Youtube comments of Henry Law (@henrybn14ar).
-
404
-
399
-
156
-
128
-
123
-
100
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
72
-
71
-
62
-
61
-
59
-
54
-
48
-
47
-
42
-
42
-
40
-
38
-
38
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
28
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What a shame. There will be less money for corrupt officials and contractors in the poor countries to line their pockets with. 'Rich' Sweden has run out of money. The great influx of immigrants since 2015 has resulted in the Swedish central and local government having huge liabilities and no resources to meet them with. Good for the UK. It now looks as if, all along, it had been the cornerstone of the whole babel tower. Now it has gone, the edifice will collapse. Here are the policies that would have been needed for a viable and sustainable EU, based on the ideas of the once famous, but now forgotten economist, Henry George.
* No agricultural subsidies or guaranteed prices permitted
* No taxes to be levied on goods, services, individuals or companies.(with possible exception of alcohol, tobacco and other harmful substances, and gambling)
* No tariffs to be charged on imports from outside the EU.
* A minimum percentage of public revenue to be raised by a tax on the rental value of land (at least, say 60% on entry, 80% after five years).
* A small carbon tax, on the basis that the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the use of a "common" - though not too much as it hits people in remote and colder regions.
* Contributions to the central fund to be in proportion to:the aggregate land rental value of each country, plus revenues from all other taxes (all taxes come out of land rental value - it follows from Ricardo's Law of Rent)
Such a scheme would have allowed free movement of people as immigrants could easily have found means of supporting themselves. A common currency would have been possible if desired. The only trouble is that the privileged classes would not have bought the idea, and as they are in charge, the EU will go through an acrimonious break-up.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davec-1378 Marxist theory presents four insuperable problems.
1) His Labour Theory of Value. It does not stand up to close examination, for the reasons which have been rehearsed so many times since the theory was first put forward. The Marginal Utility Theory of Value is also false, since it attempts to deny that labour creates value. Labour and value are related. The value of something is the labour that someone will give in order to acquire it. Drop the dialectic for a moment and you will realise that this is obvious. It is also the reason why Marx was able to draw the conclusion that value depends on the labour that goes into production, which is normally the case.
This is a mixture of accurate observation so mixed in with howlers that it is difficult to disentangle, which is probably the reason for its lasting appeal.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm
2) Value of land. The LTV does not explain why land has a value. No labour is required to produce land, for the simple reason that land cannot be produced by human labour.
3) Conflation of land and capital. Land is sui generis and a factor of production separate from capital. The supply of capital, defined as goods set aside for the purpose of production, can expand in response to demand. The supply of land is both fixed and monopolised by landowners. Until this is recognised, it is impossible to analyse the nature of the economic process. Marx was not the only one to make this mistake. So did Pope Leo XIII, and so also do the defenders of the so-called capitalist system. One of the mischiefs this does is to make it impossible to identify with accuracy what is wrong with 'capitalism', and so the arguments go round in circles.
4) The general problem of changing human society for the better. If people are 'bad' because of their circumstances and the system, then, since the system can only be changed by people, how is it possible that people who have been formed by a 'bad' system can act in such a way as to create a 'good' system?
If find myself at odds with both the libertarians of the Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard camp on the one hand, and Marxist like you on the other. The Randists accuse me of being a Communist and the Marxists accuse me of being a libertarian extremists. I am still trying to work out how I can be both at the same time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
UK waters are a "common" which is the property of the entire British people. They should not be given away to anyone. In economics, fish in the sea are classified as ‘land’, which provides a clue about how this natural resource, which belongs to the nation as a whole, ought to be managed. A scheme of leasing or licensing is needed, on the following lines.
* Fishing grounds would be divided into zones based on criteria such as location to ports, types of fishing habitats and availability of species.
* Licenses should not be freehold but be valid for a limited period of from one to five years.
* Licences should be subject to terms and conditions such as sizes and types of boats which can be used, methods of fishing, size of mesh, quantities and sizes of each species which can be caught. Licenses should be sold at open auction; auctions for inshore fishing zones might be held locally.
* Revenues should be reserved for policing, protection, conservation, fish hatchery and research.
There is no reason why foreign fishermen should be allowed to bid for these licences. However, it is unlikely that Dieppe fishermen would outbid the Hastings fishermen for the right to fish off the Sussex coast. Sixty miles across an often stormy sea in a small boat would not be worth the risk of paying for the licence.
