That's what they are all about: the benefits of public ownership of land combined with secure private tenure and capital ownership. They don't call it geoist because they don't use such nomenclature, but that's what it is.
So you can't actually give me one quote that concludes that the Chinese success story reflects a Geoist model? I'm not surprised. Georgism 101 after all!
Wow, did I miss a quote with speech marks and everything? Please be a sweetheart and copy and paste it? Don't forget the criteria: So you can't actually give me one quote that concludes that the Chinese success story reflects a Geoist model? I'm expecting a response without speech marks mind you!
What a person is given is none of my business. And I certainly don't agree that anyone has the right to take his property by force.
Please don't go for childish dodge. It really is disappointing. Provide quotes that conclude that the Chinese success story reflects a Geoist model. Pretending that you have given those quotes only makes me laugh.
Correct. As with slaves and land: the "owner" merely has legal possession of the stolen liberty rights of others. In the case of slaves, all the rights of some specific others; in the case of land, some specific rights of all others.
You asked me for evidence. I provided it. Now you inevitably employ the disingenuous dodge of upward redefinition: now it's not evidence unless it is quotes that CONCLUDE China's success story reflects a geoist model. Do the Chinese even know we have the word, "geoist" to describe their system? It's not even in our dictionaries, let alone theirs.
Chinese leaders Wen Jiaboa came to America and said they did it based on Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, but i'm sure it was mostly just copying Republican American capitalism: laizzez faire and sink or swim competition.
It isn't a difficult request. Provide quotes that conclude that the Chinese success story reflects a Geoist model. Surely that can't be hard for a Georgist?
So, basically geoist, just without knowing the term: "Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them." -- Adam Smith "Every improvement in the circumstances of society tends either directly or indirectly to raise the real rent of land, to increase the wealth of the landlord." - Adam Smith "Ground rents seem, in this respect, a more proper subject of peculiar taxation... Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly." -- Adam Smith "In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago." -- Milton Friedman <sigh> Perhaps they know what they did better than you...? You blankly refuse to know any facts I identify for you. Perhaps Wen, Smith and Friedman will be more successful.
if the Chinese and Great American economists dont know the term and used other terms lets use the other terms. A child would understand why that makes sense. Further, Smith Friedman etc talked about taxing land not about Nazis killing millions to take away their land.
False. They are essentially the same, as proved by the slave-like condition of the landless in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where landowning has been well established, but government has not intervened massively through public pensions, education and health care, minimum wages, union monopolies, welfare and poverty relief programs, labor standards laws, etc. etc. to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners. The only difference between slavery and landowning is that slavery forcibly removes people's rights to liberty and makes them into the private property of the privileged one person at a time, landowning does it one right at a time. And here is conclusive proof: "During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God, I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have got all the work out of him they can." From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885. Do you know why the USA retained slavery when Europe did not? The answer is simple: because in Europe the good land was all privately owned, the landless could be -- and were -- treated as slaves without all the bother of actually owning them. In America, there was so much good land available that if a landowner mistreated a worker, he would just leave, and take up some good land of his own. Workers had to be enslaved, whipped and fettered, their liberty legally removed one person at a time, in order to stop them from leaving. In Europe, landowning had made it impossible for workers to exercise their right to liberty, so they were treated like slaves. By the time the Civil War ended, the best land was all owned, and less fertile land was rapidly being taken up by pioneers under conditions that made it desperately difficult for freed slaves to participate successfully in the land rush. The "emancipated" Negroes of the South had had their liberty rights removed again, by landowners.
<yawn> Speaking of desperation, you are aware of the fact that they did not just mention land rent, they advocated its repayment to the community and use as public revenue. That is indisputably geoist. You just have to contrive some way of preventing yourself from knowing that fact.
Scientists know it makes more sense to define technical terms precisely, so that we may know exactly what we are talking about. Right. The latter is just some bizarre, lurid, bombastic nonsense you had to make up to prevent yourself from knowing any of the relevant facts.
We have huge taxes on land now. Most renters spend 50% of their income just to pay the landlords property tax. Do you want to raise or lower the property tax?
Nope. Using land rent is part of most schools of thought. Georgist group think sites have been using the "that famous bloke mentioned land" trick for yonks, as you well know.
No, we most certainly do not, as proved by land's astronomical value in almost every urban jurisdiction in the advanced, industrialized world. No, that's just ludicrous garbage from you with no basis in fact. Abolish the improvement value portion -- which is the only part that can be passed on to tenants -- in favor of increased tax on the land value portion, ideally based on rental rather than exchange value.
No, typically only grudging admission that it would be efficient, then dismissal on some pretext or other. See the treatment accorded it in any standard university economics textbook. No, that's just more $#!+ you have made up. They quote eminent economists and other thinkers ADVOCATING RECOVERY OF LAND RENT AS PUBLIC REVENUE, not just "mentioning" it, and it is not a "trick" it is just being honest, something you cannot even conceive.
Nope. Its mentioned in most schools of thought out of bleedin obviousness. And those standard textbooks you mention are what you bleedinuse when you talk cobblers about Pigovian taxes and natural monopolies. They take quotes and say "see, Georgist". Its particularly petty. Might be one reason why Georgists are today so scared to admit that they're Georgist.
