|Subject:||[socialcredit] the shovel|
|Date:||Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:19:59 (EST)|
|From:||Triumphofthepast <Triumphofthepast @...com>
"What was the value of land before the shovel? What was it after?" (Jeff)
I chose such an obvious example on purpose. The CONTEXT was that land is only one factor of production and therefore rent is only one cost of production (a statement you assent to lower down when you agree the rent will not buy the potatoes). The rent and the tool-cost are separate, not overlapping, costs. You may be able to increase my cost down the road by charging me a higher rent because I dug the ground, but you will not, by so doing, erase my tool-cost. Therefore, only by counting both can you calculate the correct Dividend, the full share of society's surplus.
"The dividend can just divide up society's surplus." (3/17)
Yes. A surplus can be divided simply by dividing it. It doesn't make sense to say that we can't consume a surplus except by incurring further cost.
"The full array of income - wages, "interests" (returns on physical capital), and a share of "rent" can do the job [distribute goods already available] splendidly."
Alas, no. This is where social credit could teach you something. Nor is "Just legalize competing currencies" the answer.
"or simply a lovely view"
That is to say, land can also be a consumer good, so you must count it's rent-price when you calculate your free Dividend.