Last week I went to talk about how to make money. The line was that the only way to do it was to build up a property empire - it couldn't be done by real work. Land is used as an investment, but in reality it just produces an income stream which is roughly linked to inflation and general prosperity. Over lending and over borrowing caused land titles to increase in price to the point that the rate of return dropped and dropped, priming the crash. So it was not such a good investment after all.
The vested interests, who are a handful of landowners and bankers, would make sure that a land tax, the only way to reduce the force of boom-busts, is never discussed. Try and get it raised on, say, Any Answers? They won't touch it. The place of land in economics has been virtually expunged from the theory. Even Ricardo is mentioned only in passing. I wouldn't call it a class war, because if the information got out, the vested interests could be faced down, eg the fact that five families own the most valuable areas of London is scarcely known.
I have no realistic expectation of anything good happening in the UK, it will be one of the most refractory countries in Europe when it comes to implementing change.
The vested interests, who are a handful of landowners and bankers, would make sure that a land tax, the only way to reduce the force of boom-busts, is never discussed. Try and get it raised on, say, Any Answers? They won't touch it. The place of land in economics has been virtually expunged from the theory. Even Ricardo is mentioned only in passing. I wouldn't call it a class war, because if the information got out, the vested interests could be faced down, eg the fact that five families own the most valuable areas of London is scarcely known.
I have no realistic expectation of anything good happening in the UK, it will be one of the most refractory countries in Europe when it comes to implementing change.
Kommentarer
I'm attempting to find ways of inspiring economists to accept land in their thought processes, but am failing miserably. I don't think its due to a shortage of inspiring personality either so this blog and the LVTC site made me feel less paranoid about it.
Anyway we were at a lecture at Queens Cambridge last night and the topic was on how did the crunch occur. My colleague asked if the speaker thought it had anything to do with Land this time. He got a very defensive response from the professor who stated that "George's ideas are far too simplistic, so they are wrong"
Of course this was a terrible thing for a scientist to say as there was no evidence in the claim. Not to mention that his SIV diagram showing the CDO's etc as the root cause had mortgages going in/out at the base! All the same it was accepted by all as gospel.
Can you tell me how you approach this type of response and denial please?
Incidentally, when advocating land value taxation it is essential to make it clear that it is a charge on annual rental values, not land prices.
I would not expect to make much of an impression in Britain.