We are Hanno Beck, Lindy Davies, Fred Foldvary, Mike O'Mara, Jeff Smith, and assorted volunteers, all dedicated to bringing you the news and views that make a difference in our species struggle to win justice, prosperity, and eco-librium.
This 2014 excerpt of Policymic, Mar 18, is by Tom McKay.
A study by researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity concludes we only have a few decades left before civilization collapses.
The report was written by applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei of the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center along with a team of natural and social scientists.
Analyzing five risk factors for societal collapse (population, climate, water, agriculture, and energy), the report says that the sudden downfall of complicated societal structures can follow when these factors converge to form two important criteria. All societal collapses over the past 5,000 years have involved both “the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity” and “the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or “Commoners”) [poor].”
The two key solutions are to reduce economic inequality so as to ensure fairer distribution of resources, and to dramatically reduce resource consumption by relying on less intensive renewable resources and reducing population growth.
“Although the study is largely theoretical, a number of other more empirically-focused studies — by KPMG and the UK Government Office of Science for instance — have warned that the convergence of food, water, and energy crises could create a ‘perfect storm’ within about fifteen years.
Ed. Notes: Can we keep our civilization and our planet, too? I bet that economic justice would let us enjoy both. If we put geonomics into practice, we would waste much less. We’d also enable many more people to prosper, who then lower the birth rate. Whether it works or not, getting out from under taxes while sharing the worth of Earth sure would make life a lot more pleasant meanwhile.
This 2014 excerpt of Macrobusiness, Mar 11, is by Catherine Cashmore.
Rising property prices – the product of the plot of land that sits underneath the structure – are unashamedly promoted in most modern economies as the key driver to boost the privatised wealth of its nation, with the hope the payoff effect will feed other areas of consumption. They are no longer just ‘national’ affairs, but open to international speculation and investment, of which Australia is by no means immune.
None of this has assisted the home buying sector in America’s property market. Ownership rates continue to fall, and local buyers remain priced out. Yet Obama had no hesitation in boasting: ”Today, our housing market is healing!” (Healing!) “Home prices are rising at the fastest pace in 7 years…” (Faster even than incomes it seems, with first homebuyers at their lowest level since the crisis began.)
Premium localities in the cities of New York and London are openly marketed as ‘safe havens’ for the internationally wealthy. Isolated from the local economy, as local workers are forced out, and rumors of homes laying vacant for much of year provoke neighbourhood outrage. It’s now reported, for every minute you spend on the three Underground stops between Earls Court and Sloane Square, property prices rise by £96,647.
It’s not just the 1% of billionaires seeking out safe haven’s abroad, in what’s been termed the “largest and most rapid wealth migrations of our time.” But the rise of China’s ‘Consumer Class’ – ‘middle income’ individuals, discretionary spenders, whose wealth goes largely under-reported in a “grey economy” of illegal and quasi-legal activities. If trend continues, in a few years, China will become the world’s richest country, and India won’t be far in its wake.
The geographical location of land is fixed and limited in supply. Therefore we can’t all benefit from economic advantage gained from ownership of the best seats in town, without effective taxation of the resource that is.
A correctly administered broad-based land value tax (as explained here – reducing taxes on productivity) would not only encourage the ‘good’ utilisation of land, but if handled efficiently, gains could be fed back into the community to assist increased investment into infrastructure and social services.
This alone, would go a long way to reducing the wealth inequality currently experienced in our big cities.
This 2014 excerpt of Psych Central, Mar 14, is by Traci Pedersen.
When it comes to trusting others, intelligent people are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt, while those who score lower on IQ tests are more likely to have trust issues, according to a new study by Oxford University.
The findings, published in the journal PLOS ONE, are based on an analysis of the General Social Survey — a nationally representative public opinion survey given every one to two years.
The research supports the previous findings of studies on trust and intelligence from European countries. Social trust is vital to the success of social institutions — such as welfare systems and financial markets. Furthermore, research shows that individuals who trust others tend to enjoy better health and greater happiness.
Billionaires in crony sectors have had a great century so far. In the emerging world their wealth doubled relative to the size of the economy — equivalent to over 4% of GDP, compared with 2% in 2000. Urbanisation and a long economic boom have boosted land and property values. A China-driven commodity boom enriched natural-resource owners from Brazil to Indonesia. Some privatisations took place on dubious terms.
Of the world’s big economies, Russia scores worst. The transition from communism saw political insiders grab natural resources in the 1990s, and its oligarchs became richer still as commodity prices soared. Unstable Ukraine looks similar. Mexico scores badly mainly because of Carlos Slim, who controls its biggest firms in both fixed-line and mobile telephony. French and German billionaires, by contrast, rely rather little on the state, making their money largely from retail and luxury brands.
