Your Top 5 Economists?
Steve Christie
1. Adam Smith
2. John Keynes
3. David Ricardo
4. Alfred Marshall
5. FA Hayek
--
The Reverend $tévåñö Çhrístîðnò II
" 'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world
to the scratching of my finger.''
--David Hume, A Treatise on Human Nature
ro...@telus.net
<steve.chri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Just for fun!
>
>1. Adam Smith
>2. John Keynes
>3. David Ricardo
>4. Alfred Marshall
>5. FA Hayek
IMO Keynes and Hayek are over-rated. I'd go for Samuelson, and then
there's a handful I can't pick from.
-- Roy L
Mason Clark
<steve.chri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Just for fun!
>
>1. Adam Smith
>2. John Keynes
>3. David Ricardo
>4. Alfred Marshall
>5. FA Hayek
Define "top" please. Most correct? Most popular?
Most quoted? Most influential?
"Correct" can't include Ricardo, for one
"Popular" can't include Keynes, at least among Republicans
"Quoted" can't include Marshall, who was he? never heard of him
"Most influential, surely Marx and Ayn Rand, Greenspan's mentor.
Mason C
Steve Christie
> Most quoted? Most influential?
> "Correct" can't include Ricardo, for one
That's a surprising comment. Why not?
> "Popular" can't include Keynes, at least among Republicans
They might not agree with his aims, but he provided them with the language
in the first place
> "Quoted" can't include Marshall, who was he? never heard of him
He figured out that it's supply and demand together that cause price.
> "Most influential, surely Marx and Ayn Rand, Greenspan's mentor.
I wouldn't say Rand was as influential as Adam Smith. But it's your top 5 :)
--
The Reverend $tévåñö Çhrístîðnò II
"Such truth, as opposeth no man's profit, nor pleasure, is to all men
welcome"
--Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
"I rather tell thee what is to be feared than what I fear, for always I am
Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
Tim Worstall
Samuelson has been extremely influential as a result of the textbook.
This makes him a great educator, not a great economist. ( and yes, I
know he also did real research :-) ).
I as an A level ( about sophmore level in US college ) student was
able to spot an error in the textbook, wrote a letter and still
treasure the response ( you the student are correct, I the textbook
writer am wrong ). That letter makes S a great man in my book, but
that is not the same as a " great economist ". Hayek ? I did actually
go to the college he taught at, although after his time. I would argue
that his great value was as a political thinker ( Road to Serfdom etc
) rather than an economist.....that his thoughts have informed many
economists does not mean that he himself was an innovative or great
economist himself.
But then this is all so subjective anyway.....But Smith ( capitalism
works ), Marshall ( we can prove it by using maths ) and Ricardo (
comparative advantage, the only piece of economics that is not either
trivial or obvious )....certainly they are up there.
Marx was hugely influential of course.....yet sadly wrong.
Tim Worstall
>
> -- Roy L
Christopher Auld
>Samuelson has been extremely influential as a result of the textbook.
>This makes him a great educator, not a great economist. ( and yes, I
Samuelson's textbook was influential because his research
was influential. You don't get the Nobel for writing a
spiffy textbook! :)
--
Chris Auld
Department of Economics
University of Calgary
au...@ucalgary.ca
Paul Walker
> Just for fun!
> 1. Adam Smith
> 2. John Keynes
> 3. David Ricardo
> 4. Alfred Marshall
> 5. FA Hayek
You have to add Ronald Coase on the list.
_____________________________________________________________
Paul Walker p.wa...@econ.canterbury.ac.nz
William F Hummel
<steve.chri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Just for fun!
>
>1. Adam Smith
>2. John Keynes
>3. David Ricardo
>4. Alfred Marshall
>5. FA Hayek
Ricardo's classic argument regarding comparative advantage
Implicitly assumes full employment. Without full employment it
is a race to the bottom in real wages.
Kimon Berlin
news:7dd46vkhj361rikcc...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:08:31 -0000, "Steve Christie"
> <steve.chri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Just for fun!
