| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] special attention jeff | | Date: | Tuesday, March 21, 2006 22:37:41 (-0800) | | From: | Jeffery Smith <jjs @.........org>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3682 (written by Triumphofthepast) |
On Mar 21, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Triumphofthepast@aol.com wrote:
>
> "Can you give an example of an aspect of cultural [heritage] not
> showing up as a site value somewhere?" (Jeff)
>
> Yes, a shovel.
Try again. What was the value of land before the shovel? What was it
after? What was the value of Egypt before the plow? What was it after?
What was the value of Arizona before irrigation? What was it after?
What was the value of suburbia before cars? What was it after? What was
the value of Cape Canaveral before rocketry? What was it after? See?
> Are there costs that go into the potatoes that are not included in the
> rent? Obviously there are. It is true that the rent reflects the
> fact that the ground is near civilization, where shovels are to be
> had. But I still had to buy the shovel, not to speak of fertilizer,
> etc. The rent alone, distributed, is not enough to buy the potatoes.
Nor should it be.
> The Social Credit dividend is simple. Here are the potatoes, here is
> the money - enough to cover all the costs that went into the potatoes,
> including the rent.
Even without the surplus cash or credit of SC, there can easily be
enough money to represent the exchange value of all goods and services
in exchange. Just legalize competing currencies. The bigger problem is
too much excess cash creating inflation.
> The rent TODAY, on the other hand, constitutes cost of a FUTURE crop.
Sort of. More precisely, it's how much people are willing to spend to
call some site theirs, based on anticipated value, whether from a crop
or a mine or a deep harbor or simply a lovely view.
> You said, 'Rent is a natural phenomenon'; but there's nothing natural
> about saying the cost of a future crop increases because today's crop
> was good.
What's natural is the market. Bidding on land is a market process.
> to ask production to do double-duty as our money-distributing machine
> is to hamstring it as far as its real purpose goes.
Good point. Issue any needed new notes to newcomers, who'll consume
then produce.
> it is a mistake to make the Dividend, whose purpose is to distribute
> goods already available,
That's one "dividend", but the full array of income - wages,
"interests" (returns on physical capital, not financial capital), and a
share of "rent" (Earth's worth) - can do the job splendidly.
> conditional on someone paying us rent-costs for future production.
Everyone pay rent for excluding others, sometimes based on expected
output (as you explained above), sometimes on the mere anticipated
psychic joy of a spectacular view.
> P.S. You didn't take me up on my offer of a 20-page introductory
> piece on social credit. Is that because you are not interested?
It's because your explanations engage me while the longer piece is an
unknown quantity. Some minds learn best engaged in exchange of ideas.
Mine is one of them.
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.
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message