Harry,
I was vaguely aware of Churchill's speech (I think you've mentioned this
years ago) but had never read it. It is certainly powerful stuff.
However, as I've already said, I agree with the Georgist position on taxing
land. Someone who can afford a grand house and an extensive estate -- and
thus accorded great status by the rest of us (left-wingers often being even
more sycophantic to wealthy people than right-wingers) -- can not only
afford to pay high taxes but can be visibly seen to be pulling their weight
in paying for government.
What's so sad about Churchill's speech is that, although it helped to
reduce the power of the House of Lords a century ago, large land-owners
still have many privileges (usually given to them by sycophantic
politicians) which means that they and their families are able to hang onto
their wealth long after their true abilities have declined to the norm (by
the usual process of genetic mixing every generation). Strictly speaking,
land ownership is not a perpetual monopoly but it's certainly the
longest-acting. The latest monopoly that's presently inflicted on us -- the
arcane financial practices of banks -- will soon be cracked open when
governmental fiat currencies finally collapse. The two major ones -- the
dollar and the euro, with or without hyperinflation -- are fair galloping
towards it already.
In your final advanced years, Harry, I think you ought to give thought to
placing Innovation in your economic pantheon. Curiously, Innovation stands
to Land, Labour and Capital in rather the same way as Time stands to the
three spatial dimensions. A physical event can be located precisely in 3-D
but to make it real (as real as we can know it, anyway) it needs an instant
of time to be specified. Similarly, Land, Labour and Capital can all be
measured in terms of currency whereas Innovation can't always be (the major
ones often being given away). Yet it's only Innovation which give the
impetus for sudden change between the economic relationships of Land,
Labour and Capital.
There you are Harry -- a new Hudson hypothesis for you! From one addled
brain to another. . . .
Keith
At 19:22 09/09/2010 -0700, you wrote:
Keith,
Before I get to your points. I thought you might like to see Churchills
speech before WWI during the land-value tax battles that led to the ending
of the power of the House of Lords.
Someone posted a bit of it and I thought you would be interested in the
Churchillian discussion of the Land Question. As a postscript, after WWII
during the Town and Country Planning Act Hugh Dalton smiled at Churchill
and said I seem to remember the Honorable Member singing the Land Song
(God gave the land to the people).
The old man staggered to his feet and said I shall sing it again.
There is no record of Churchill again bursting into song.
Heres Churchill at his best.
Harry
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Land differs from all other forms of property. It is quite true that the
land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far
the greatest of monopolies -is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the
mother of all other forms of monopoly. It is quite true
that unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or
undeserved profit
which individuals are able to secure; but it is the principal
form of unearned increment which is derived from processes which are not
merely not beneficial, but which are positively detrimental to the general
public.
Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original
source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed
in geographical position -land, I say, differs from
all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions.
Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of our monopolist
opponents to prove that other forms of property and increment are
exactly the same and are similar in all respects to the unearned
increment in land.
They talk to us of the increased profits of a doctor or a lawyer from
the growth of population in the towns in which they live. They talk to
us of the profits of a railway through a greater
degree of wealth and activity in the districts through which it runs.
They tell us of the profits which are derived from a rise in stocks and
shares, and even of those which are sometimes derived from the sale of
pictures and works of art, and they ask us, as if it were the
only complaint, 'Ought not all these other forms to be
taxed too?' Misleading analogies. But see how misleading and false all
these analogies are.
The windfalls which people with artistic gifts are able from time to time
to derive from the sale of a picture - from a
Vandyke or a Holbein - may here and there be very considerable.
But Pictures do not get in anybody's way. They do not lay a toll on
anybody's labour; they do not touch enterprise and production at any
point; they do not affect any of the creative processes upon
which the material well-being of millions depends; and if a rise in
stocks and shares confers profits
on the fortunate holders far beyond what they expected, or indeed,
deserved, nevertheless, that profit has not been reaped by withholding
from the community the land which it
needs, but, on the contrary, apart from mere gambling, it has been
reaped by supplying industry with the capital without which it could not
be carried on.
If the railway makes greater profits, it is usually because it carries
more goods and more passengers. If a doctor or a lawyer enjoys a better
practice, it is because the doctor
attends more patients and more exacting patients, and because the
lawyer pleads more suits in the courts and more important suits.
