tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post3712807973217935846..comments2024-03-05T10:52:24.691+00:00Comments on Mark Wadsworth: A comparison between the Communist, Home-Owner-Ist and Georgist ManifestosMark Wadsworthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-14523163278142946922013-11-04T10:30:05.066+00:002013-11-04T10:30:05.066+00:00It is not for you to be the final arbiter of what ...<i>It is not for you to be the final arbiter of what is admissible to discussions!</i><br /><br />Ofcourse not, but I don´t think the debating technique of "well what about something that you didn´t adress" adds any value, that´s all. I was replying to your statement about "what´s the reason for owning land", I didn´t adress banks or Herbert Spencer at all, not because those are not interesting in their own right, but because it wasn´t relevant just then. BlimeyKjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530243002915410700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-89402041888592235972013-11-04T10:12:40.411+00:002013-11-04T10:12:40.411+00:00DBC, under Home-Owner-Ism, the banks clearly are n...DBC, under Home-Owner-Ism, the banks clearly are nationalised. <br /><br />Problem is, the profits go to the few and not the many (they pay for the losses and expenses). In that sense, it is very much like Communism as practised in USSR or PR China.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-57492731420791281802013-11-04T09:27:59.071+00:002013-11-04T09:27:59.071+00:00KJ I am not going off on a tangent: the discussion...KJ I am not going off on a tangent: the discussion is about a comparison between the 1848 Communist Manifesto and modern political programmes.The 1848 proposals include nationalising the banks so I am following that line up.<br />It is not for you to be the final arbiter of what is admissible to discussions!Especially as you are so complacent about the commercial banks creating money and charging interest on it,charges which, if nationalised the State could use to reduce other taxes,making LVT less problematic.DBC Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891849727783879145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-5228734708258960562013-11-02T19:56:33.645+00:002013-11-02T19:56:33.645+00:00L, most people seem happy with the government or l...L, most people seem happy with the government or local council building and maintaining roads (for cars) and providing bus services and regulating railways etc. That's not very contentious, is it? <br /><br />DBC, of course they nationalised the banks!! Obviously, they nationalised the expenses and losses and give all the profits to a small group of super-civil servants/corporatists, but a free market it ain't. <br /><br />Kj, correct on all counts as per usual :-). <br /><br />B: <i>That's why land "owned" by a foreign state doesn't become part of that state."</i><br /><br />As DBC says, for some purposes, it does. In theory rather than in practise, but hey.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-27654406340846986192013-11-02T19:01:44.731+00:002013-11-02T19:01:44.731+00:00DBC:
After Georgist LVT, people get to pay rent (f...DBC:<i><br />After Georgist LVT, people get to pay rent (for their own land) to the State. So what is the difference from Thomas Spence's land nationalisation scheme circa 1775?<br />I notice you do not venture to lay down the law on the question of who should own the money supply (which the Spenceans seem to have taken a view on also when they broke off from the Spa Fields demo in 1816 to capture the B of E).</i><br /><br />Going off on a tangent again DBC. There´s a lot of things I didn´t lay down the law on. I suggest you review the KAALVTN-site again instead of going down this road again.Kjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530243002915410700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-87510984018994797622013-11-01T18:42:05.294+00:002013-11-01T18:42:05.294+00:00"But after LVT they do have to pay full rent ..."But after LVT they do have to pay full rent because the Crown and its ministers decree it."<br /><br />Who does? We don't have LVT AFAIK. Yes, embassies are different, but I am sure that embassies are not the only properties that HMG owns abroad.Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-67368047637486837382013-11-01T16:32:45.725+00:002013-11-01T16:32:45.725+00:00@B