The total wealth of America’s billionaires is high relative to GDP, but Silicon Valley’s wizards [new money] are far richer than America’s energy billionaires [old money]. And few of its billionaires made money in banking [used mainly for sheltering old money]. Even including private equity, compared with Larry Ellison of Oracle, Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone is a pauper.
Countries that do well on the crony index generally have better bureaucracies and institutions.
Efficient government is no guarantee of a good score: Hong Kong and Singapore are packed with billionaires in crony industries. This reflects scarce land, which boosts property values, and their role as entrepots for shiftier neighbours. Hong Kong has also long been lax on antitrust: it only passed an economy-wide competition law two years ago.
Mainland China scores quite well. One reason is that the state owns most natural resources and banks; these are a big source of crony wealth in other emerging economies. Another is that China’s open industries have fostered a new generation of fabulously rich entrepreneurs, including Jack Ma of Alibaba, an e-commerce firm, and Liang Wengen of Sany, which makes diggers and cranes.
Most countries in South-East Asia, including Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines, saw their scores get worse between 2007 and 2014, as tycoons active in real estate and natural resources got richer.
Our crony index has three big shortcomings.
One is that not all cronies make their wealth public. This may be a particular problem in China, where recent exposés suggest that many powerful politicians have disguised their fortunes by persuading friends and family to hold wealth on their behalf. Unreliable property records also help to disguise who owns what.
Second, our categorisation of sectors is crude. Rent-seeking may take place in those we have labelled open, and some countries have competitive markets we label crony. America’s big internet firms are de-facto monopolies that abuse their positions. South Korea’s chaebol, which sell cars and electronics to the world, are mainly in industries we classify as open. But they have a history of bribing politicians at home. China’s billionaires, in whatever industry, are often chummy with politicians and get subsidised credit from state banks. A third are members of the Communist Party. Sectors that are cronyish in developing countries may be competitive in rich ones: building skyscrapers in Mumbai is hard without paying bribes, and easy in Berlin. Our index does not differentiate.
The third limitation is that we only count the wealth of billionaires. Plenty of rent-seeking may enrich the very wealthy who fall short of that cut-off. America’s subprime boom saw hordes of bankers earn cumulative bonuses in the millions of dollars, not billions. Crooked Chinese officials may have Range Rovers and secret boltholes in Singapore—but not enough wealth to join a list of billionaires. So our index is only a rough guide to the concentration of wealth in opaque industries compared with more competitive ones.
Ed. Notes: The authors above give the limitations of their work, which shows a lot of work still needs to be done. Recall the saying in economics: to get really rich you capture values from society and impose your costs upon society. You flip real estate, where the value of locations is generated by the presence of the populace (society). You sell oil which is hugely polluting. Even the new fortunes in tech come in part from society, from the cheap, way under-market fees for copyrights and patents.
The problem is not a matter of envy. The problem is a matter of taking (however legal) vs. making, of taking a bigger share of the pie vs. creating a bigger pie. When some get more than they deserve, others must get less. Those getting more then lobby for ever newer and better privileges. For example, when Y2K was a real scare, tech won extra limited liability from a compliant Congress. And those getting less must then work extra or choose work that shouldn’t be done, such as an IRS enforcer.
The solution is elegant, both moral and practical. Eliminate most privileges, such as subsidies (corporate welfare), sweetheart contracts (military procurers), lenient enforcement of safety standards (agri-biz and other polluters), liability limited by a state (chemical or drug makers), money monopoly (bankers), license-based cartels (doctors, taxi-owners), etc. And, charge full market (annual rental) value as fees for granting little pieces of paper such as patent/copyright, utility franchises, EM spectrum licenses, resource leases, and land titles. Do all that and you’ll still have big fortunes in big economies but not as big as now and it won’t matter because every fortune will be earned.
This 2014 excerpt of World News Trust, Mar 13, is by Joel S. Hirschhorn.
If you ever find yourself in a hospital for an overnight stay that could last from one or two days, or perhaps much more, ask if you are being classified as “under observation.” This means that legally you are not an inpatient. Then you are likely to find yourself owing the hospital a large amount of money, because your Medicare or other health insurance will not provide the benefits associated with inpatient status.
If told that you will be in the observation category, then you might seriously consider whether you should stay in that hospital, or perhaps seek another one if you are not in immediate need of medical attention.
Realistically, you may not be in a clear enough mental state when you enter a hospital to ask questions and demand good answers about how the hospital is classifying your stay.