The long term aim should be to protect and enhance what is an important part of the national ‘estate’, and as any prudent landowner would do, revenues would be ploughed back so as to maintain, and preferably increase, the long term rental yield. The precedent has been set with the systems for auctioning of offshore oil exploration rights and radio spectrum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Scotland's economic problems are the same in nature as those in Wales and the English regions. The UK tax system is the principal villain. The article in the link below illustrates how the tax system amplifies the effects of geographical disadvantage. The only form of tax which recognises geography is a tax on the rental value of land. If that is off the menu, then other measures to rebalance the economy remain possible, such as differential tax thresholds in different parts of the country. The government also needs to grasp the nettle and drive through a reform of the property tax system, resisting the hysterics about old widows in mansions. It is absurd and unfair to base a property tax on what was a rough-and-ready valuation done thirty years ago, while the UBR hammers manufacturers, heavy chemicals, petrochemicals, high streets in poor areas, and stamp duty is a tax on moving which gums up the entire property market.
http://www.landvaluetax.org/theory/sounds-from-the-deep.html
The UK government should do NOTHING to restrict inward movement of goods to the UK. The government should be firm about this. If the EU wants to have restrictions on goods moving into its jurisdiction, then it should pay the cost and run whatever system it chooses to have. The EU's determination to restrict movement of goods INTO the EU is negative for those inside the zone of restriction. This seems to be little appreciated. An independent Scotland in the EU would cause a permanent traffic tailback on the A1 which could stretch all the way to the outskirts of Newcastle. It is astonishing that the Scotnats seem not to have understood this. Prices of goods in Scotland would rise due to transport and customs delays, EU tariffs and the extra cost of transporting material across 400 miles of the North Sea.
As for fish; the fishing grounds belong to the British people, not to British fishermen. Licences should be auctioned and go to the highest bidders wherever they are.
http://www.landvaluetax.org/the-lvtc-blog-by-henry-law/fishing-and-brexit.html
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The policy of focus on exports is the present-day implementation of the seventeenth century theory of economics known as 'Mercantilism'. It was shown to be fallacious by all the classical economists, starting with the French Physiocrats, but famously, by Adam Smith, who demolished the theory. The most accessible refutation, however, is in two books by Henry George, 'Progress and Poverty' and 'Protection or Free Trade.' A reading of the former book is essential to understand what is going on in the present situation with low or negative interest rates, the effect of which is to support unrealistically high land values (usually and confusingly referred to as 'asset values'). They will propel the countries affected into the biggest crash of all time, probably around 2026, and we can expect comprehensive political and civil unrest to follow.
Mercantilism leads to irrational economic behaviour but has always been the driver of EEC/EU policy and is now espoused by China and Trump. The winners are the countries which resist the temptation to fight it with tariffs and other trade barriers of their own.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The quality of your comments is slipping badly. You were superb before the election and up to 31 January. But now you are advocating two mutually exclusive policy aims. It is not unreasonable that property tax payable should be proportional to the value of the property, and this should apply at a national level. It is also unreasonable that a property tax should be based on values which are thirty years out of date. The relative values of properties in different areas has changed hugely since then, for example, due to the construction of new infrastructure. Some properties are loaded with too much tax, others are paying less than their fair share, and their owners have been free-riding.
Singapore is substantially funded by a property tax on land values, as is Taiwan, while in Hong Kong, there is no freehold ownership of land, and the government receives much of its revenue from the sale of 40 year leases. This is key to their remarkable success and why they sustain genuine enterprise capitalism whereas the UK economy creaks along, held down by rentier capitalism.
Please do some proper research so that you can enlighten your audience. Your comments today are misleading. You could usefully do a course in economics. The London School of Economic Science is solid on this subject - possibly the only place in London that is; they also teach the Indian system of philosophy known as Advaita Vedanta but that is a separate department and you do not need to have anything to do with it.
https://www.schoolofphilosophy.org/course-category/economics/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davec-1378 Marx's theory is frankly, incomprehensible. It does not make sense in English, due to the poor quality of the translations, which also casts doubt on whether the concepts reflect Marx's intentions. It isn't even grammatical. Whether it makes sense in German, I am in no position to judge; my knowledge of that language is just sufficient to get by when travelling. Your own English is not clear, either. Equivocate is an intransitive verb. I am not being pernickity; I genuinely do not understand what you are saying, or trying to say.
