| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone | | Date: | Sunday, March 12, 2006 21:24:03 (+1300) | | From: | Peter Haines <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3612 (written by Jeffery Smith) |
Howdy Jeffery,
Thanks for the complement. I take it that when people resort to attacking
the person instead of the argument that they have conceeded.
I managed to understand what you have had to say so far and you havent
corrected anything I said representing what you are arguing, yet while you
are supposedly a superior person particularly is reading ability you ask a
lot of questions to clarify things when responding to others.
The answers were in my post but unfortunately you disect everything line by
line and attack any thing you can which is why you get lost to the real
subject. I have met your type before and when one gets back with further
explanantion it happens all over again being attacked line by line and often
nothing to do with the subject and it results in taking twice as long to
intelligently discuss the issues.
There are too many things you have failed to address. So I wont bother
wasting time answering your questions because you are only interested in
COMPETING which you claim is not an issue.
I will give you an example of how your thinking doesnt compete. Take
Silicon Valley you mentioned. You acknowledged that its land value arrose
from the industry of man outside of the land itself. Yet in effect you
argue that the industry has to honour the land when the value of the land
came from the other which I have argued is the greater factor regards
sharing increased value/progress within community.
I believe I made it quite clear that your school of thought is happy with
just the land and Social Credit acknowledges the whole lot and your response
to my claim that we had a wider reality was that I was no better than the
terrorists. And it is me that is supposed to have reading disabilities.
Here is another reality your arguments are lost to-
You said Communists also noted two and two makes four. ( I was completely
mystified why you talked about guilt by association ). I have previously
argued that the limit in recognising the material world that man hasnt made
is an inferior and restricting basis to measure values that are used to
determine the freedom of man/quality of life.
When people work in unison/ cooperatively they produce more than what they
could if producing individually. We call it the increment of association.
The value representing the difference betwen the two is stolen by the state
in the socialist state and in the west it is stolen by the debt banking
system. Social Credit puts it in the economy via the dividend in exchange
for goods and services.
A community creates the same two and two makes more than four, where the
result is more than the sum of its parts, just as a coop enterprise.
If we had lunch together and I had a loaf of bread put in front of me and
you had the ingredients of a loaf put in front of you would you consider we
had a fair and equal lunch? Does the world of industry make results in
society that are the sum of its parts using technology and values extracted
from the unmanmade things? How about Silicon Valley in this regard?
If people who lived before the industrial revolution saw what we can produce
today, lets make it a phone that can take photos and transmit them as well
and find the location of the holder on a map all from just a little gadget
that fits within one hand, would it be any more amazing than Jesus feeding
five thousand with just a few loaves and fish? They are both within the
reality of this world we live in ( which is why Douglas said the
end/potential of man is unknown). But as long as we only understand two and
two makes four ( dont bother to pretend the subject is limited to basis
maths) and place the natural and fixed assets as the basis of ordered life
we are still in the same lower dimension with Marx and the philosophy of
farming humans and reality being limited to our five basic senses.
You agreed on the dividend helping to make people freer ( in time as well as
financially) but you argue against the means of a better dividend from a
greater recognition of the same factor for your one which is smaller.
You didnt answer the challenge either which I have put and also made by
someone else since that if you take the dividend from the public and then
give it back to them how are they really benefited.
A lower dimension cannot compete with a higher one.
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
-From: "Jeffery Smith" <jjs@geonomics.org>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone
> On Mar 8, 2006, at 11:00 PM, Peter Haines wrote:
>>
>> The major social problem of the world is poverty in the midst of plenty,
>
> Almost recapitulates the best-seller, Progress and Poverty, which
> explained what's hard for most modern urban people to see - the role of
> land and land rent.
>
>> Land use is only one of many factors that are in the making of goods and
>> providing services that dont get distributed justly.
>
> True, but not all factors are equal in their impact, nor in their
> obviousness - which is why we have science.
>
>> This system recognises the total communal input into values of land but
>> not what man produces which is the area of malnutrition, poverty of
>> various kinds, and all the social ills that are down stream of such.
>> Same cant be said of people who only rent and may never own property.
>
> Please clarify.
>
>> One could apply the same narrow view to education and occupations and
>> then we come to realise that the current system does a similar job anyway
>> when we compare the amount of taxes certain people pay ( looking at their
>> proterty, occupationa incomes and their link to education etc) and the
>> taxes are used by govt to carry the unfortunate, re a psuedo wage (
>> dole), medical subsidies etc etc.
>
> Please clarify. Present taxation is not even close to quid pro quo. A land
> tax at least does reflect social input of values.
>
>> By far the greater part of THINGs man is associated with is what he
>> produces/offeres to do and sells which also has community interest
>> within it.
>
> Please clarify. In economics, we've noted "externalities", negative ones
> such as pollution and positive ones such as land value.
>
>> One merely has to consider Japan and it land area and compare it with
>> what it produces and exports.
>
> Consider to what end? Back at the peak of the Japanese business cycle, if
> you could buy Japan once, you had enough money to buy America four times.
>
>> The consider Saidi Arabia with its land mass unoccupied and producing
>> little. Neither have anything to do with 'justice' or the social problem
>> of the world- poverty in the midst of plenty.
>
> Please explain. In economics, we have the "resource curse", which notes
> every country laden with oil etc and little else has huge problems in
> development, justice, etc.
>
>> The reason this system doesnt even begin to compete with Social Credit
>
> Not that their in competition, but you can find several real world
> examples of partial use of geonomics. Any of free money? What results?
>
>> is it only wants to apply a same principle as we do to a limited field
>> which indicates what its underlying philosophy is.
>
> Please do indicate.
>
>> In effect this system treats all land as not being owned but rented and
>> so it shares the same stables are the communist manifesto and the
>> protocols.
>
> The communists also noted two plus two equals four. The Christians also
> noted that "the fruits of the earth belong to everyone" (Ecclisiastes).
> So, you're trying to impart guilt by association, a handy propaganda tool?
>
>> The other point to remember is that not only should the community get a
>> dividend based on the whole of progress and not just the value of
>> property going up over time,
>
> No difference. Where is progress most advanced? Silicon Valley. Where are
> land values highest? Silicon Valley.
>
>> but the community should also be working less and less as progress is
>> made.
>
> Hear, hear. Precisely what a dividend from recovered rents accomplishes.
>
>> They are not for setting people freer.
>
> Your mind reading abilities leave lots to be desired. Also your interest
> in real world examples. Every jurisdiction that recovers any publicly
> generated site values is freer than those that don't.
>
>> This is like a religious cult. Its all logical within the chosen
>> arguments,
>
> Hard to find a better example of psychological projection.
>
>> like making doctrine out of selective lines denying context and other
>> similar scriptures.
>
> Please supply the counter examples if such exist.
>
>> This system is likewise out of context of wider reality and based on a
>> politcal motive.
>
> Ironic how comforting the human brain finds its own distortions of
> others - little different from the ranting of many players on the scene
> today, using terrorism to their advantage.
>
> SMITH, Jeffery J., President, Forum on Geonomics
> 7536 SE Milwaukie Av, Portland Oregon 97202 USA
> 503/232-1337; jjs@geonomics.org; www.geonomics.org
> Share Earth's worth to prosper and conserve.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message