From 2007 through 2009, the ratio of Medicare observation patients to those admitted as inpatients rose by 34 percent. More than 10 percent of patients in observation were kept there for more than 48 hours, and more than 44,800 were kept in observation for 72 hours or longer in 2009 — an increase of 88 percent since 2007. Note that Medicare guidelines recommend that observation stays be no longer than 24 hours and only “in rare and exceptional cases” extend past 48 hours.
This observation status was a tactic by government to reduce Medicare spending. It puts hospitals in the difficult position of putting their patients in a hard financial situation.
Ed. Notes: Complexity is the enemy of equity. If you want fairness, you really can’t let politicians and bureaucrats issue so many and biased rules. Instead, you must create a system that operates automatically without constant tinkering by managers. For medical costs, allow more entrants into the field to increase supply and clean the environment and shorten the workweek to reduce stress and illness and thus decrease demand. That’ll cut costs of affordable levels. It’s geonomics, rather than letting the government handle it (the latter is not a very adult attitude, is it?)
This 2014 excerpt of Boing Boing, Mar 14, is by Cory Doctorow.
Hampton, Florida is a town so corrupt that it offends the Florida Legislature, a body with a notoriously high tolerance for sleaze. With fewer than 500 inhabitants, Hampton’s major source of revenue is a 0.2 mile stretch of Highway 301 — a stretch where the speed limit dips from 65 to 55. Hampton’s traffic cops write an average of 17 tickets a day against out-of-towners, clearing $419,624 in 2011 and 2012. However, the town also operated at a deficit during this time.
Where’s the town’s money? Ask now incarcerated ex-mayor Barry Moore, his three staffers who resigned in February, the police chief who also resigned, along with 17 “employees”, or the town’s water manager, whose business records were all “lost in a swamp.” According to the sheriff, some residents said they were threatened with having their water turned off if they made trouble.
Then the state legislators heard from the local representative, who was ticketed by a Hampton cop. They’ve given the town 30 days to clean up its sleaze or they’re going to dissolve it, which would make it part of surrounding Bradford County.
Ed. Notes: If somebody robs the entire public, and happens to hold public office, they stand a good chance of getting away with it. So why pay taxes, just to enrich your corrupt rulers? To remove temptation from politicians, remove power from politicians. Don’t let them decide how to raise and spend public money. Put those functions in the constitution, strictly defined.
Government should be limited as to how much it may charge, and for what activity. It should be limited as to how much it may spend, and for what activity. And, most fundamentally, it would act as our steward and institute land dues to recover our common wealth — our spending for sites and resources — and then disperse this socially-generated value of land and nature to citizens as a dividend.
It’s geonomics and it’d make government a lot less tempting to crooks.
This 2014 excerpt of Dollars & Sense, Mar 14, is by Polly Cleveland & Mason Gaffney.
Agriculture consumes some eighty percent of California water. California is basically a dry state, subject to periodic severe droughts. So, how come the largest water user is cow pasture, watered with giant sprinklers sending great sprays into the atmosphere? How come farmers irrigate those long brown furrows by flooding them, losing great quantities of water to evaporation, and bringing harmful salts to the surface? And how come some farmers even grow rice in flooded paddies, seeding them from airplanes?
Why do we see so few elementary efforts to conserve water, such as drip irrigation or mulching fields to protect the soil? Why are irrigation canals not lined and covered to prevent water loss?
Why? Because California farmers get their water free, or close to free.
The California Constitution says that the water belongs to the people. However, farmers may take water provided they put it to “beneficial use,” first come, first served. This is the basis of California “water licenses”. A “senior” water license downstream, used for low-value irrigated pasture, takes precedence over a “junior” water license upstream, used for high-value orange groves.
The California State Water Project (SWP) brings water from the Feather River in the Sacramento Valley south through the Sacramento delta, then pumps it up to a canal running south along the west side of the Central Valley, pumps it up again 2000 feet over the Tehachapi mountains into Los Angeles, and conducts it even further south to San Diego. The SWP was financed by California taxpayers.
Half that water has gone to irrigate the holdings of land barons, including the J. G. Boswell dynasty (200,000 acres) and their in-laws the Chandlers (145,000 acres), at that time owners of the LA Times.
The state could charge for water, thus recognizing that we the people own the water. The state could put a meter on every ground-water pump, and charge accordingly. Overnight, California’s fiscal deficit would become a surplus.
Yes, some water-hogging crops like rice and hay and alfalfa might move away, as they should. That would release water for the more valuable, intensive fruit and vegetable crops for which California is famous.
