term "money" to mean whatever a dictionary says it does, or we can take it as some kind of rigid designator of a natural kind and insist that only silver can be money. Or, I suppose we could claim that's it's only money if it's called "money" in whatever language is spoken where it's used.
It simply doesn't matter. How could it? What IS important is that there is no equivocation conducted by use of the term. So, I recommend you two stop arguing and just use "money1" and "money2" or "money" and "money*". Nothing substantive ever follows from word choice.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
> Quoting Dan Sullivan on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:28:13 -0500:
> On 27 Feb 2010 at 11:04, Scott Bergeson wrote:
> When I was speaking of money, I was not speaking of the
> definition used by those who think only wealth (gold, etc.)
> can be money. I consider that definition to be nonsense.
> You, Stephen Zarlenga and others have changed it to
> "that which legally discharges debt obligations".
> Perhaps you should quit grating on the nerves of language
> prescriptivists like me and call your circulating
> medium of exchange something else, like disobs.
> (Discharges of obligations - See Eric Frank Russell's
> "And Then There Were None".) I consider redefining
> words whenever you get a wild hair to be nonsense.
> It's the gold-bugs who redefined money. Some of the
> earliest currencies were fiat currencies, such as the Roman
> Nomismas, and they were considered money by monetary theorists
> as well as by the general public that circulated them.
> Since money is silver, if these mythical
> insects did that, their redefinition is invalid.
> The dishonesty is in trying to win the argument
> that money should be backed by wealth by redefiing
> money to only mean that which is backed by wealth.
> No, it's a synonym for silver. Back whatever
> you want with whatever you want, it isn't money
> except in the degenerate case of silver-backed
> silver. (What's that; choice of mintage forms?)
> This is similar to socialists defining capitalism
> as a system that exploits workers in order to make
> the argument that capitalism exploits workers. Such
> argument -by-defiinition is dishonest, and that
> fact that the dishonest definition has been in place
> for some time does not make it any less dishonest.
> Save perhaps as metaphor, seems way off-topic.
> Properly means "headism".
> 1854, "condition of having capital".
> May I suggest many (Some, such as Dave Wetzel, excepted)
> self-proclaimed "socialists" have misdefined their
> term for themselves? They seem rather antisocial,
> indeed, sociopathic, to me. Okay, money was originally
> coined silver. Calling anything else "money", no matter
> how long hucksters have foisted some alternative
> definition, does not make it any less dishonest.
> Moreover, it is not *the* definition of money.
> Rather, it is *a* definition that the gold-bugs
> try to impose on everyone.
> Can we call a fantasy exterminator on these
> "gold bugs", already? It's a fiction story!
> Dictionary.com lists it as the third of 12 definitions.
> In ancient China, cowry shells were apparently "exchange".
> How about we NOT redefine them as "money"?