This is not a matter of equivocation, but according to your previous explanation, Marx appears to be conflating two separate meanings of the term 'value', which makes it useless as a tool for understanding the economic process. As I understand value, it is measurable ONLY at the point when exchange takes place, when a price appears. I am happy to accept another definition, but you need to explain it clearly and unambiguously. Again, as I understand it, equilibrium price is the price towards which actual price trends at any given time and place. If you can come up with an alternative definition, then please do so in your own clear words.
There is a competing LTV, the one given by George in 'The Science of Political Economy'. That you have not heard of that theory does not mean that it does not exist.
1
-
@davec-1378
are equivicating on "Value" because what Marx is REFERRING TO is completely different than the subjective or utilitarian definitions of Value. Marx is REFERRING to a theoretical unobservable that EXPLAINS equilibrium prices.
Please clarify the above.
Your version of "value" is NOT trying to explain equilibrium prices, is it?
My definition is a refinement of the normal English meaning of the term. Any discussion has to agree the meanings of terms. It appears that we are not speaking the same language.
So your "value" and what Marx terms "value" are NOT in reference to the same thing. Hence, you are equivicating.
I am still trying to discover what Marx means by the term value, because it appears to be utterly divorced from any normal meaning of the term. I accept that in economics, terms need to be defined with more precision than in everyday speech but they cannot diverge too much. That is why I have asked you to clarify but you have not done so.
2. It's funny you claim Marx is "unintelligible" but yet believe you are in a position to critique the theory. You cannot critique what you do not understand.
It is not in the least bit funny. It is not necessary to understand a theory in precisely the way that the author of the theory intended in order to recognise if it is fundamentally flawed. If you try to play the card of having special knowledge, then no discussion can be had. Nor can you expect anyone to accept without reservation that what you have to say is an accurate interpretation of Marx himself. Unless German is your first language and you can dig the meaning out of a heavy, mid-nineteenth century text, you yourself are dependent on the accuracy of the translation.
3. "OTHER THEORIES" Your constant equivocation invalidates any idea an apposing theory explains what Marx explains and predicts because you have shown you lack the understanding to compare any theory with Marx.
QUESTION What theory explains equilibrium prices and how does it explain them. That's a first small step you need to take to say there is a competing theory. BTW Notice that all you do is say "Marx is wrong and xxx is right"? That's mere assertion and not addressing his argument.
I gave you chapter and verse. You can check it out for yourself. You are the expert on Marx. If equilibrium price according to Marx means what it normally means in economics, then the George theory explains it very well ie it is the price which is equal to the cost of the inputs and wages paid at the going rate. If the price is higher, the goods will continue to be produced. As production increases, the price falls to the point when it is not worth producing any more of the goods. It is a tendency due to hysteresis in the system which leads to overshoot when production increases, and over-pricing when demand is waiting for supply to catch up. This is a familiar situation with RAM chips. That explanation accepts that only labour can add value but also accounts for the observation that labour does not necessarily add value. The Marx theory appears not to explain the latter phenomenon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To everyone - please study your Adam Smith and stop being mercantilist; keep your focus on IMPORTS as well as EXPORTS. A balance of payments surplus means that there is a net flow of real wealth out of the country. The surplus is other countries' paper. The EU negotiators are behaving stupidly, in particular, because they ignore the effect that treating the UK as a third country will have on IMPORTS to the EU. Ireland in particular, will be badly hit because the UK is a major source of so many goods. After Brexit, the Irish will suffer as they will either have to pay the EU tariffs or the extra transport costs of bringing goods from continental Europe instead. They will be hit with a price hike. In other EU countries, there will be specific problems as UK products become more expensive and difficult to obtain - for example, Swedish microbreweries like to use UK malted barley.
The best thing that the UK government could do is to announce that it is committed in principle to allowing unrestricted importation of goods from everywhere in the world (including the EU), without waiting for the governments of other countries to reciprocate. I was going to say 'reciprocate the favour', but reciprocation is doing their own consumers and manufacturers the favour; they are the ones who want or need UK products - they do not buy them as an act of charity. The only politicians who seem to have been aware of this and understand why are some in the European Research Group. If the principles they advocate are not followed, the UK will not get the most out of Brexit. I am Swedish, and want to see Brexit succeed and set the example to other countries of the benefits that will come from a return to the British free trade tradition. Waiting for reciprocation is not part of that. If the other countries' governments do not reciprocate, it's their own funeral.