The farmers might threaten to “pass on” higher water prices to consumers. But that’s an idle threat, because shifting land and water into higher-valued and more intensive crops will raise the total supply of food marketed.
This 2014 excerpt of the Washington Monthly, March/ April/ May, is by Ryan Cooper.
How would you like to get $2,000 in free money, fresh off the government printing presses? And we’d do it for all Americans on an ongoing basis? And that doing so would solve our problem?
As a percentage of total output, wages have fallen from a high of almost 52 percent around 1970 to less than 43 percent today. Meanwhile, inequality within wages also increased. The rich began capturing nearly all the results of economic growth —- the top 1 percent’s share of national income increased from about 8 percent in the mid-’70s to about 23 percent today.
The wealthy disproportionately save their money rather than spend it. They don’t save by piling up huge pyramids of cash like Scrooge McDuck, they “save” by buying financial assets —- which means that most of the fruits of economic growth have been channeled into asset price increases. Since the crisis, while both output and employment growth has been weak, the stock market has regained all the ground lost since 2009 and then some.
Such mass money creation is hardly new: the quantitative easing program has already been carried out in a similar way —- with trillions of dollars in new money.
There is no reason to think that our problem will be cured without some kind of aggressive change. If we change nothing, we could be stuck in our current situation for decades.
Ed. Notes: Some people can justify doing the right thing only if it’s good for “the economy”, not if it’s good for real living human beings. But whatever their reason for getting some of the abundant surplus into the pockets of everyone, every voice added to the call for such an extra income is another step toward eventual victory.
A more accurate analysis — one less distorted by paying obeisance to the ruling class and our coercive customs — would note that our spending for land and other aspects of nature (such as oil) does not reward anybody’s labor or capital (nature was not created by any of us) and that how much we spend for sites and resources is set by our demand for them. Hence, owners of the earth — something all life needs and all humans deserve — owe those whom they displace (just as they are owed by others who displace them). Thus, getting an extra income from our aggregate spending for parts of the planet is not a favor from anyone, not an act of charity or generosity, but our rightful share of the natural bounty, which is an automatic surplus, and should be treated as our common wealth.
It’s a moral position but it leads to the most practical of policies — geonomics.
A mixture of good weather and stubbornly bad public policy leaves French capital in grip of worst atmospheric pollution for seven years – with public transport running for free.
This 2014 excerpt of The Independent, Mar 14, is by John Lichfield.
A run of unseasonably warm, windless days and cold clear nights has clamped a lid of warm air over northern France. Under that lid, minuscule particles of pollution – partly generated by France’s long love-affair with the diesel-powered car – have accumulated to dangerous levels.
The level of official “pollution alert” – 80 microgrammes of tiny particles for every cubic metre of air – has been exceeded each day since Wednesday in 30 départements (counties) across northern France.
In an attempt to keep traffic to a minimum, all public transport has been declared free until Sunday in Paris, Rouen. and Caen. Even the Velib’, the Parisian help-yourself, short-term-hire bikes which fathered the Boris Bikes in London, have been declared free.
Is that sensible? In the midst of one of the most intense and prolonged pollution scares northern France has ever seen, is cycling still good for your health?
France is 60 per cent dependent on diesel cars. Exhaust gases are partly blamed for the fine particle pollution affecting Paris and several French cities. The French car giants, Renault and Peugeot-Citroen, invested heavily in diesel engines. Diesel fuel is taxed less heavily than petrol.
Fumes from diesel cars, as well as industrial emissions and agricultural fertilisers, are blamed for increasing the micro-particles in the French atmosphere to potentially dangerous levels.
According to on study, there are 40,000 premature or unnecessary deaths in France each year because of the high level of atmospheric pollution. The European Commission has brought a legal action against France in the European Court of Justice for its failure to respect EU anti-pollution laws.
Ed. Notes: Should politicians be permitted to impose economic policy? Or should they stick to what government really ought to be doing: defend rights. If the latter, government would not tax whoever it favors less, rather it would charge polluters for polluting at the amount of the damage they cause.
To avoid the charges, both producers and consumers would seek and find clean alternatives. And those alternatives would push the dirty engines out of the marketplace sooner if government quit taxing labor, the biggest cost in manufacturing, freeing that money up for R&D, production, and delivery.
Further, there’d be less need for engines – dirty or clean – if government were to recover the socially-generated value of land. Cars are huge land-users, especially in cities. Imagine if drivers had to pay for all the costs they impose, such as land lost to streets, parking lanes, parking lots, dealer lots, junk yards, gas stations, repair shops, part of the sites for parts stores, insurance offices, and cop shops. If drivers paid directly the costs that are feasible to do so in the price of fuel — where drivers could see them and feel them — then many would forgo driving for walking, pedaling, and riding transit.
