Good post Harry.    Only one thing.    Your comment about governments and
“1001 incidents” of bungling does not suggest a solution.    It’s the
decadent private sector that pollutes the public sector with too much money
for faux projects and wastefulness called incorrectly “competition.”
Government  loss of funds in R and D in Science and the Humanities is
minimal when compared to the waste of dollars in the business wars that we
call the marketplace.   The only thing the private sector does better thus
far has been distribution but the speed of information is cutting seriously
into that advantage.      The problem is a poor systemic understanding of
how to balance vertical and horizontal management structures.    We tend to
have one or the other but are incapable of fusing the two into a serious
efficiency that is good for all and based in plenty rather than scarcity.
In the past, vertical structures were inefficient and had to be
authoritarian to sustain  because the control of information was poor due to
complexity and human limitation.    In the past the horizontal management
structures, like private sector capitalism, won the day in distribution of
goods and individual motivation based in scarcity and personal economic
danger.    I believe we are beginning to imagine another possibility.   

 

With computers, and the internet, we have a new way of looking at all of the
concepts of distribution, including the concepts of what can be truly owned.
In the old format the vertical structure was necessary as a balance to the
horizontal for the sustenance of “quality” and “standards.”    The old
economy was based on a warlike competition (“kill the competition” Barron’s
Economics),  and the idealization of scarcity as economic energy.    I
believe this will have to change.     We will have to give up the lie that
the market creates quality.    In truth it does that for one group, a little
for a second and not at all for those on the bottom.    The market requires
losers.    The market only creates quality if mass production has enough
scarcity to justify its creation.    If not, then it isn’t created and the
market fails.     Ask all of the men and women with a rare disease where
there is not enough market to “justify” paying for the research for a cure.
Or ask all of the men and women with genital herpes or the men with prostate
cancer who are not touched by the standard treatments.    The standard
treatments reach enough people that further research is simply “not
economic” and we get a large portion of the population suffering in misery
as well as birth defects for the children of such parents of a “disease of
choice”.   (meaning sexual or anal)    In my fifty years of teaching I have
seen people die from such market logic on more than one occasion.   Some of
them were fantastic young artists like the great American baritone William
Parker.   Our “Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau”.     It’s all about scarcity and
“cost effect” which in my mind is simply immoral.  


Another example is “energy.”    Everyone says that solar power is too
expensive when the truth is the reverse.    Sunlight, like sand on the
beach, is free.    It isn’t economical, i.e. productive, because there’s too
much of it to make it worth using.    Only communists (extreme vertical
authoritarian governmental structures)  will make the investment to create a
cheap solar cell.    Once it’s made it makes all of the jobs and money
created by the scarcity of energy, redundant.     It’s so cheap as to be
un-economical.   It’s also a true Libertarian’s dream of sustainability
apart from their neighbor unless they want to hook into the grid.    You can
choose cheap energy but not with Exxon, Mobil or BP.     These companies
have to prove the scarcity by drilling in such dangerous places as the Gulf
of Mexico miles down in spongy rock or in the formidible Bering Sea off
Alaska or they have to destroy the Catskill mountains in order for America
to drive their cars.     Energy companies make their money on scarcity and
your having no choice available to you.     It’s possible that Henry George
will rise again as these things are examined.     It is also possible that a
new way of thinking will emerge that makes all of the past seem too
hopelessly rigid to survive.     

 

The Net is horizontal but the vertical aspect of the internet, (standards
and their enforcement) is hopelessly mired in our cultural stereotypes.
We are afraid of the vertical systems as,  the people who benefitted from
them in the old Soviet System and escaped, are as well.     Yet the
educational level of the serfs coming to America in the 19th century was
higher than our own citizen’s educational level today relative to the
science and culture of the day.    The Soviet Émigrés win the jobs hands
down when competing against “market trained” American students, in every
sector that I’ve looked at,  from computer technology to opera singing.     

 

The teaching of “Form-al” education has to return but the forms will be far
more sophisticated than the ways of talking we are currently using.
Robotics alone will require a larger human sensorium, if humans are to
compete, and the complexity of the information rich world will create a
whole new child taught by this new information rich environment.    But most
of all we will have to learn to build our economics on an environment of
plenty rather than scarcity and human whim. 

 

I find this hopeful,

 

REH 

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1:38 PM
To: 'Keith Hudson'; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] 28% homeowners owe more on mortgage than home
worth

 

Not entirely, Keith.

 

The biofuels madness reminds me that “Those whom the Gods would destroy  .
.  .  .  .”

 

If the US returned the corn fields to food, the global corn food crop would
increase by 14%.

 

Subsidies and other government largesse are responsible for rising farm
land-values. I remember the Duke of Westminster got 3 million pounds over 10
years, but perhaps he needed the money.  