Mahyar - please explain this in another video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is one of the best arguments for leaving the EU that I have ever heard. Well done for putting it together, and I bet that was not recited from memory. What a chaotic and incomprehensible shambles you have described it to be, like a ball of wool a cat has been playing with all day. It explains the almost unerring ability of the EU to make bad decisions, even when the intentions are worthy. And why is it meddling with trivia like the power consumption of vacuum cleaners? Run away. Fast.
In the British Constitution, power derives from the Sovereign, who is responsible to God. This is made explicit when the British monarch is anointed at the Coronation ceremony. The rest, Lords, Parliament, the Justice system and the executive civil service, follows in a logical and comprehensible progression and is mirrored at county, city, borough and parish level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From Västtrafiken's (West Sweden) web site
Västtrafik now reduced tram frequencies in Gothenburg. The change applies from Thursday. The reason is staff shortages due to the corona virus.
March 24 at 6:53 pm
Prohibition of gatherings with more than 50 people
The Public Health Authority has introduced a new ban on public gatherings with more than 50 people. It is about planned and larger gatherings, such as parties and competitive sports events. The Public Health Authority has announced that they will gradually specify what gatherings will be subject to the ban. Public transport has not yet been included, but Västtrafik is following the trend closely.
The army has set up emergency hospitals in Stockholm and Gothenburg ready for the expected onslaught. The policy seems to be to let it happen. There is a lot of politics behind this. The government's advisor, Anders Tegnell, is a known Marxist and takes the view that the community is more important than the individual, and a few thousand dead grannies and grandpas is a price worth paying to acquire herd immunity. That said, it would be a merciful release for those in some of the Swedish care homes.
There is a pattern here. It is the same incompetence, perpetrated by the same government, that allowed an influx of 190,000 migrants, including a few genuine refugees, in 2015. These migrants, mostly young men, were then spread round the country and the local authorities were told that the government would give them financial support - for a limited period (two or three years, if I recall). We have also had an explosion of violent crime in what was once an outstandingly safe country. Now the government money has stopped and the local authorities have gone broke. From being one of the best managed countries in the world ten years ago, it has degenerated into a shambles of mis-government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not one of your better efforts.
Mansion tax is a bad idea but it is undeniable that the most valuable properties in the London and the south east pay an absurdly low tax in relation to their value. These properties are expensive because of the wealth that flows into London and the south east, which is largely because the tax and financial systems suck wealth created in the rest of the country into London. The value of these properties is sustained on the vast amounts of public money that must be spent in providing the infrastructure that London enjoys. If the rest of the country is to regenerate, the overall burden of tax must be shifted away from the regions (including Scotland and Wales), which means that London and the South East must accept the need to carry some of that burden. If this is not done, not only will the new Conservative support in the north will evaporate, but political unrest will build up again. Last time, it gave rise to Brexit, which was an excellent thing. If disillusion sets in, the results could be ugly.
What is needed is a comprehensive rationalisation of the entire chaotic and irrational UK property tax system to make it fit for the post-Brexit age. The South-East tiger economies of Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong derive much of their government revenue from a soundly designed system of property tax. This enables them to levy low taxes on work and wealth creation. If we want Singapore-on-Thames, the country needs to follow suit with Singapore' tax system. The real objection to Mansion Tax is that it is tinkering with a problem that has been allowed to fester since the end of the Second World War.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is time to stop using GDP as a measure of anything. It is nonsensical. If a couple of million women are working in factories making junk food, the value of this work appears twice over, first in the monetary value of what they produce, and second, in the money the spend, probably helping to pay the mortgage. If they stay at home and cook their own food, it is reflected in a lower GDP figure, even though it would probably be better food. The GDP measures only the money economy. It cannot, of its nature, measure the value of work people to for themselves or their families, or for friends and neighbours, food grown in gardens and allotments. GDP began as a figure used by academic economists. When it becomes a target for government policy, it is disastrous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johndeacon6308 Without Brexit, the UK is permanently saddled with the EU's three terrible economic policies: VAT, CAP and a tariff wall against imports from outside the EU. That is a heavy price to pay. They are a major factor in the UK's regional economic imbalance. Freedom of movement of labour drives down wages and forces up rents, which is good if you are a tight employer or greedy landlord. The four freedoms will not work effectively unless a fifth freedom is added - free land, which means land value taxation at a meaningful rate. Given a package of reforms which scrapped VAT, CAP, and import tariffs, and required member states to operate a land value tax, we would have a very different EU, one that was sustainable, and which closed the gap between rich and poor. I would wholeheartedly support such an EU. Otherwise, it is is a millstone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WiggaMachiavelli It is not clear what exactly you are proposing but if government were to create the money needed to pay for the public sector, including pensions and benefits, the additional money in circulation would lead to a general rise in prices. In year two of the scheme, more money would be needed to pay for the public sector, due to that rise in prices. In year three, it would be more still. Within a decade, there would be runaway inflation. What you are proposing was done in Zimbabwe and Nicaragua.