Finally, if citizens received a share of the socially-generated value of land and resources, then they’d not be tied down by jobs. They could less, and at various hours, utterly destroying rush hour, which is when transportation spews forth most of its smog.
While France might have a feeble environmental movement, it does have in its intellectual heritage the reform of physiocracy. Those thinkers from the Age of Enlightenment recognized “natural law” (physiocracy) as a guiding principle and called for a single tax on land. If only today’s French thinkers and politicians would resurrect their past!
Moreover, tax fraud often enhances environmentally harmful activities (e.g. tax evasion and tax avoidance related to company cars). Therefore it is of utmost importance for environment protection to combat tax fraud and the corruption related to it.
In Hungary just the opposite is happening. The sum of the illegally evaded VAT and illegally reimbursed VAT in Hungary is equivalent to between 5% and 6 % of GDP. The main actors are not private persons or small enterprises but highly organized criminal groups with close relations to the state. The main beneficiaries are several retail chains and big exporting companies.
Ed. Notes: Naturally, governments feel they have the right to take what they want from anyone in any way and at any amount, and rationalize their taking by claiming the money will be used to benefit those from whom they take the money. But as we all know, that’s not always true. The EU, for example, pays billions of euros to millionaire farmers to not farm. Why should a middle class person fork over some of their hard earned pay just to have it wasted in an unfair way?
Taxists also overlook another basic truth: they don’t distinguish between individual earnings and social surplus. An individual starts a business or erects a building but it’s the society that creates the value of a location. Our spending for land, resources, EM spectrum, etc, is a surplus because it’s not needed to reward anyone’s effort, since nobody created Earth.
Society’s agent – government – should not tax our wages, sales, and homes but rather recover the annual rental value of locations. Then use the raised revenue to pay citizens a dividend. Government need not use taxes; it could use fees, leases, dues, etc. While corruption would still be possible – a wealthy owner might bribe an assessor to reduce his Land Dues – it’d be more difficult to pull off, as long as the books are kept open and any citizen could check up on the assessments and dues collected. Sunlight is the best disinfectant!
This 2014 excerpt of Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire, Mar 5, is by John Perkins.
Freddy Elhers is Minister of the newly formed cabinet position in Ecuador known as Buen Vivir (literally Good Living).
Freddy’s closing talk on the opening day of the Human Resources Summit in Istanbul for 2,000 corporate executives from all over the world was the “bookend” for my opening keynote in the morning. He talked about how Ecuador is the first country to have a Ministry of Buen Vivir, a ministry that guides all the other branches of government.
The recently revised Ecuadorian Constitution reads:
“We … hereby decide to build a new form of public coexistence, in diversity and in harmony with nature, to achieve the good way of living.”
Freddy Elhers likes to point out that “the pursuit of happiness” is embedded in the most sacred document of the United Sates. We the People can get back to those unalienable rights that our founders fought so hard to insure: “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
We’re all living on this tiny, fragile space station. It’s time to collectively choose Buen Vivir and to make this the time to get back our freedoms – in fact to attain more freedom than humankind has ever before experienced, the freedom to enjoy true prosperity, good living.
Ed. Notes: Progressive, ethical politics is one thing but it needs progressive, ethical economics to support it. Otherwise, it’s just nice sounding words on paper. OTOH, any place that uses geonomics could probably almost forget about politics altogether.
This 2014 excerpt of Grist, Mar 13, is by Holly Richmond.
Ordos is an epic ghost town. Ghost city, to be precise — the largest in the world. Sitting in the middle of a desert in northern China, Ordos was intended to be the Vegas of Inner Mongolia.
The Kangbashi district, planned to accommodate a population in excess of one million, is home to 20,000 people — leaving 98% of this 355-square kilometre site either under construction or abandoned altogether … a glamorous and nearly empty airport, the rickety corpse of a sports stadium, an unused mosque, and a ghostly downtown. The hotel minibar has peanuts, booze, and gas masks.
Deadlines weren’t met, loans went unpaid, and investors pulled out before projects could be completed — leaving entire streets of unfinished buildings. The ridiculous cost of accommodation put off many would-be inhabitants, so that even fully completed apartments became difficult to sell.
Ed. Notes: Build it and they will come? Well, not exactly. This is a good example of what value is. Things don’t have value, even big things like cities. Rather, people value things. Value is a verb, not a noun, essentially.
