----- Original Message -----
From: William B. Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:32
AM
Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Wants critical
comment--Keith reads Zarlenga
>>>>>>>>>those old
conspiracy theory
diatribes<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Because they are written by amateurs without editors.
> And that does create a problem for the book in that
> it will inhibit its selection for purchase by
> libraries with limited budgets. It doesn't have the
> "appearance" of scholarship, which is all that seems
> to count nowadays in becoming "journal" articles or
> shelved by "research" libraries. The substance (or
> lack thereof) behind the slick appearance is
> irrelevant.
>
> Because they are written by amateurs without editors.
> And that does create a problem for the book in that
> it will inhibit its selection for purchase by
> libraries with limited budgets. It doesn't have the
> "appearance" of scholarship, which is all that seems
> to count nowadays in becoming "journal" articles or
> shelved by "research" libraries. The substance (or
> lack thereof) behind the slick appearance is
> irrelevant.
The use of emphases in Lost Science is not
so blatant as to be offensive--to me. But it does suffer from not having a more
rigorous edit, and that is one of the things that makes me skeptical about your
Georgeist theory. If they are behind it, and have so much money, why
didn't they spring for some more help on the editing?
>>>>>>>>>> It was the "single tax" on land not improvements on land. A vacant parcel of
> land identical and adjacent to a parcel upon which has been erected a one hundred story office tower
> would be taxed at nearly the same rate as the parcel with the office tower. The office tower itself being
> an improvement wouldn't be taxed.<<<<<<<<<<<
Yes, that is my understanding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My problem
with Georgism is
> its complete indifference to the financial aspect to
> the situation.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> its complete indifference to the financial aspect to
> the situation.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I don't understand what you mean by "the financial
aspect".
>>>>>>>>>>
Especially in the nineteenth century
> when George wrote it was a diversion from the hotly
> contested "money question" in a country where plenty
> of free land was still available and that land
> already titled was easily purchased.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> when George wrote it was a diversion from the hotly
> contested "money question" in a country where plenty
> of free land was still available and that land
> already titled was easily purchased.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The great railway land grants were made by end of
Civil War and Union Pacific was completed the year George had his "vision".
Sufficient to protest monopoly.
>>>>>>>>>>> That "diversion" may
well have been intentional. At any rate, the movement had a great
deal of financial
success if not political success. One can only speculate as to the reasons why. <<<<<<<<<<<
success if not political success. One can only speculate as to the reasons why. <<<<<<<<<<<
Do you mean the single tax movement or the
"free silver" and greenback issues? Was "single tax" considered to be part
of the general Populist movement? (OK, I see
you have answered this below.)
>>>>>>>>> ***]I have
never been aware of its connection to the
> Populist silver campaign or to the greenbacker theme
> (which, by the way, seems to be endorsed by at least
> some Social Crediters). Why is it that the Georgists
> are rich? [***
>
> The connection is that they opposed the greenbackers
> and populists. Yes, the majority of latter day
> social crediters appear to be greenbackers in that
> they want government to be the monopoly source of
> money and that it is printed and "spent" into
> circulation for government projects. They are
> therefore in opposition to Douglas who would pay
> dividends directly to people, allowing people and not
> government to spend the money into circulation
> preserving the system of free enterprise and personal
> sovereignty. It's what he meant by economic
> democracy. On several occasions he said it could be
> accomplished through the banking system. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> Populist silver campaign or to the greenbacker theme
> (which, by the way, seems to be endorsed by at least
> some Social Crediters). Why is it that the Georgists
> are rich? [***
>
> The connection is that they opposed the greenbackers
> and populists. Yes, the majority of latter day
> social crediters appear to be greenbackers in that
> they want government to be the monopoly source of
> money and that it is printed and "spent" into
> circulation for government projects. They are
> therefore in opposition to Douglas who would pay
> dividends directly to people, allowing people and not
> government to spend the money into circulation
> preserving the system of free enterprise and personal
> sovereignty. It's what he meant by economic
> democracy. On several occasions he said it could be
> accomplished through the banking system. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
OK, this difference is reflected in Zarlenga's
theme, which favors a monetary authority as fourth branch of
government.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>As to why the
Georgists are rich, I suggested an answer in my
> reply above. They have huge endowments that go back to the nineteenth century. They were never starved
> for funds as were the greenbackers and populists.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> reply above. They have huge endowments that go back to the nineteenth century. They were never starved
> for funds as were the greenbackers and populists.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
But my question is why they were popular and with
what class of deep pocketed people? Surely not land speculators.
Industrialists, maybe, trying to divert taxes from themselves? Not
railroads. Miners and oil barons? Shipbuilders? Merchants? Farmers and
cattlemen? Who was Robert Schalkenbach?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> William Jennings Bryan was the "fusion" candidate of
> the Populist, Greenbacker and Democratic parties,
> with endorsements from Republican "free silver"
> groups. The banks and every single big-city
> newspaper opposed him. So far as I know he wasn't
> endorsed by a single Georgist organization.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Suggesting that banks may have favored George--simply because he was not a
promoter of free silver? Would the newspapers have favored George, or just
preferred him to
Bryan?
>
.>>>>>>>>>... the Georgists have had an axe to grind with social credit and its predecessors that goes back many decades.<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
.>>>>>>>>>... the Georgists have had an axe to grind with social credit and its predecessors that goes back many decades.<<<<<<<<<<<<
The only argument I am able to forecast between the book (Lost
Science) and my limited understanidng of social credit, is the one we have
already identified: i.e. who should issue the money, and in what
way.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim that George was a greenbacker is a recent
> concoction, believe me, as is their claim to be
> supporters of the national dividend.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim that George was a greenbacker is a recent
> concoction, believe me, as is their claim to be
> supporters of the national dividend.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
I recall no mention of national dividend in the book. Zarlenga does
say that the best source for George statements in support of government as
monetary authority are in the book Social Problems. I
scanned the book and found that one chapter is "The functions of
government". It makes a pretty persuave case for "issuance of money"--much
the same, in fact, as Zarlenga's. There is very little other mention of
George in the book, and I believe I got this tip from Zarlenga directly.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> He pays lip service to the single tax (and possibly is paid for the lip service) in the manner the osteopaths pay lip service to the theory of
> subluxations. The Georgist movement is intellectually though not financially moribund in terms of being true to its roots.<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>>>>>>>>>>> He pays lip service to the single tax (and possibly is paid for the lip service) in the manner the osteopaths pay lip service to the theory of
> subluxations. The Georgist movement is intellectually though not financially moribund in terms of being true to its roots.<<<<<<<<<<<<
I have yet to re-read the last couple of chapeters (applications), but I do
not recall that there is any mention of single
tax.
--^^--------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^^---------------------------------------------------------------