At every stage the doctor or the lawyer is giving service in return for
his fees, and if the service is too poor or the fees are too high, other
doctors and other lawyers can come freely into competition. There is
constant service, there is constant competition; there
is no monopoly, there is no injury to the public interest, there is
no impediment to the general progress.
UNEARNED INCREMENT.
Fancy comparing these healthy processes with the enrichment which comes
to the landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts or
at the centre of one of our great cities, who watches the busy
population around him making the city larger, richer, more convenient,
more famous every day, and all the while sits still and does nothing.
Roads are made, streets are made, railway services are improved,
electric light burns night into day, electric trams glide
swiftly to and fro, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred
miles off in the mountains - and all the while
the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected
by the labour and at the cost of other people.
Many of the most important are effected at the cost of the municipality
and of the ratepayers. To not one of those improvements does the land
monopolist as a land monopolist contribute, and yet by every one of them
the value of his land is sensibly enhanced.
He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the
general welfare; he contributes nothing even to the process from which
his own enrichment is derived. If the
land were occupied by shops or by dwellings, the municipality at
least would secure the rates upon them in aid of the general fund, but
the land may be unoccupied, undeveloped, it may be what is
called 'ripening' -ripening at the expense of the whole city, of the
whole country, for the unearned increment of its owner.
Roads perhaps may have to be diverted to avoid this forbidden
area. The merchant going to his office, the artisan going to his
work, have to make a detour or pay a tram fare to avoid it.
The citizens are losing their chance of developing the land, the city is
losing its rates, the State is losing its taxes which would have
accrued if the natural development had taken place; and
that share has to be replaced at the expense of
the other ratepayers and taxpayers, and the nation as a whole is
losing in the competition of the world -the hard and growing competition
of the world - both in time and money.
And all the while the land monopolist has only to sit still and watch
complacently his property multiplying in value, sometimes manifold,
without either effort or contribution on his part; and that is justice!
Unearned increment reaped in exact proportion to the dis-service done.
But let us follow the process a little further. The population of
the city grows and grows still larger year by year, the congestion in the
poorer quarters becomes acute, rents and rates rise hand in hand, and
thousands of families are crowded into one-roomed tenements. There are
120,000 persons living in one-roomed tenements in Glasgow alone at the
present time.
At last the land becomes ripe for sale - that means that the price is too
tempting to be resisted any longer - and then, and not till then, it is
sold by the yard or by the inch at ten
times, or twenty times, or even fifty times, its agricultural
value, on which alone hitherto it has been rated for the public service.
The greater the population around the land, the greater the injury which
they have sustained by its protracted denial, the more inconvenience
which has been caused to everybody, the more serious the loss in
economic strength and activity, the larger will be the profit of the
landlord when the sale is finally accomplished.
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 6:07 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Cc: Harry Pollard
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: paper on technology manias and gullibility
Harry,
You and I have been writing and arguing with each other ever since the
beginning of Futurework. Try as I might, I have never been able to
understand quite why land has to be so overwhelmingly important. Yes, it's
important -- even very important -- and I think the taxing of (visible)
land value rather than (the declared, but sometimes invisible) income
would be a great step forward.
At 20:02 06/09/2010 -0700, you wrote:
Chris,
We cannot survive without access to land -- one of the three Factors of
Production.
Land, Labour and Capital. Granted, but this still ignores a fourth factor
of production -- innovation -- which you and I have argued about before.
In Henry George's time innovation was going on at such a cracking pace
that it was hardly noticed as particularly important phenomenon. It was
"natural", just like the air we breath. If there'd been economists writing
in the Medieval period they wouldn't have considered land to be "a factor
of production" because it was too obvious. It had no monetary value, it
was not bought or sold, the idea of "renting" land was totally unknown to
them. Labour, too, wouldn't have been considered either because there were
no wages in those days. The Domesday Book of 1086 didn't compute the
wealth of England in terms of money but only acreages, numbers of beasts
and numbers of serfs (slaves) that had been granted to various favourites
of William the Conqueror. Gold, silver and copper were, it's true, losing
their status-only value and becoming currency as a handy form of
exchanging small items (as they were previously in Roman times). But
economists in those days would only have considered Capital -- Wealth and
Power -- as the only factor worth talking about when considering the
"economic system". Land and labour, improtant thought they were, were
merely only ancillaries.
I think the reason why Land loomed so large in Henry George's thinking is
that he as living in a huge continent that was filling up so rapidly with
massive immigration that the struggle between Land and Labour was very
obvious.