Therefore, because value comes from people, and land comes from none of us, then who should get its value? If those who get it are those who create it, and if they get it from those who own the land, then owners would be compensating those whom they exclude from a part of earth, earth being our common birth right. (Of course, each owner as a resident would likewise be compensated by “hers” neighbors.)
How much would owners pay as land dues to their community? Depends on how much demand there is for their site, how much those excluded value the site. In a ghost town, not much if anything at all. Another nice feature of this geonomic arrangement of dues-in-dividends-out is that it could replace taxes and subsidies. Becoming a tax-free jurisdiction might change any place from being a ghost town to a booming city!
This 2014 excerpt of Oxfam, Mar 13, is by Ian Gary.
Rachel Boynton’s documentary “Big Men” goes inside board rooms and presidential living rooms, onto oil rigs and the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, after the discovery of a huge oil find in Ghana in 2007.
Who gets a license to explore oil and how? Who’s behind these companies (the “beneficial owners”) and what are their connections to political elites? Who bears the risk and who gets the rewards?
Jim Musselman is the CEO of Kosmos Energy at the start of the film – an affable (and quotable) Texan who had previous success in the oil-rich dictatorship of Equatorial Guinea.
George Owusu founded an obscure company called the E.O. Group and gained a license to explore in Ghana and who, by his telling, “cold-called” Musselman in the Dallas phone book and lured Kosmos to Ghana.
When Erik Solheim, Norway’s environment minister at the time, tells the audience that Ghana should tax oil companies to the hilt, Musselman is stone faced. When Musselman tells the chairman of the Ghana’s state oil company that he didn’t taxes, the chairman assures him, “Oh, we won’t do it.”
The American Petroleum Institute argued against implementation of a US law requiring oil company transparency.
Will Ghana’s citizens benefit from the more than $20 billion the government is expected to receive from oil in the next decade?
Ed. Notes: Oil should benefit everyone. The value of oil in the ground should be paid into a nearby regional treasury. Companies should profit from extracting, processing, and transporting, but should pay over the value of oil in situ to the surrounding populace.
Government could disburse the “royalties” as dividends to citizens, a la Alaska.
At least, that’s what should happen until the oil runs out or people quit burning it to save their world and to save money by switching to solar energy.
Oil is not so different from other resources or lands or locations in general. The rental value of all nature — the money one is willing to pay to own or use them — is what should be our common wealth to share. Meanwhile, taxes on wages, sales, and buildings should be forgotten.
It’s the geonomic recipe and people who care about Africans would do well to help raise awareness of our right to a fair share of Earth’s worth.
This 2014 excerpt of In These Times, Feb 20, is by Julia Wong.
More than 400 San Francisco city workers, many dressed as Cupid, marched in protest of Twitter’s ‘sweetheart’ tax break to Twitter headquarters.
The protesters were members of Service Employees International Union Local 1021, which is currently negotiating with the city over contracts covering more than 13,000 workers.
The Twitter tax break — a six-year payroll tax exclusion area around Twitter’s offices in the Central Market/Tenderloin neighborhood — has drawn numerous tech companies to the area.
Add to that the $6 million tax break the nearby Zynga received in 2011 and the $500 million in fines San Francisco chose not to levy against Silicon Valley companies whose private shuttles illegally use public bus stops.
City workers, in recent contracts, accepted furloughs, increased contributions to pensions, wage freezes, and layoffs. Hundreds of workers were also temporarily reassigned to classifications with lower rates of pay.
SEIU 1021 plans to support an anti-speculation tax aimed at those buying real estate for reselling soon thereafter at a higher price.
Another idea local officials are discussing with SEIU International leaders is investing the 1021′s reserves in community land trusts to create affordable housing in San Francisco or Oakland.
Ed. Notes: All the ingredients are there to make San Franciso a geotopia. People are savvy about tax breaks, land speculation, rent inflation, and land trusts. All they need to do is to quit opposing tax breaks for wages, demand a tax hike on locations, and thereby use the sky-high site values of the City on the Bay for resident’s dividends, a la Singapore.
I say, “All they need to do” as if it’s a simple political matter. It’s not. But they do have a movement already started with the unions. They might be able to expand it to include students, homeowners, small businesses, and environmentalists.
Greens tend to like the shift of taxes off buildings and other goods, onto sites, since the higher “land dues” (land tax, land use fee, deed fee, whatever) spurs owners to use their land efficiently. As metro land gets used more intensely, suburban and rural land need not be used at all.
This geonomic policy has worked before, wherever tried, to the degree tried.
