| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] land, money | | Date: | Monday, March 20, 2006 12:25:01 (-0800) | | From: | Jeffery Smith <jjs @.........org>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3679 (written by thomsonhiyu) |
On Mar 20, 2006, at 8:46 AM, thomsonhiyu wrote:
>
> 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?
As you say, the value is what one is willing to pay for something. That
payment can be a price, a lease, a tax, a dues, a use fee, etc. As
noted, a community can use the Toronto method of self-assessment.
> 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'.
SC is not alone in regarding money as such. So does community currency.
It's why they issue new notes to consumers, not producers, to spend
into circulation.
> 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,
Hong Kong exists on public land. There, private individual (or family
or corporate) owners of buildings had total security - until
reunification. In most American cities, the port district is public
land. Again, building owners there enjoy complete security. Still, what
makes anyone's ownership of any site "proper", and thus "property"?
> (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.
Without a fair and free market, how? I drive, and would prefer some
other option not offered in this tilted market.
> the 'public' has a bad habit of clamouring after things they've been
> conditioned to consider necessities; like 'jobs', for instance.
Hear, hear!
> "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
Paying with what we're doing would be using money as claim checks.
Paying with what we promise to do would be using money as promissory
notes - product money vs promise money. The latter, more evolved,
allows more economic flexibility and greater output and more freedom
from economic necessities. Hence community currencies.
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