 

The Economist had a bit about the UK subsidies to “farms”. Apparently land
is acquired not to grow things but to apply for a subsidy and there is a
brisk trade in drinking from the cash cow.

 

In the US farm subsidies run into the billions. The Sugar quota alone which
quietly makes Americans pay 2-3 times the world price of sugar has raised
land-values in the north-east so high that farmers can’t afford land to grow
soya (which is desperately needed).

 

The idiots grow subsidized rice in California’s central valley where summer
temperatures reach the 100’s. One scientist calculated that the water lost
to evaporation was sufficient to supply all the water needs of the city of
Los Angeles. Meantime, US rice undercuts unsubsidized rice from elsewhere
and probably puts real farmers out of business.

 

The farmers of the central valley get artificially cheap water through their
government granted “water rights”. We pay some 200-300 times as much for
water as they do.

 

Their artificially cheap water is why, as you drive through the central
valley in the hot summer, you see irrigation machines spraying water through
the air, rather than using drip irrigation or something more economical.

 

This points to the difference between us over Malthusianism. You adopt the
reasonable view that we are banging against the limits of survivability. I
think that if the 1,001 instances of government bungling were ended we would
still have a very large cushion between us and starvation and its interim
shortages.

 

Proper use of the land is essential to our survival and completely changing
the allocation of resources over to the free market would work wonders.
However, land doesn’t have a free market. 

 

The idea of collecting land-values has, as a principal effect, the turning
over of land to the control of the free market price mechanism. Proper
allocation of land by the free market can efficiently take place while the
controlled economy people are still choosing a committee chairman.

 

At the moment, across the globe, land is beset by monopoly ownership,
speculation, hoarding, and vicious rents that keep generations of peasants
in thralldom, along with its corollary – low production and little
innovation. The community collection of land-rent would end this tragic
situation.

 

However, if one merely looks at the consequences of the present mess, it is
easy to become a Malthusian (with its complete lack of any solution other
than megadeaths).

 

As you know, I’ve suggested it would be “Better to collect Rent and throw it
in the sea, than not collect it at all.”

 

Although the Rent could be used to support the infrastructure of the city
with no taxation – a pretty good thought – much more important are the
economic consequences of the collection.

 

So, think less of the income from Rent collection and more about the effect
it will have on our economic well-being.

 

Harry

 

******************************

Henry George School of Los Angeles

Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

(818) 352-4141

******************************

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:49 AM
To: [email protected]; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,
EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] 28% homeowners owe more on mortgage than home
worth

 

Harry,

At 02:26 19/05/2011, you wrote:




It’s land values falling that is responsible for the drop, not “home
values”.
 
Harry


True, but not quite. At present, good agricultural land is going up in value
because of world over-population and the growing of biofuels. In fact, if
you were to do a cross-sectional walk through a major city in most advanced
countries, land price would drop as you entered the suburbs and proceed
through most parts of the city where the bulk of the population live. Land
prices would then rise steeply as you came to small pockets in some
living/retailing/restaurant/office parts of the inner city where the rich
spend most of their time. This is where I strongly agree with you Georgists.
We won't have any sensible system of taxation until land values are directly
taxed. The rich -- with the notable exception of Warren Buffet! -- always
want to reflect their wealth in the precise locations where they live and
work. Even rich criminals with incomes that are unknown to the tax
authorities need to show their status publicly. Rich people know that they
already pay over the odds when they buy goods and services, so even they
wouldn't want to try and evade land taxation by living in a hovel because it
would reduce their status. Instead, and motivated by popular envy, we have
become stuck in a system of personal taxation which is punitive to the
entrepreneurial (and also to the middle-class family man these days) and
easily avoidable by the very rich who employ clever accountants and lawyers.


Keith




 
******************************
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042
(818) 352-4141
******************************
 
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of D and N
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 7:35 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: [Futurework] 28% homeowners owe more on mortgage than home worth
 
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42955097

CNBC - U.S. home values fell in the first quarter at the fastest rate since
late 2008, real estate data firm Zillow said on Monday, suggesting that a
bottom will not be seen until 2012 at the earliest.

Zillow said its home value index fell 3 percent in the first three months of
the year from the previous quarter, and was down 8.2 percent year-over-year.

The number of homeowners under water­ or, those who owe more on the mortgage
than their house is currently worth ­amounted to 28.4 percent of
single-family homeowners, representing a peak since Zillow began calculating
the data in 2009. 

.....  Almost all of the 132 markets covered by Zillow saw home value
declines. Only Fort Myers in Florida, Champaign-Urbana in Illinois, and
Honolulu, Hawaii, managed quarterly increases. 
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/05/
  

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to