What’s needed is something that’d captivate the imagination and inspire a critical mass, and that could be the call to transform high land values into dividends for all San Franciscans. The dividend could actually make a furlough fun!
an answer to a rarely asked question. If price is a reward for production, why do we pay for land, never produced by any of us? What is land price a reward for? Good behavior? How much money do we spend on the nature we use? Who gets it? What do they do with it? (If you answer all these correctly, you’re not a genius but a geoist.) The worth of Earth is enough that were we to collect and share it, we could abolish taxes on the goods we do produce. For example, San Francisco’s Redefining Progress has calculated that Cali-fornia could abolish all state and local taxes were it to collect the values of resources and of using na-ture as a dump. By exorcising the profit motive from depletion and pollution, rent collection could replace bossy regulation. Economies could self-regulate, as the rest of the eco-system does. See how big problems yield to big answers when we ask the right questions?
a way to redirect all the money we spend on the nature we use – trillions of dollars annually. We can’t pay the Creator of sites and resources and are mistaken to pay their owners this biggest stream in our economy. Instead, as owners we should pay our neighbors for respecting our claims to land. Owners could pay in land dues to the public treasury, a la Sydney Australia’s land tax, and residents could get back a “rent” dividend, a la Alaska’s oil dividend. We’d pay for owning sites, resources, EM spectrum, or emitting pollutants into the ecosphere, then get a fair share of the recovered revenue. The economy would finally have a thermostat, the dividend. When it’s small, people would work more; when it’s big, they’d work less. Sharing Earth’s worth, we could jettison counterproductive taxes and addictive subsidies. Prices would become precise; things like sprawl, sprayed food, gasoline engines, coal-burning plants would no longer seem cheap; things like compact towns, organic foods, fuel cells, and solar powers would become affordable. Getting shares, people could spend their expanded leisure socializing, making art, enjoying nature, or just chilling. Economies let us produce wealth efficiently; geonomics lets us share it fairly.
of interest to Dave Lakhani, President Bold Approach (Mar 8) and Matt Ozga (Jan 29): “I write for the Washington Square News, the student run newspaper out of New York University. Geonomics seems like it has great significance, especially in this area. When was geonomics developed, and by whom?”
About 1982 I began. Two years later, Chilean Dr Manfred Max-Neef offered the term geonomics for Earth-friendly economics. In the mid-80s, a millionaire founded a Geonomics Institute on Middlebury College campus in Vermont re global trade. In the 1990s, CNBC cablecast a show, Geonomics, on world trade as it benefits world traders. My version of geonomics draws heavily from the American Henry George who wrote Progress & Poverty (1879) and won the mayoralty of New York but was denied his victory by Tammany Hall (1886). He in turn got lots from Brits David Ricardo, Adam Smith, and the French physiocrats of the 1700s. My version differs by focusing not on taxation but on the flow of rents for sites, resources, sinks, and government-granted privileges. Forgoing these trillions, we instead tax and subsidize, making waste cheap and sustainability expensive. To quit distorting price, replace taxes with “land dues” and replace subsidies with a Citizens Dividend.
Matt: “This idea of sharing rents sounds, if not explicitly socialist, at least at odds with some capitalist values (only the strong survive & prosper, etc). Is it fair to say that geonomics has some basis in socialist theory?”
A closer descriptor would be Christian. Beyond ethics into praxis, Alaska shares oil rent with residents, and they’re more libertarian than socialist. While individuals provide labor and capital, no one provides land while society generates its value. Rent is not private property but public property. Sharing Rent is predistribution, sharing it before an elite or state has a chance to get and misspend it, like a public REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust) paying dividends to its stakeholders – a perfectly capitalist model. What we should leave untaxed are our sales, salaries, and structures, things we do produce.
more transformation than reform; it’s a step ahead. Harvard economics students this year did petition to change the curriculum, in the wake of the English who caught the dissension from across The Channel. French reformers, who fault conventional economics for conjuring mathematical models of little empirical relevance and being closed to critical and reflective thought, reject this “autism” – or detachment from reality – and dub their offering “post-autistic economics”. Not a bad name, but again, academics define themselves by what they’re not, not by what they are, unlike geonomists. We track rent – the money we spend on the nature we use – and watch it pull all the other economic indicators in its wake. We see economies as part and parcel of the ecosystem, similarly following natural patterns and able to self-regulate more so than allowed, once we quit distorting prices. To align people and planet, we’d replace taxes and subsidies with recovering and sharing rents.
