Some comments in ‘red’
(Joe wrote:- ) [Owners can't profit] unless he’s out to
‘speculate’ himself, and
to sell his ‘property’ instead of his ‘products’.
(Jeff replied:- )That's one way, but not the
only way. The owner could instead simply put the site to profitable use.
) But that’s not either always, or even often, possible. It takes ‘time’ for things to
happen. The ‘owner’ of a
piece of property of which only a ‘part’ is currently used for his particular
industrial or business purpose may be certain that he is going to need the use of
all of it in the future if his venture is successful and needs to expand.
If he were to sell or lease the
part he doesn’t need currently ~ which he may well do if there is, which
there often is not, someone who wants to buy or lease it for some other purpose
~ he has possibly restricted his business’s ability to ‘grow’
in years to come. When, if it were
subsequently successful, that might be the appropriate thing to do.
If he found the need arose in the
future to have more land, he’d have to re-purchase what he’d sold,
or wait for the lease to expire. Or re-locate entirely to a larger site. ALL at a considerable COST
to the ‘public’. From
whom ALL his expenditures are going to have to be ultimately recovered in the ‘prices’
of whatever he is producing or selling. And possibly, more indirectly, in several other ways.
There are most certainly many
instances where just such occurrences happen, particularly in large cities.
In the case of my two half acre
lots, I would’ve welcomed the opportunity to rent, lease, or even
possibly sell them to someone who wanted to put them to profitable use. The revenue from the first two options I
could’ve used to offset the ever increasing Property Tax I’ve been
charged on them. I’ve had no
offers. Nor from anyone wanting to buy
them and pay me even the assessed value the ‘government’ says they’re
(Joe continues:- ) Deal with the ‘cause’ of the
problem ~ the ability to ‘speculate’ the way it’s currently done ~ by
taking the profit out of the ‘witholding’
for purely ‘speculatative’ purposes.
(Jeff replies:- ) Hear, hear! And the cause is
our failure to distinguish between values generated individually vs. socially.
) The problem isn’t the measurement of ‘values’ by means of ‘money’,
no matter how they’re generated.
The only ‘value’ money can ‘measure’ is its own. $ 1 = 4 quarters =10 dimes = 20 nickels = 100
pennies. ‘Money’ is, or should properly be, primarily an ‘order’
system. Not a ‘value measurement’
system. It is, or should be, ‘effective demand’ for goods and
(Joe continues:- ) It isn’t hard to do, and we do not have
to have any LVT or other tax on land to do it.
(Jeff replies:- ) But land dues are the
simplest way, as experience shows. Anything else is more difficult, lacking
) A ‘land due’, to any business is simply another financial ‘cost’
of production which
will have to be included and fully recovered in the ‘price’ of that production.
the business is not to take a loss, or, over time, is able to continue to
remain in business at all.
The ‘land due’ will ultimately
be paid by the ‘public’, if it can be paid, since the purpose of ‘Production’
is ‘Consumption’. “Production”, of itself, won’t
pay it. And only ‘Consumers’
~ you and I, and everyone else, CONSUME. And by so doing, in paying over ‘money’
for our purchases, can liquidate those ‘financially accounted for’ COSTS
To say that the some, or even
all, of these ‘land dues’ collected will be paid out to CONSUMERS
as ‘dividends’ does not properly address what causes a discrepancy
between the ‘rates of flow’ of overall COSTS and overall INCOMES in
any given period. It is merely another manifestation of the demonstrable
fallacy that COSTS=INCOMES in a modern ‘creditary’
economy where there is ongoing ‘labour displacemnet’.
Or can be made to do so by this kind of ‘re-distribution’.
(Joe continues:- ) Weyerhaeuser Company is one of your
nation’s largest private land owners. The US National Forest lands,
under ‘public’ ownership, hold around 193 million acres!
Who’s the bigger ‘excluder’?
(Jeff replies:- ) Weyerhaeuser.
does not keep Weyerhaeuser out of public forests, but Weyerhaeuser does keep
Americans out of its forests.