>>
>>1. Adam Smith
>>2. John Keynes
>>3. David Ricardo
>>4. Alfred Marshall
>>5. FA Hayek
(That would have been my list too.)
> Ricardo's classic argument regarding comparative advantage
> Implicitly assumes full employment. Without full employment it
> is a race to the bottom in real wages.
True about Ricardo's argument. However, concerning the "race to the
bottom", see for instance:
"As for the “race to the bottom”, it has become a matter of faith that
corporations will force lower standards at home by threatening exit to poor
countries with lower labour standards otherwise. But, when one looks for
evidence, there is little beyond occasional anecdotes. David Drezner, a
political scientist at Chicago University and the Council on Foreign
relations who has carefully examined the question, has concluded that the
“race to the bottom” rhetoric is little more than that."
Jagdish Bhagwati, "Free Trade and Labour"
Bhagwati would be in my top ten.
--
Kimon
Tim Worstall
> Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>
> >Samuelson has been extremely influential as a result of the textbook.
> >This makes him a great educator, not a great economist. ( and yes, I
>
> Samuelson's textbook was influential because his research
> was influential. You don't get the Nobel for writing a
> spiffy textbook! :)
I realise that the Nobel isn´t given for textbooks. I also realise
that Samuelson got the Nobel ( although I couldn´t pinpoint the work
he got it for ).
I would still argue that Samuelson has been more influential via
several generations of economists have being given their grounding in
the subject via his textbook rather than ( as I admit I don´t know
what) the research work he got the Nobel for.
Perhaps I should also point out that I don´t see a direct connection
between the ability to write a spiffy textbook and the ability to do
the research necessary to get a Nobel. Plenty of extremely influential
textbooks are written by those who do not get a Nobel, just as there
are many ( certainly the vast majority of ) Nobel winners who do not
write undergraduate ( or in the UK, A level ) level textbooks.
I can´t remember when the Nobel for Economics came in......late 60 ´s
? So there have been 30 - 40 economics laureates....we are going to
have to leave some off our list of top five economists. And while
Samuelson is both famous and influential, I think that that fame and
influence ( to say nothing of wealth accumulated ) has more to do with
his textbook and prowess as an educator than his prowess as a research
economist.
Which in my typically clumsy ( and , mea culpa, beer influenced at
the time )
manner, that is what I was trying to say.
Tim Worstall
Christopher Auld
>au...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Christopher Auld) wrote in message news:<b3ri62$1u...@acs1.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
>> Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>> >Samuelson has been extremely influential as a result of the textbook.
>> >This makes him a great educator, not a great economist. ( and yes, I
>> Samuelson's textbook was influential because his research
>> was influential. You don't get the Nobel for writing a
>> spiffy textbook! :)
>I would still argue that Samuelson has been more influential via
>several generations of economists have being given their grounding in
>the subject via his textbook rather than ( as I admit I don´t know
>what) the research work he got the Nobel for.
Influential to whom? Samuelson's research would've been
influential among economists whether or not he'd written
a textbook. The Nobel biography can be found here:
http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1970/samuelson-bio.html
The reason he is considered a great economist is because
of his research, not his textbook, which is not to deny
his textbook was also extremely well received and influential
in the teaching of introductory economics.
>Perhaps I should also point out that I don´t see a direct connection
>between the ability to write a spiffy textbook and the ability to do
>the research necessary to get a Nobel.
If you survey popular and influential textbooks you will
find they are usually written by people who are also
highly regarded researchers. That is, textbooks can only
become influential among students if they are adopted
by professors, and professors will tend to choose textbooks
written by people who have done influential (among academics)
research. Thus I would suggest that even his influence
among people unfamiliar with his research is indirectly
a result of that research.
Richard
2. John Keynes
3. Adam Smith
4. Milton Friedman
5. David Ricardo
Richard
1. Karl Marx
2. John Keynes
3. Ludwig Von Mises
4. Milton Friedman
5. Ayn Rand
Mason Clark
>"Steve Christie" <steve.chri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<V%Q7a.1542$q31...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>> Just for fun!
