| Subject: | RE: [socialcredit] land, money | | Date: | Monday, March 20, 2006 08:46:57 (-0800) | | From: | thomsonhiyu <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3677 (written by Jeffery Smith) |
On Mar 19, 2006, at 1:08 PM, thomsonhiyu wrote:
What makes you so sure 'anyone else' is going to WANT to use it?
(Jeff Smith replied:- )Not every slave wanted to be liberated. That does
not justify slavery.
(Joe responds:-) But was the ultimate choice of 'freedom' or 'slavery'
the slave's to make? Or his master's? That is the fundamental issue.
If it's the latter, which will prevail, the 'will-to-freedom' which
resides internally, within the mind of the 'individual' slave; or the
'will-to-power' which resides externally, in the mind of his master(s)?
(Joe:-) You say the 'market' will determine that. But will it?
(Jeff:-) Owners (whether private or public) agree on leases and sales
every day.
(Joe responds:-) Yes, they do. But only if the 'individual'
property is actually for sale or for lease by its 'owner', and someone
else wants to buy or rent it. "My" properties, as 'land', at the time
of their last sale, (to me), had their 'site-values' established this
way. They were $ 3,500 for my 2 acre lot, and $ 11,500 each for my two
1/2 acre lots. The lots are 'on' my Company's books for those amounts.
Why should I pay a 'property' tax on any 'value' beyond that, or even on
that 'value, when, until the land is sold again no one really knows what
its 'value' really is?
We come into something here which is going to be difficult for us to
discuss unless you are familiar with 'why' Social Credit regards 'money'
primarily as 'effective demand', or an 'order' system (for the
production and distribution of 'goods and services'), rather than as the
more 'classical' notion of it being a 'value measurement system'.
(Jeff:-) his property. What made a hunk of nature property? What that
one his?
(Joe responds:-) A Land Title is fundamentally a "legal fiction
entered into for the sake of convenience." The "convenience" is that it
allows for the security of 'individual' ADMINISTRATIVE 'ownership' over
a particular chunk of real estate. Something shown over time to be very
necessary in the most efficient production of products from it, in which
the whole community will share BENEFICIAL 'ownership'. Provided we have
a proper cost accountancy/price system that correctly relates to the
'money' being used to allow that to happen. Up to the physical limits
of productive capacity, or the satiation of actual consumer demand.
(Joe:-) ('Improvements' are shown and assessed separately on BC
Assessment tax
> assessments.)
(Jeff:-) Most places do that. BC is world famous for doing it better.
(Joe:-) No comment. I don't hold any property elsewhere, so I can't
make comparisons.
(Joe;-) > In 1984, there was a well founded rumour that the main road on
which my 2 acres fronts was to be widened from 2 to 4 lanes. And that a
33
ft strip of my property all along that boundary would be expropriated.
Immediately across the highway to be widened from my 2 acres were two
1/2 acre vacant lots. Each would also lose 33 feet off the boundary
abutting the road.
(Jeff:-) Instead of accommodating more cars, perhaps the public should
have
accommodated mass transit?
(Joe responds:-) The 'public' had long indicated they wanted something
else. 'Growth' is the God of the 'powers-that-be', because the 'public'
has a bad habit of clamouring after things they've been conditioned to
consider necessities; like 'jobs', for instance. "Financially", if we
could completely 'pay' for what we're doing from what we're doing,
instead of the current necessity of having to pay for it from what we're
going to (have to) do in the future, many things would change for the
better.
(Joe;-) I purchased the lots, and cleared the bush, and filled the
swamp.
(Jeff;-) What was the cost to the ecosystem, losing swamps, which filter
water
and provide habitat for birds that fertilize plants? Any loss there?
(Joe;-) A few billion mosquitoes had to look for new habitat. Don't
think there was much 'filtering' going on in those particular swamps.
Water looked pretty stagnant in them to me. Haven't noticed any decline
in the number of birds around. Both them and the frogs regularly feast
on the bugs in the bark of the logs that come in.
|
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message