| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Between Douglas and George | | Date: | Thursday, April 6, 2006 20:03:10 (-0600) | | From: | Martin Hattersley <hattersleyjm @.........com>
|
Thanks, Keith.
The point I would like to make is that economic history is full of situations
where land was originally community owned and used in common - for instance, the
first nations tribes in Canada - but then became subject to "enclosures" by the
rich and powerful. This left those without their original base of resources
forced to derive their incomes from employment (if they could get it, since sheep
farming took less labour than growing crops), while the rich and powerful enjoyed
rents and returns on their investments. This happened in Elizabethan England, in
Ireland and in Scotland, and was responsible for a great deal of emigration of
the poor and dispossessed from the United Kingdom over a period of several
centuries.
In the nineteenth century, when homesteading was opening up lands in the
Americas, and land was avaliable in Australia, emigrants found now lands on which
to settle - though they often had a real struggle, starting from scratch. Now,
with homestead lands more or less unavailable, those who own land are in a
progressively more favourable position vis a vis the proletariat, who are
generally renters, or owners subject to bank mortgage lending, where the mortgage
charge usually equals the rent otherwise payable.
Production, and incomes therefrom, comes from the use of the three factors of
land, labour and capital. Land has come into the world from the Almighty, and
cornering it deprives the dispossessed of a source of value and income that once
belonged to everyone in the community. To me it seems plain that a mechanism
needs to be devised to give back to those who have been dispossessed the value of
what they have lost. That way, the stress on "full employment" as a desirable
economic goal is lessened.
To me, though, it is doubtful if Douglas's "National Dividend", paid from new
credit creation, would be sufficient to give this amount of compensation. One
alternative (and I am sure that some on this list won't like the idea) would be a
universal basic income paid by a tax on land.
I believe we have two problems here - the land problem and the money problem -
and it is confusing to expect a single remedy to solve both at once.
Martin Hattersley
1970-10123-99 St.,
EDMONTON AB CANADA
Phone (780)423-4081;Fax(780)425-5247
e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Wilde
To: socialcredit
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 4:19 PM
Subject: [socialcredit] Between Douglas and George
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 05/04/2006
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C659B5.20CFF4D0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia size=2>Thanks, Keith.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia size=2>The point I would like to make is that economic
history is full of situations where land was originally community owned and used
in common - for instance, the first nations tribes in Canada - but then became
subject to "enclosures" by the rich and powerful. This left those without
their original base of resources forced to derive their incomes from employment
(if they could get it, since sheep farming took less labour than growing crops),
while the rich and powerful enjoyed rents and returns on their investments. This
happened in Elizabethan England, in Ireland and in Scotland, and was responsible
for a great deal of emigration of the poor and dispossessed from the United
Kingdom over a period of several centuries.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia size=2>In the nineteenth century, when homesteading was
opening up lands in the Americas, and land was avaliable in Australia, emigrants
found now lands on which to settle - though they often had a real struggle,
starting from scratch. Now, with homestead lands more or less unavailable, those
who own land are in a progressively more favourable position vis a vis the
proletariat, who are generally renters, or owners subject to bank mortgage
lending, where the mortgage charge usually equals the rent otherwise
payable.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia size=2>Production, and incomes therefrom, comes
from the use of the three factors of land, labour and capital. Land has come
into the world from the Almighty, and cornering it deprives the dispossessed of
a source of value and income that once belonged to everyone in the community. To
me it seems plain that a mechanism needs to be devised to give back to those who
have been dispossessed the value of what they have lost. That way, the stress on
"full employment" as a desirable economic goal is lessened.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia size=2>To me, though, it is doubtful if Douglas's
"National Dividend", paid from new credit creation, would be sufficient to give
this amount of compensation. One alternative (and I am sure that some on this
list won't like the idea) would be a universal basic income paid by a tax on
land. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia size=2>I believe we have two problems here - the land
problem and the money problem - and it is confusing to expect a single remedy to
solve both at once.</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Martin Hattersley<BR>1970-10123-99 St., <BR>EDMONTON AB CANADA<BR>Phone
(780)423-4081;Fax(780)425-5247<BR>e-mail: <A
href="mailto:hattersleyjm@interbaun.com">hattersleyjm@interbaun.com</A></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
#000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=nschwartz@cogeco.ca href="mailto:nschwartz@cogeco.ca">Keith Wilde</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=socialcredit@elistas.com
href="mailto:socialcredit@elistas.com">socialcredit</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 06, 2006 4:19
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [socialcredit] Between Douglas
and George</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT> <FONT face=Arial size=2>But is that sufficient to
inhibit the dynamics of population movement and the consequent
price pressure on land locations?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Keith Wilde</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<P><PRE>---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
<P></P></PRE>
<P>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG Free
Edition.<BR>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date:
05/04/2006<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C659B5.20CFF4D0--
--=======AVGMAIL-4435CB72394D======Content-Type: text/plain; x-avgÎrt;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Description: "AVG certification"
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 05/04/2006
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message