|
Message 3672
|
|
< Previous | Next >
|
|
|
| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone | | Date: | Sunday, March 19, 2006 21:43:14 (+1200) | | From: | Peter Haines <cymric @.......nz>
|
Howdy Jeffery,
Sorry if I am the only one here that hasnt read and memorised everything
Eric Hoffer said that I didnt know what you meant.
But getting back to your chosen way you still havent offered me anything
better but require me to pay a deposit, shall we say, to get the return I
already have.
The Douglas system is based on the goods and services, as opposed to land or
gold, which assures directly the just share ( and just price!), since it is
the foundation. Your system, land is the foundation and thus must always be
equal to the value of the total disbursement which as the in the case of
gold will require an inflation in its value/cost to keep it up, similar to
chasing debt. This is indirect, includes an unnecessary penalty and a
commodity which can be controlled by monopolies where as the Douglas system
is under control of the whole of the consumers direct.
Essentially we are only discussing the issue of a fair and just disbursement
of goods and services, I believe. That was only part of the Douglas
analysis and response. I havent studied your Georgian system so I dont know
if the accounting/ costing problem Douglas discovered and also takes to task
has been dealt with and if it hasnt then your preferred system may send the
current system into convulsions from time to time, if you are still just a
debt money system.
Real estate values in the US has been pumped up, Japan did the same and
burnt its fingers badly back in 1990, ( note what pumping up land values to
achieve an economic goal does ) but I was referring to the difference in
production. For example if ford only produced cars at the same rate cows
had calves they wouldnt have got past the first year.
I appreciate the issue regards the individual. However no singer makes a
living singing in the shower to themselves and if they are not song writers
as well they will have nothing to sing.
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffery Smith" <jjs@geonomics.org>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone
> On Mar 12, 2006, at 12:24 AM, Peter Haines wrote:
>
>> Howdy Jeffery,
> Hi, Peter;
>
>> Thanks for the complement.
> You deserved it.
>
>> you are supposedly a superior person
>
> Why do you suppose that? Somewhat irrelevant, eh?
>
>> The answers were in my post but unfortunately you disect everything line
>> by line
> Many others find that fortunate, to more easily consider each point you
> raise.
>
>> and attack any thing you can
> First, a question or correction is not an attack. Second, not all is
> addressed, as I delete many irrelevant lines, such as above, but left in
> this time as an example or irrelevancy.
>
>> which is why you get lost to the real subject.
> If an ideologue can't answer simple logical questions, they blame the
> asker, rather than try to improve their delivery - keeping their favorite
> ideology on the margin.
>
>> I have met your type before
> Your typing of strangers rather broad and unreliable - you might want to
> work on that.
>
>> 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
> So why write lines that nothing to do with the subject in the first place?
>
>> and it results in taking twice as long to intelligently discuss the
>> issues.
> So, stick to your main points.
>
>> you are only interested in COMPETING
> You are again precisely mistaken.
>
>> I will give you an example of how your thinking doesnt compete.
> Can any thinking compete with "true belief"?
>
>> Take Silicon Valley you mentioned. You acknowledged that its land value
>> arrose from the industry of man outside of the land itself.
> Todate, humans are never outside land itself. Even in space, there are
> favored locations, such as lower geosynchronous orbits. Hard to escape
> principle.
>
>> 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.
> Not clearly written, but the underlying principle is mutual compensation
> from each landowner to every land occupant (from all to all), the amount
> to be determined by the market value of the location.
>
>> I believe I made it quite clear
> A comfortable belief, not necessarily accurate.
>
>> that your school of thought is happy with just the land
> Your assumptions about what makes others happy are not always well
> founded.
>
>> 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.
> Since you are a stranger, it's not even tempting to consider how much
> better you are to anyone. As for terrorists, their rationale is widely
> shared as most humans are "true believers" (Eric Hoffer) about some topic
> or other.
>
>> And it is me that is supposed to have reading disabilities.
> So you suppose.
>
>> 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.
> Contradicts another basic principle one can find held by professional
> appraisers and assessors and their schools. Just note that where quality
> of life is better, land values are higher. Where life sucks, land values
> are low. Put in a nuclear power plant, lower land values. Put in a park,
> raise land values. Etc.
>
>> When people work in unison/ cooperatively they produce more than what
>> they could if producing individually. We call it the increment of
>> association.
> Henry George called it the Law 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.
> The list of thieves does not stop there. You might add landlords. Also,
> most private debt is for land.
>
>> 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?
> And note how easily landowners capture the increased value.
>
>> Douglas said the end/potential of man is unknown
> George and presumably others said it before him.
>
>> 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.
>
> Go to the official website of the US (the BEA). There you'll see the
> biggest sector in the US economy - real estate. Of that, the biggest
> component is land.
>
>> if you take the dividend from the public and then give it back to them
>> how are they really benefited.
>
> The public consists of individuals. Most individuals own, if anything, the
> land beneath their home. They do not own land downtown or above an oil
> field. Nor do they own any other natural locations such as part of the EM
> spectrum or whole fields of knowledge enclosed by a patent. Hence, most
> individuals would pay land dues for the land beneath their home which they
> keep others from using yet get dividends back from the value of all sites,
> resources, spectrum, fields of knowledge, assets for which they don't pay
> dues. Most individuals would pay in a few hundred a month yet get back at
> least one thousand. So merely materially, most people come out well ahead.
> Add to that the benefits of living in a just society, of ending
> "eco-ploitation, of making government user-friendly, of enjoying a
> constantly falling cost of living, etc.
>
> 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