|
That site values increase under current systems is
an undeniable, empirical fact. Just as undeniable is that the owners have
usually done very little directly to 'earn' that increased value. Thus the
appeal of LVT.
Joe has argued persuasively, however, that LVT can
be quite unfair to persons trying to operate a business on land that was
formerly not of great interest to land speculators. And he has provided
texts from Douglas that suggest some more complicated approaches to the problem
of changing site value. I'm not confident that I have understood them well, but
would like to see them considered in relation to cultural heritage,
dividends and compensated price.
Cultural heritage, understood primarily as
technological advance, makes a contribution to increasing site values. So,
of course, does increasing human population and migration from places of lower
site value to urban areas. I have not perceived that Social Credit writers
are advocates of population control, so assume that when the collective value of
land in the nation rises it is a reflection of cultural heritage--an increment
of national wealth that is not attributable to identifiable individual efforts
and should therefore be shared equitably. How is that to be
done?
Wally's message from yesterday seems to suggest
that when the consumer dividend and compensated price rebate are "spent",
the effect is to cancel initial extensions of credit (to finance new production)
and that there is consequently no surplus with which to inflate prices
(especially of land, for purposes of this discussion). The national accounting
and credit authority are assumed to control the quantity of credit and money in
circulation, and to thereby maintain a stable price
level. But is that sufficient to inhibit the
dynamics of population movement and the consequent price pressure on land
locations?
Keith Wilde
| 
Between Douglas an
Reply to this message