) Yes, where there are safety concerns, both for Weyerhaeuser workers, (during ‘hunting
season’, for instance), and for the ‘public’, (entering into
an area where active logging or log hauling operations are being conducted),
and in times where there is a high risk of forest fire, etc., Weyerhaeuser does ‘exclude’ the
public from its lands. At other times
there are often no such ‘exclusions’, and the public has had access
for recreational and other purposes, over the roads Weyco
constructed, to areas of the ‘back
country’ they’d never otherwise be able to get to.
And, to an extent, the U S DOES
keep Weyerhaeuser and other ‘large’ forest companies out of its
forests. More so now
than ever. But in times past,
times of greater sanity, when every sale
of ‘public’ timber didn’t result in an expensive, drawn out Court-room
battle only some firm the size of Weyco could afford
to contest, there were more sensible ‘exclusions’. Ever
hear of the ‘Small Business Set-Asides’? Public timber sales in the
National Forests that were only open to small firms, from which the ‘giants’
were excluded? Many small firms, and communities, were able to ‘sensibly’
sustain themselves using forest resources secured by these ‘set-asides’
And you do still have, though
probably watered down greatly in recent decades under the spurious excuse that
America must be able to ‘compete globally’, some very signifigant ‘Anti-Trust’ legislation available
to try to level the playing field between ‘big’ and ‘small’
operators. One such recent action under those laws resulted in Weyco being penalized severely for what amounted to ‘predatory-pricing’
in trying to ‘monopolize’ the market for red alder lumber.
(Joe continues: -) It pays its
‘shareholders’ a dividend every quarter, and Uncle Sam, States, Counties,
and Municipalities a hefty amount of various taxes.
(Jeff replies:- ) Hefty?
Got any figures?
) Should be in their financials on their website. I have seen a breakdown of the figures, but I
don’t have it at hand. It’s ‘hefty’.
(Joe continues:- ) What do ‘your’ National Forest
lands ‘pay’ to their ‘shareholders’?
(Jeff replies:- ) Some human beings are
simple, some complex. Some consider only money
payment. Some consider tranquility payment enough.
) Ah, but where would be the ‘tranquility’ if there wasn’t ‘exclusion’? Would John Muir have been able to appreciate
the ‘tranquility’ of a ‘wilderness’ like the Hetch Hetchy Valley if
three-quarters of San Francisco’s population had been out there standing
along side him?
) Why would a ‘speculator’, who is interested in getting the
‘value’ of his land up, (so
he can sell at a profit), want to make it hard for entrepreneurial owners to
‘invest’ and make a buck, thereby increasing the
‘value’ of their land as well as his?
(Jeff replies:- ) He doesn't want to make it
hard. About that, he doesn't care. He's landbanking,
as you noted above, waiting to sell when the price meets his expectations and
timing it to both maximize and even out cash flow.
) All the more reason to take a look at Douglas’s ideas.
(Jeff continues:- )…… as long as
you discount real-world examples, none of which
exist for Social Credit, dozens of which exist for LVT.
) Like Hong Kong, maybe? Where the
(Jeff replies:-) At least you acknowledge that
the challenge of production was met.
) ‘Production’ is hardly relevant in regards to Hong Kong in its ‘colonial’
days. It was, and is, primarily a
FINANCIAL centre. The ‘big bucks’ weren’t in making ‘things’
there, (though many things were made there), they were in making ‘money’
there. Buy low, in a mainland China starved for foreign exchange,
and sell high, to Westerners who thought they were getting a bargain. (And they
were, but not nearly as good a one as those in Hong Kong had got. And would get, for that
foreign exchange spent on some ‘high-priced’ western necessities,
to be sold for a still higher price in ‘goods’ from China. HK, fundamentally, was a bloated ‘parasite’,
living off its ‘dirt poor’ (in a ‘financial’ sense ~ where
things are often reversed), neighbour. I’ve
never had any use for ‘Communism’ or Communists, but if they were
to pack some of the worst examples of individual human beings
that kind of ‘parasitism’
engendered in Hong Kong off to a ‘work
camp’ for awhile, where they might learn the ‘dignity’ of a
type of labour they’ve never done, it might’ve done their ‘attitudes’
a world of good!