Hopefully Wally,
or Michael, or someone more qualified to reply to some of your points than I am
will come in on this Keith. For the
moment, I’ll just add some comments in ‘red’ below what you’ve
written.
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.
I believe that’s
how they have to be considered, Keith.If
I recall correctly, the proposals from “The Land For The
(Chosen) People Racket”, deal primarily with British
agricultural or rural lands.Which were
under threat of a well-planned ‘State’ imposed usurption
and centralisation throughout, and immediately after, the Second World War .Douglas, in the
non-quoted, additional body of that text, explains the difference between the
ancient ‘English’ and ‘Scottish’ restrictions on land
use. With the former stating only what ‘can’
be done on a certain piece of property, and the latter, only what ‘can’t’.
We, in this country, unfortunately follow
the ‘English’ method. Resulting
in all our never ending ‘zoning’ laws, “Official Community
Plans”, and a plethora of other ‘land use’ restrictions.Generally imposed with little regard to the wishes of those who occupy
the properties concerned, or their immediate neighbours.And
even if they do, they’re restrictions that, for the most part, anyone
with sufficient ‘capital’ behind them can have swept aside by the ‘powers-that-be’
in any ‘public hearing’ without missing a beat in their march
towards building the newest shopping mall, or big box retailer exactly where
they want to put it.
.You’ve no doubt heard of the ‘‘AgriculturalLand Reserve Act” here in BC.A piece of misguided ,
but well-intended legislation designed by BC’s first NDP administration
to try to keep urban bordering ‘farmland’ from being paved over for
development. And lost
forever to agriculture.A ‘Soils Preservation Act’,
calling for the relocation of arable topsoil, and it’s replacement with
gravel or other non-arable material before any ‘development’ could
proceed could’ve far more effectively accomplished the same thing.
But the Provincial NDP likened the FraserRiver Delta bordering Greater Vancouver to the ancient delta lands of the River Nile.Or Vietnam’s Mekong delta area.Places
where an annual flood deposited another, fresh layer of upstream silt, and
replenished the soil. The FraserRiver Delta is all well dyked.It hasn’t flooded, or
had any fresh soil deposited on it from upstream for generations. The
copious amount of silt that comes down the Fraser ends up out in the middle of
the Straits of Georgia. To
protect this farmland, which farmers were struggling to survive on growing
anything, the ALR froze all potential ‘farmland’, all over the Province.Including many rural rock piles where even a
good crop of lovingly tended ‘‘BC bud” would have a hard time
flourishing.And the price of non-ALR rural real estate
went ballistic as a result.All the better for those of the ‘socialist’
persuasion.They got to exact more ‘taxes’
on this increase in ‘value’.And made it that much more difficult for the ‘independent’
producer to stay on ‘his’ land.
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?
I don’t think in Canada, where we are taking in, of necessity we are
told, a considerable number of new immigrants each year, any Social Crediters would be advocating ‘population control’,
i.e., decreasing the birthrate.I think
the question is just ‘why’ is there the movement of people from
rural to urban environments? Personally,
I believe if we had the ‘Social Credit’ corrections in place a lot
of that trend would be arrested, and possibly reversed.And we’d have a far better, more
environmentally sound, society for it.“The
solution to pollution is dilution”
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?
I’ll leave that
one for Wally.It’s late, I’ve got to work tomorrow.
Keith Wilde
Joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