The principal characteristic of all land is location. Locations are by their
nature monopolies.
And in Henry George's time, location was important because railways were
being built. But two more characteristics of land turn out to be even more
important than location per se -- though Henry George didn't realize it.
One is the fertility of the top-soil and the other is the resources
underneath the soil. These can't necessarily be assessed for many years
and their original location is not important -- the roads and railways can
be built to them later.
Necessary to the efficient operation of the market price mechanism is no
restriction on the production of goods, and no restriction on movement of
goods. Yet, no more land can be produced -- as said Will Rogers "They ain't
making no more dirt." Also land cannot be moved. We cannot move some Mojave
desert land into downtown Los Angeles to compete with high priced sites.
So the market cannot control land prices as it does with eggs and bacon and
other goods.
But there surely is a market in land just as there is with eggs and bacon.
It is very high in cities because that's where work is to be found, where
young people go in order to find partners, where specialists and
innovators can meet together.
Further land is all taken up. If you found a little bit of
apparently useless land and decided to put up the cabin it is likely that
before long someone would come running up waving a piece of paper.
Behind my previous house in Bath there was a patch of ground -- about 10
acres of forest on a steep hillside -- that no-one owned and no-one wanted
to own because of high costs of maintaining the trees (which could, and
did, sometimes fall on houses below). One chap lived there under a
tarpaulin sheet for a number of years. Few people ever saw him and, if he
was spoken to, he wouldn't reply. He repaired and maintained footpaths
that led through the woods. However, I've just mentioned that just for
interest. It doesn't refute your point.
When land rents and prices rise, the market price mechanism cannot bring
them down by drawing land to the market so the prices keep rising. They
continue to rise until they can go no further. This occurs when any further
increase would leave a wage too small for Labor's survival. At that point,
according to classical theory, the wages of those at the bottom of the wage
pyramid have descended to subsistence level.
Further, as a society progresses and the economy advances, rents and prices
rise to absorb the advance. This is why the poor are always with us.
As land prices move upward year by year, landowners frequently do not bother
to sell or rent out their land. The increase in land value receives better
tax treatment then income and if capital gains taxes can be ended, the
income is not taxed to all.
(The capital gains tax does not really tax capital, it taxes land value but
that is a further discussion.)
This leads to a situation where land cost makes production difficult. It
also leads to empty areas in cities that cause sprawl into the boondocks. It
also deters slum clearance. Landholders with blighted buildings on valuable
land spend as little as possible on them because it would be wasted if they
can make a land sale killing.
The economy moves merrily along, but in fact it is in a continual state of
tension, waiting for a trigger to send it over the brink. Anything might be
a trigger which is why there are so many "causes" of depression.
There is an argument that the land crash occurs every 18 years or so. I do
not altogether agree with it.
The particular problems with the banks are all based on land values. If you
are interested, I will be happy to say a little more about it. Also, how the
fatcats (or your Predators) cash in on it.
I would agree with most of what you have written above. But apart from
implying "greed" (which, I suggest, everyone suffers from, each in his own
way) you haven't really put your finger on it. The real reason is that
because governments got away with printing money so readily in times of
borrowing for warfare then the banks followed suit by departing from
traditional limits of fractional reserves when lending (100% in
Renaissance times and in the earliest "country banks" of early industrial
times) to lesser and lesser reserves -- down to about 2% at the time of
the beginning of the credit-crunch. At any one time a considerable part of
the 98% of the credit money was swimming around as banknotes and digital
currency and very much at the mercy of those who specialized in finance
rather than those engaged in value-adding occupations.
Keith
Harry
********************************
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Box 655
Tujunga CA 9104
818 352-4141
********************************
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[<mailto:[email protected]>mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 2:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: paper on technology manias and gullibility
Harry Pollard wrote:
> The crash wasn't a contrivance of your Predators - whomsoever they may be.
> It was an inevitability, apparently happening every 18 years or so.
Within a boom-bust cycle system, the crash may be "an inevitability" (and
even a cyclic one). But the boom-bust cycle system is not inevitable at all
-- it is made and perpetuated by those who gain from it in every cycle.
Key components of that system are growth bubbles, fiat money and compound
interest.
> About the only policy that would help is to allow land prices to crash.
No. The boom-bust cycle system must be abolished, with its key components.
> There are so many government policies ranging from the potty to the
> disastrous that one cannot easily grasp their damaging consequences.
Depends on one's intelligence...
Chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword
"igve".
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
