We Urgently Need To Revert To Classical Economics

[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/T...heCommons.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/...8710IA20120802

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/...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/repor...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.