Laying the Foundations for a Post-Oil Age Economy [View article]
derryl
In fact Marx saw the Abolition of Property and the Abolition of the State as being consequences of what he called the Abolition of Labour (so that people no longer work FOR capital rather than with it).
It was Stalin came up with centralisation and the State, not Marx.
I think it was the US political economist Henry George who had the right idea about land IMHO - he believed that those who have exclusive rights of use of land (how can anyone "own" land /location?) should compensate those they exclude.
So if you improve land over which you have exclusive rights you should keep all the improvement value. But if improvements by society increase the value of your location you should pay something in respect of that change in value.
IMHO most of the cost of public transport can and should flow from the capture of a small part of the increased land rental value in the area served. Both Hong Kong and Denmark get this right, and a few US areas have also in the past until landlord interests got their way and moved taxes to income and expenditure.
Why Solving the Credit Crunch Is Key [View article]
There is no solution IMHO to the Credit Crunch in a deficit-based paradigm. The only solution lies in a new approach to Equity, though thye creation of new asset classes which "unitise" land and property rentals, and while retaining a return (and being redeemable against actual property occupation), dispense with the debt obligation.
Laying the Foundations for a Post-Oil Age Economy [View article]
In fact Marx saw the Abolition of Property and the Abolition of the State as being consequences of what he called the Abolition of Labour (so that people no longer work FOR capital rather than with it).
It was Stalin came up with centralisation and the State, not Marx.
I think it was the US political economist Henry George who had the right idea about land IMHO - he believed that those who have exclusive rights of use of land (how can anyone "own" land /location?) should compensate those they exclude.
So if you improve land over which you have exclusive rights you should keep all the improvement value. But if improvements by society increase the value of your location you should pay something in respect of that change in value.
IMHO most of the cost of public transport can and should flow from the capture of a small part of the increased land rental value in the area served. Both Hong Kong and Denmark get this right, and a few US areas have also in the past until landlord interests got their way and moved taxes to income and expenditure.
Why Solving the Credit Crunch Is Key [View article]