>
>> 1. Adam Smith
>> 2. John Keynes
>> 3. David Ricardo
>> 4. Alfred Marshall
>> 5. FA Hayek
>
>You have to add Ronald Coase on the list.
>
And replace who? whom? whatever
Mason C
William F Hummel
Well, let look at some of the jobs that have migrated overseas:
Software and tech support to India; most computers to Asian
tiger; textiles and clothing to Pakistan, Bangladesh, and
Dominican Republic; athletic shoes to China; and numerous goods
to Mexican plants below the border. All for cheaper labor costs.
That's more than rhetoric.
Grinch
<wfhu...@attbi.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 17:14:15 GMT, Kimon Berlin
><ki...@partideletranger.org> wrote:
>
>>William F Hummel <wfhu...@attbi.com> wrote in
>>news:7dd46vkhj361rikcc...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:08:31 -0000, "Steve Christie"
>>> <steve.chri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just for fun!
>>
>>> Ricardo's classic argument regarding comparative advantage
>>> Implicitly assumes full employment. Without full employment it
>>> is a race to the bottom in real wages.
>>
>>True about Ricardo's argument. However, concerning the "race to the
>>bottom", see for instance:
>>
>>"As for the “race to the bottom”, it has become a matter of faith that
>>corporations will force lower standards at home by threatening exit to poor
>>countries with lower labour standards otherwise. But, when one looks for
>>evidence, there is little beyond occasional anecdotes. David Drezner, a
>>political scientist at Chicago University and the Council on Foreign
>>relations who has carefully examined the question, has concluded that the
>>“race to the bottom” rhetoric is little more than that."
>>Jagdish Bhagwati, "Free Trade and Labour"
>>
>>Bhagwati would be in my top ten.
>
>Well, let look at some of the jobs that have migrated overseas:
>Software and tech support to India; most computers to Asian
>tiger; textiles and clothing to Pakistan, Bangladesh, and
>Dominican Republic; athletic shoes to China; and numerous goods
>to Mexican plants below the border. All for cheaper labor costs.
But those jobs provide *higher* wages than were previously available
in the countries where they move to, which is why so many people there
want them. Contradicting the "race to the bottom" scenario in those
countries.
And wages in the US have been notably strong for years now, in spite
of Nafta et.al., in spite even of the recent recession and current
weak economy, during which very weak corporate investment has been
offset by strong consumer spending as worker wages continue to grow.
If one wants to claim a "race to the bottom" scenario as reality one
must document declining wages *generally*, at least in industries open
to trade, in both countries.
Cherry picking one industry in one country as an example of declining
wages do to jobs moving overseas doesn't do it -- especially if the
arrival of those jobs in the other country increases wages there.
>That's more than rhetoric.
Well, then lets see the data for wages in various countries in
industries open to trade.
The BLS has it on its web site for the last 30-50 years. And those
wage rates have been up, up, up, up, up...
Paul Walker
Keynes.
____________________________________________________
Paul Walker p.wa...@econ.canterbury.ac.nz
Robert Vienneau
p.wa...@econ.canterbury.ac.nz (Paul Walker) wrote:
> Mason Clark <masonc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:<d2466v0bapaiv5a25...@4ax.com>...
> > On 2 Mar 2003 02:21:04 -0800, p.wa...@econ.canterbury.ac.nz (Paul
> > Walker) wrote:
>
> > >"Steve Christie" <steve.chri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> > >message news:<V%Q7a.1542$q31...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > >> Just for fun!
> > >> 1. Adam Smith
> > >> 2. John Keynes
> > >> 3. David Ricardo
> > >> 4. Alfred Marshall
> > >> 5. FA Hayek
> > >You have to add Ronald Coase on the list.
>
> > And replace who? whom? whatever
> Keynes.
Paul Walker has terrible taste.
Q: Who was the greatest 20th century economist? A: Michal Kalecki.
Marshall was mistaken. And as for influence - Walras was more
important for the development of economic theory for a good chunk of
the 20th century.
--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
Mason Clark
No. The bottom is rising in some countries. "Race to the bottom" is
an expression for global averaging. For the U.S., averaging down.