My argument does indeed apply to all inflationary monetary policy. It is fraudulent, it robs people of their savings, it destroys the function of money, government should not do it and they do not need to do it.
There is no difficulty in assessing the rental value of vacant land. The valuer looks at the value of all the land around and takes a weighted average. Valuers do this all the time. It is their job. If it could not be done, a tenant or purchaser would never know how much they should pay for purchase or lease. Exemption of unused land promotes dereliction. It rewards landowners for leaving sites vacant and punishes them for bringing the land into productive use. That would be a perverse incentive. It is, in fact, the way the British commercial property tax operates. That is why British cities are full of derelict sites. Dereliction deprives people of work opportunities. It is a major cause of unemployment.
1
-
@WiggaMachiavelli Funding governments by wholly or partly by expansion of the money supply has been done many times before. It has invariably led to accelerating inflation. The simple explanation is the one I gave earlier. The more detailed explanation is based on the academic work done between 1955 and 1980, following the problems that arose with the Keynesian full employment policies adopted after 1945. It is a runaway effect. Inflation was a couple of per cent in 1946 but had risen to over 20% by the late 1970s and that led to the election of Thatcher. In between there were two runs on sterling, followed by devaluations, and the crisis which led to a bail out by the IMF, as well as the property boom which ran from about 1965 to 1974.
People allow for the inflation in advance by fleeing to other stores of value.
As for your comments on land value taxation - I am not even going to begin to answer them, since clearly you have not yet understood what is proposed, nor the economic theory that lies behind the proposal, nor the likely effects, which are largely known because it is not a new or unknown policy.
Valuations are based on the rents that are actually taken. They are derived from market evidence. If they are wrong, there is an appeals procedure, exactly as there is with existing UK property taxes. The difference from existing UK property taxes is that since the valuation is on land alone, there is more certainty and less scope for dispute.
The purchase of land which is then left derelict is widespread. There are large and valuable sites in the middle of Brighton (Sussex, UK) which have been vacant for over 30 years, and that is WITH planning consent for most of the time. Those sites are exempt from property taxation.
1
-
@gooble69 Are we having the same conversation? Seemingly not. What do you think I mean by 'benefits received'?
Hint: see Adam Smith on taxation - Canon 1.
'The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. Every tax, it must be observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in so far as it does not affect the other two. In the following examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further notice of this sort of inequality, but shall, in most cases, confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by a particular tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort of private revenue which is affected by it.'
You could usefully read the entire chapter if you want a coherent right wing view on taxation.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html?chapter_num=36#book-reader
I am not in the US but another commentator said that military defence worked out at $2000 per head per year, which is $40 a week. That is not a fortune. If 40 million people cannot afford to eat regularly you need to ask why. I would suggest that one reason is precisely because the tax system is NOT based on benefits received, as defined by Smith.
1
-
@WiggaMachiavelli Hyperinflation does not occur when the money supply is tightly controlled. But what you seem to be suggesting is that all government expenditure should be by expansion of the money supply.
We can look at the figures for the UK. In the first place, money supply has to be defined, as there are four separate measures. The widest measure is M4, which includes double counting with credits which are cancelled out by debits. If we go with the M3 definition, that is £2.8 trillion for 2018. Government expenditure in 2018 was expected to be about £1 trillion. If that amount of money was just printed into circulation, it would increase money supply by 30%. This takes two years to worth through into prices, so in 2021, prices would be 30% higher. That means that in 2021, £1.3 trillion would have to be printed into circulation. In succeeding years the annual amounts needed to be spent into circulation would grow at an increasing rate, and there is your runaway inflation. It would not be hyperinflation at Zimbabwean levels, but the rate would be accelerating.
Money CAN safely be spent into circulation but it has to be removed later on through taxation.
In most modern economies, the inflation has been feeding into land values eg spiralling house prices, rather than to retail prices. This is going to end catastrophically, probably in 2025.
What I am saying is not in the least controversial.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/634/economics/the-problem-with-printing-money/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1