a study of a phenomenon David Ricardo noted going on two centuries ago. When wine grapes rise to $10,000 a ton from the very best land (last year, cabernet sauvignon commanded an average of $4,021 a ton in the Napa Valley), then vineyard prices soar from $18,000 an acre in the 1980′s to $100,000 an acre five years ago and now for a top pedigree up to $300,000 an acre (The New York Times, April 9, via Wyn Achenbaum). Pricey land does not make wine pricey; spendy wine makes land spendy. While vintners make their wine tasty, nature and society in general – not any lone owner – make land desireable. Steve Kerch of CBS’s MarketWatch (April 5) notes that much of what a home sells for on the open market is a reflection of intangible factors such as what school district the house sits in. The price the builder has to pay for the land also tends to be driven by the same intangibles. Because the value of land comes from society, and because one’s use excludes the rest of society, each user owes all others compensation, and is owed compensation by everyone else. Sharing land’s value, instead of taxing one’s efforts, is the policy of geonomics.
the policy that the earth’s natural patterns suggests. Use the eco-system’s self-regulating feedback loops as a model. What then needs changing? Basically, the flow of money spent to own or use Earth (both sites and resources) must visit each of us. Our agent, government, exists to collect this natural rent via fees and to disburse the collected revenue via dividends. Doing this, we could forgo taxes on homes and earnings and subsidies of either the needy or the greedy. For more, see our web site, our pamphlet of the title above, or any of our other lit pieces; ask for our literature list.
a new policy from a new perspective. Once your worldview shifts — so that vacant city lots are no longer invisible — then epiphany. “Of course! Why didn’t I see it before?” Once you do see the emptiness and what damage it does, how can you ever go back to the old paradigm?
a neologism for sharing “rent” or “social surplus” – the money we spend on the nature we use. When we buy land, such as the land beneath a home, we typically pay the wrong person – the homeowner. Instead, since land cost us nothing to make and is the common heri-tage of us all, rather than pay the owner, we should pay ourselves, our neighbors, our community. That is, we should all pay land dues to the public treasury, then our government would pay us land dividends from this collected revenue. It’s similar to the Alaska oil dividend, almost $2,000 last year. Indeed, the annual rental value of land, oil, all other natural resources, including the broadcast spectrum and other government-granted permits such as corporate charters, totals several trillion dollars each year. It’s so much that some could be spent on basic social services, the rest parceled out as a divi-dend, as Tom Paine suggested, and taxes (except any on natural rents) could be abolished, as Thomas Jeffer-son suggested. Were we sharing Earth by sharing her worth, territorial disputes would be fewer, less intense, and more resolvable.
a scientific look at how we divvy up the work and the wealth, how some of us end up with too much or too little effort or reward. That’s partly due to Ricardo’s Law of Rent, showing how wasteful use of Earth cuts wages. And it’s partly due to how a society’s elite runs government around like water boys, dishing out subsidies and tax breaks. While geonomists look political reality right in the eye, without blinking, conventional economists flinch. When Paul Volcker, ex-chief of the Federal Reserve, moved on to a cushy professorship at Princeton cum book contract, the crush of deadlines bore down. So Volcker asked a junior associate to help with the book. The guy refused, explaining that giving serious consideration to policy would ruin his academic career. The ex-Fed chief couldn’t believe it and asked the department chair if truly that were the case. That head honcho pondered the question then replied no, not if he only does it once. And economics was AKA political economy!
a neologism for sharing “rent” or “social surplus” – the money we spend on the nature we use. When we buy land, such as the land beneath a home, we typically pay the wrong person – the homeowner. Instead, since land cost us nothing to make and is the common heritage of us all, rather than pay the owner, we should pay ourselves, our neighbors, our community. That is, we should all pay land dues to the public treasury, then our government would pay us land dividends from this collected revenue. It’s similar to the Alaska oil dividend, almost $2,000 last year. Indeed, the annual rental value of land, oil, all other natural resources, including the broadcast spectrum and other government-granted permits such as corporate charters, totals several trillion dollars each year. It’s so much that some could be spent on basic social services, the rest parceled out as a dividend, as Tom Paine suggested, and taxes (except any on natural rents) could be abolished, as Thomas Jefferson suggested. Were we sharing Earth by sharing her worth, territorial disputes would be fewer, less intense, and more resolvable.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.
Henry David Thoreau
You can observe a lot by just watching.
No one knows enough to be a pessimist.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
One should be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise. This philosophy fitted on to my early adult life, when I saw the improbable, the implausible, often the “impossible,” come true.
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Whatever you do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius and power and magic in it.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
High achievement always takes place in the framework of high expectation.
You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I’m not hungry enough to eat six.
There is no shame when you try and fail; there is only shame when you fail to try.
I like to listen. I have learned a great deal from listening carefully. Most people never listen.