We Urgently Need To Revert To Classical Economics

[Steven Douglas]

And how is pollution in that often cited LVT paradise of Hong Kong?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/us-hongkong-pollution-idUSBRE8710IA20120802

Roy conveniently surfs both sides of the fence with HK. Like a bible basher, he can make any point he needs to make by pointing out only those parts that appear to make his point, while avoiding or being an apologist for those parts that appear to be in direct, stark contradiction. He cites HK as proof that an economy can boom in the absence of landownership (as if that means anything, and even though the longterm leaseholds there effectively operate as a form of landownership). But Roy has an escape clause for himself there as well, as he will be just as quick to point out that HK doesn't even have LVT (at least not as Roy L envisions it).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Roy conveniently surfs both sides of the fence with HK. Like a bible basher, he can make any point he needs to make by pointing out only those parts that appear to make his point, while avoiding or being an apologist for those parts that appear to be in direct, stark contradiction. He cites HK as proof that an economy can boom in the absence of landownership (as if that means anything, and even though the longterm leaseholds there effectively operate as a form of landownership). But Roy has an escape clause for himself there as well, as he will be just as quick to point out that HK doesn't even have LVT (at least not as Roy L envisions it).

I look forward to Roy L returning to admit he was destroyed.

 

[Zippyjuan]

No, that's just another stupid lie from you. Land value skyrocketed in the decade before the crash, even as inflation continued in low single digits. Certainly land is a good inflation hedge, but that's only because its consistently rising rental value is automatically indexed to inflation. It is immensely valuable even if inflation is zero or negative, as Japan has been proving for 20 years.

But thanks for sharing your total -- and permanently incurable -- ignorance of the subject.

It is caused by those who issue money. Under our current debt money system, that is private banksters, not "central planners." Your economic ignorance is comprehensive.

It is the landowner whose "job" is to steal, as I have proved to you many times. Remember?

The Bandit

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It's all legal now, and he can even pretend that his profits come from his "property rights," not just a special government-issued license. But in fact, he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is his "business" any different now that he is a landowner?

And for that matter, how is any other landowner charging rent for what nature provided for free any different?

Do the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, agree to be robbed? Does their "free choice" to use the pass make it a consensual transaction?

If there were two, or three, or 300, or 3 million passes, each with its own resident bandit, would the merchants' being at "liberty" to choose which bandit robs them somehow make the bandits' enterprises a competitive industry in a free market?

How do you imagine that could be relevant? Land out in the middle of the desert, or on a mountainside, or the tundra of Alaska, doesn't relieve the shortage of good land that confers access to economic opportunity.

Let us examine what Garret Harden, "Tragedy of the Commons" has to say about tolls.
As you say, he was a proponent of LVT (I have not verified this but am going by your claim):
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html

Congestion on public roads that do not charge tolls is another example of a government-created tragedy of the commons. If roads were privately owned, owners would charge tolls and people would take the toll into account in deciding whether to use them. Owners of private roads would probably also engage in what is called peak-load pricing, charging higher prices during times of peak demand and lower prices at other times. But because governments own roads that they finance with tax dollars, they normally do not charge tolls. The government makes roads into a commons. The result is congestion.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I look forward to Roy L returning to admit he was destroyed.

I think you will wait a very long time.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I think you will wait a very long time.

If he doesn't, you can always tell him so yourself and claim you've won the argument in ALL CAPS(so it's even more certain)-no if's, and's, or but's about it.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Quote from Mason Gafney- proponent of LVT in "Tragedy of the (unmanaged) Commons":
http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Tragedy_Commons.html

Tenure control of some land tends to drive the excluded population to untenured land (the "commons"), creating an allocational bias unless all land is either tenured or common

Tenured meaning owned.

He goes on to list some things which may be abused due to lack of proper tenure because users don't pay the full costs of what they use:

Some land of high value is untenured or underpriced because consumers resist paying for what they think of as "free" because it has no cost of production, and which nature continues to supply even though the price is too low to ration the land economically. Examples:

water whose natural source is in southern California (it is tenured, but underpriced);
city streets for movement and parking space, even in New York;
air and water used for waste disposal in populated areas;
housing that is subject to rent controls;
popular beaches and trails;
oil and gas subject to field price controls; and so on.
When land is open to public access, so maybe the capital used to improve

 

[Steven Douglas]

If he doesn't, you can always tell him so yourself and claim you've won the argument in ALL CAPS(so it's even more certain)-no if's, and's, or but's about it.

Yeah, but you have to admit that Roy demolishes everyone when he invokes magic, 'dib-hocks-dice-no-take-backs', truth-cementing words, like "objectively" and "indisputably". How do you fight against the logical argument equivalents of a Triple-Dog Dare? If you say Quadruple-Dog Dare you're just being silly, that's a given. And the same magical argument-winning words won't even work in reverse on "I'm rubber and you're glue" Roy "mirror-time" L. That's the frustrating part. He cleverly preempts that by "objectively" and "indisputably" establishing up front that anyone who misquotes or is opposed to anything he writes is simply a liar. Thus, when you write "objective" and "indisputable" it is not only subjective and disputable, but objectively and indisputably it must be false (as he has already "proved").

 

[EcoWarrier]

And how is pollution in that often cited LVT paradise of Hong Kong?

Pay attention at the back!

Such wayward minds! The point is land value caputure (community created wealth) to pay for community services, not pollution.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Yeah, but you have to admit that Roy demolishes everyone

He wipes the floor with you and others, 100%.

< snip irrelevant drivel >

 

[EcoWarrier]

I look forward to Roy L returning to admit he was destroyed.