But after LVT they do have to pay full rent bec...@B<br />But after LVT they do have to pay full rent because the Crown and its ministers decree it. I don't see the distinction you are making.I also don't see how a foreign country could own bits of the UK and frinstance promulgate non-UK law.Anyway don't embassies operate as little bits of sovereign territory abroad?DBC Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891849727783879145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-25249554844698121972013-11-01T14:56:18.932+00:002013-11-01T14:56:18.932+00:00DBC, it's not their own land, not in the UK it...DBC, it's not their own land, not in the UK it isn't. All land belongs to the Crown. All the "owners" have is a freehold, basically a perpetual lease without any rent being due. That's why land "owned" by a foreign state doesn't become part of that state.Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-71358654390400186742013-11-01T14:24:56.459+00:002013-11-01T14:24:56.459+00:00@KJ
After Georgist LVT, people get to pay rent (f...@KJ <br />After Georgist LVT, people get to pay rent (for their own land) to the State. So what is the difference from Thomas Spence's land nationalisation scheme circa 1775?<br />I notice you do not venture to lay down the law on the question of who should own the money supply (which the Spenceans seem to have taken a view on also when they broke off from the Spa Fields demo in 1816 to capture the B of E).DBC Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891849727783879145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-71083491833813563142013-11-01T10:18:09.441+00:002013-11-01T10:18:09.441+00:00Lola: oh it´s not always as subtle as that. Radica...Lola: oh it´s not always as subtle as that. Radical Marxists aren´t shy of bandying about terms like "class traitors", and making no secret what fate certain sections of society will get "after the revolution".Kjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530243002915410700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-17871632828054864112013-11-01T10:12:51.578+00:002013-11-01T10:12:51.578+00:00The Nolan Chart sets out graphically fairly accura...The Nolan Chart sets out graphically fairly accurately how authoritarian lefties get to the same place as totalitarian righties. The former favour labour cronyism and coercion the latter rent seeking cronyism and coercion. It all leads to the same place, totalitarian government, slavery and irresponsibility. Stalin/Marxism did by basing his justification on class, Hitler on race and the current bureaucratic state on consumers. (The last is even more stupid than the former since all consumers are actual, potential or former producers).Lolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586735342675041312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-65670570484047523372013-11-01T10:05:47.571+00:002013-11-01T10:05:47.571+00:00BTW the claim that Georgists would n't abolish...<i>BTW the claim that Georgists would n't abolish property in land is a bit tenuous.If the State confiscates all the profits= rents in land what's the point in owning it? Just a massive tax liability ,after you've paid for the property fair and square, is all.Gesell thought that a bit of LVT would lead to a massive surrender of land to the State.</i> <br /><br />DBC: simples, because there´s a economical benefit in owning and/or using the property. How Gesell or you come out with the idea that suddenly people wouldn´t have use for land anymore, I have no idea.<br />As for the problem with falling land capital values when implementing LVT, that´s an issue, sure, but it´s not insurmountable.Kjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530243002915410700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-14111161755966566552013-11-01T09:49:34.979+00:002013-11-01T09:49:34.979+00:00News to me that the Homies want to nationalise the...News to me that the Homies want to nationalise the banks and for the State to profit from the creation of credit by FRB.Hooray!<br />The problem with the Communist Manifesto is maybe that it is too jam-packed with proposals that cancel each other out.You don't need to abolish inheritance when you have nationalised land values and the banks.You don't need a massive income tax for ditto reasons.<br />BTW the claim that Georgists would n't abolish property in land is a bit tenuous.If the State confiscates all the profits= rents in land what's the point in owning it? Just a massive tax liability ,after you've paid for the property fair and square, is all.Gesell thought that a bit of LVT would lead to a massive surrender of land to the State. <br />The Communist Manifesto, unpacked, might be a goer.DBC Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891849727783879145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-83334321827115137472013-11-01T09:49:17.085+00:002013-11-01T09:49:17.085+00:00I am not sure about the commonality of (6) betwen ...I am not sure about the commonality of (6) betwen Communism / Georgism. It rather depends what is meant by 'means'.Lolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586735342675041312noreply@blogger.com