| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Between Douglas and George | | Date: | Sunday, April 16, 2006 21:26:58 (-0700) | | From: | Jeffery Smith <jjs @.........org>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3842 (written by thomsonhiyu) |
On Apr 16, 2006, at 3:32 PM, thomsonhiyu wrote:
>
> he would still have to ‘rent’ a larger site than he immediately needs
> to avoid moving, and it would still go ‘to waste’ until he needed it.
> Alternatively, he’d be forced to relocate to ‘rent’ another site that
> was larger and available. Which would mean all that he’d built up,
> facilities which might be quite amenable to ‘expansion’, would have to
> be torn down and re-located. All at a considerable COST to the public.
Not necessarily. He could go broke. Anyway, either the use of land
should stay fixed to please someone who wants it for himself for all
time, or its use should reflect the needs of society as a whole,
avoiding wastage. Let the freeD market decide.
> (Joe replies:- ) “All”, Jeff? That’s an “all” encompassing
> assertion. The ‘core’ lands that Weyerhaeuser acquired in the US were
> purchased from the Northern Pacific Railroad for $ 6 per acre, that
> railroad having been earlier granted them by the US government.
About 100 years ago, Oregon had four guys in Congress - two in jail,
one indicted, one just lucky. The corruption between politicians,
railroads, and timber was that thick - old boy network, family ties,
even one guy in all three roles.
> What Weyerhaeuser paid was the going price for such timber lands at
> the dawn of the 20th Century.
Why defend the exploiter instead of the exploitee?
> it’s always struck me as being rather strange that none of these
> countries’ former nationals seem to have any desire whatsoever to ‘go
> back home’ to live.
Point was, Finland has forests. Finland also has forest land taxes.
Finland also has less forest exploitation. Is Finland perfect? is
anywhere perfect? No. Can you learn from others' successes? Why not?
> What CAUSES this ‘trend to monopoly, WHY they and other firms (feel
> they) HAVE (no other choice but) to go that way, is what we should be
> concerned with. And that is where ‘Social Credit’, as a ‘policy’
> comes in.
Any real world examples? Statistically, you can correlate failure to
recover natural rents with concentration of land ownership. And vice
versa.
> ‘Sanctioning’ a ‘Government’ is already difficult, and if it were to
> become the ‘absolute monopolist’, would be all but impossible.
Why either or, black or white? Reality is more complex. Yet simple in
one way. If the bottom is off, everything on top of it will be, too. At
the bottom, we fail to share natural values.
SMITH, Jeffery J., President, Forum on Geonomics
7536 SE Milwaukie Av, Portland Oregon 97202 USA
503/232-1337; jjs@geonomics.org; www.geonomics.org
Share Earth's worth to prosper and conserve.
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message