Destroyed by who and what? He marmalizes everyone here. Read what he writes and UNDERSTAND it. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Free your minds and bodies. Get into freedom and out of bondage.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Tenured meaning owned.

My God, some are so dumb. Tenure does NOT mean owning.

ten·ure (tnyr, -yr)
.
1.
a. The act, fact, or condition of holding something in one's possession, as real estate or an office; occupation.
b. A period during which something is held.

He [Prof Mason Gaffney] goes on to list some things which may be abused due to lack of proper tenure because users don't pay the full costs of what they use:

You never got the point - as usual. People are appropriating common wealth for private gain. He goes on and mentions gas, oil and others.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Pay attention at the back!

I know you like to play teacher and all, and hold court from your little sandbox, but...

Can't help it. I'm a libertarian.

If it makes you feel any better, you can jot a note in my file that says, "Does not play well with pretend-land would-be indoctrinators." When you grow up and get in power you can send me and my ilk to the Land Socialist Reeducation Camp for proper training.

 

[Roy L]

Tenured meaning owned.

No. Tenured meaning tenured.

 

[Roy L]

Roy conveniently surfs both sides of the fence with HK.

I state the facts.

He cites HK as proof that an economy can boom in the absence of landownership (as if that means anything, and even though the longterm leaseholds there effectively operate as a form of landownership).

It most certainly does mean something, because long-term leaseholds are NOT a form of landownership.

But Roy has an escape clause for himself there as well, as he will be just as quick to point out that HK doesn't even have LVT (at least not as Roy L envisions it).

It doesn't.

 

[Roy L]

Let us examine what Garret Harden, "Tragedy of the Commons" has to say about tolls.
As you say, he was a proponent of LVT (I have not verified this but am going by your claim):
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html

Actually, some city governments -- most notably London's -- have tried tolling public roads with varying degrees of success. Most commentators regard London's congestion-pricing road tolls as highly successful. It's a recent thing and we are still learning about it, because technology has just recently made it feasible to collect tolls on city streets.

 

[Roy L]

And how is pollution in that often cited LVT paradise of Hong Kong?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/us-hongkong-pollution-idUSBRE8710IA20120802

Not too good, as it is downwind of Guangdong, Shenzhen, etc.

The buildings sparkle and glisten and reach for the skies and the streets are clean (they are owned)

But not privately.

but the air, which is not owned, is among the worst in the world.

And it gets that way... elsewhere.

And their water (drinking water is treated but the waste water which runs into the ocean is polluted).
http://gbraga2.blogspot.com/2007/05/water-pollution-in-hong-kong.html

And...? China isn't doing a great job of administering possession and use of natural resources, including air, because it was socialist until 30 years ago, and feudal before it was socalist; so there is no tradition of respecting or securing individual rights to use and benefit from what nature provided for all. HK has become significantly more corrupt, and air quality has declined, in the 15 years since China took over its administration.

 

[Roy L]

Land needs no maintainance, eh? Will this fix itself?
Tar sands pits in Alberta, Canada.

http://goodcanadiankid.com/canadian-oil-sands/

Certainly. 15,000 years ago, it was under two miles of ice.

That used to be a pristine wilderness.

Not really. The oil was slowly leaking out anyway, creating chronic low-level hydrocarbon pollution. Better to get all the toxic crud out in 50 years than have it go on for 50,000. Just my opinion.

As for the air- our air is pretty clean because we have passed laws against pollution and added costs to polluters in the form of fines. Without them, look at what the air in China is like with no or very few penalties for polluting:

A half dozen pictures (thousands more can be found on the internet). http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...impact-of-chinas-air-pollution/article642170/

Were you under an erroneous impression that you were addressing something I have said?

Same problem with water. Nobody owns the water and about half of their waterways are so polluted that even swimming in them is dangerous.

False. The government owns all natural resources in China. It just has no tradition of protecting individuals' rights to use them. Our governments here have done much better protecting the public's right to access and use public water resources.

 

[EcoWarrier]

I know you like to play teacher and all, and hold court from your little sandbox, but...

When arguments and logic runs out, post silly pictures.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Steven Douglas:
But Roy has an escape clause for himself there as well, as he will be just as quick to point out that HK doesn't even have LVT (at least not as Roy L envisions it).

It doesn't.

HK is not the ideal Geonomics society. No country or city that taxes land values does it to the full extent, however they all prosper greatly because of the taxing of land values, clearly indicating the great success of land value taxing and that full implementation in the form of Geoism should be adopted.

But HK does get a fair level of its revenue by taxing land and not people's wages. Corporation tax and income tax is low in HK pomoting enterprise - and boy they do that well. Under any other tax system HK would have melted away as another ex colonial Chinese city, like Macau. Taxing land does not penalize production and trade. Taxing land values captures communty created wealth to pay for community services.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Land needs no maintainance, eh? Will this fix itself?
Tar sands pits in Alberta, Canada.

http://goodcanadiankid.com/canadian-oil-sands/

Fantastic! Look at all that wealth ready to be extracted and the community can charge for its extraction. The community can also charge an annual fee on the value of this enormously valuable land. Then eliminate income tax and sales tax which penalize trade and production.

Those who do pollute air under Geoism would be charged for polluting - factories, etc. Breaking limits means fines. The Congestion and pollution charges in London charges those who pollute and clog the city up - London has a superb underground rail network and surface buses with dedicated bus lanes. If you do not use them and you pollute, you pay.

You have highlighted how some countries pollute their environment, especially where people are. Geoism would stop that.