Now, now....keep reading for my next comment.
>
>And wages in the US have been notably strong for years now, in spite
>of Nafta et.al., in spite even of the recent recession and current
>weak economy, during which very weak corporate investment has been
>offset by strong consumer spending as worker wages continue to grow.
>
Wages are indeed "sticky." In addition, the spectrum of jobs has been
changing. Inflation is low because of lower labor costs because so much
labor is now overseas. To be an economists, go to a U.S. store and
buy a shirt or a shoe or....
>If one wants to claim a "race to the bottom" scenario as reality one
>must document declining wages *generally*, at least in industries open
>to trade, in both countries.
No. See first comment above.
>
>Cherry picking one industry in one country as an example of declining
>wages do to jobs moving overseas doesn't do it -- especially if the
>arrival of those jobs in the other country increases wages there.
>
>>That's more than rhetoric.
>
>Well, then lets see the data for wages in various countries in
>industries open to trade.
>
>The BLS has it on its web site for the last 30-50 years. And those
>wage rates have been up, up, up, up, up...
True. This does not disprove the "race to the bottom" expression.
Mason C
David Lloyd-Jones
>
>Q: Who was the greatest 20th century economist? A: Michal Kalecki.
>
>
Robert,
Kalecki would be high on my list of people whose ideas are the most
pleasure to contemplate -- but don't you agree that he's one of the
all-time best examples of the dictum "In theory theory and practice are
the same thing, but in practice..."
Cheers,
-dlj.
>
>
The Pomeranian
Steve Christie wrote:
>
> Just for fun!
>
> 1. Adam Smith
> 2. John Keynes
> 3. David Ricardo
> 4. Alfred Marshall
> 5. FA Hayek
1. my Mom
2. Grinch's Mom
3. Richard Hatch
4. Mr. T
5. Roy's right hemisphere
6. Insurance Stroker
:
:
:
infinity - 2. Dickard Gephardt
infinity - 1. Trent Lott
infinity. my ex-wife
You're welcome,
Pom-Pom
Christopher Auld
> 3. Richard Hatch
Now, is that Richard Hatch from _Survivor_ or Richard
Hatch the guy who played Apollo on _Battlestar Galactica_?
Both fine economists to be sure, but the survivor guy
never used game theory to outwit the evil Cylons.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>1. Karl Marx
??? It would be difficult to name an economic concept that Marx
actually understood.
-- Roy L
Steve Christie
>
> ??? It would be difficult to name an economic concept that Marx
> actually understood.
>
> -- Roy L
In his defence:
•I think Marx was the first person to notice that there was widespread
unemployment in Europe
•He wrote reasonable essays of economic history on China and others
•He did come up with brilliant, if incorrect, ideas to explain economic life
(such as the worker's "labour power").
--
The Reverend $tévåñö Çhrístîðnò II
"Such truth, as opposeth no man's profit, nor pleasure, is to all men
welcome"
--Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
Narnia Fan
Eh? If you can call that a race to the bottom (where the bottom
is rising), then you can also call open international trade a race
to the top (where the top is reducing). The folks who might
describe it as a race to the bottom would be residents of the
richer country, and those who describe it as a race to the top
would be residents of the poorer country. Your revised
statement (averaging) is more defensible than the initial
formulation (race to the bottom.)
NarniaFan
Grinch
wrote:
Facts never seem to disprove expressions on usenet.
>> Mason C
>
>Eh? If you can call that a race to the bottom (where the bottom
>is rising), then you can also call open international trade a race
>to the top (where the top is reducing). The folks who might
>describe it as a race to the bottom would be residents of the
>richer country, and those who describe it as a race to the top
>would be residents of the poorer country. Your revised
>statement (averaging) is more defensible than the initial
>formulation (race to the bottom.)
Or we could refer to the real world, as shown in the BLS international
data, where the bottom rises and the top rises too. And the middle
also rises!
And while this proves there is no race to the bottom in fact, we must
concede that it does not disprove "race to the bottom" as an
*expression*, and resign ourselves to the expectation of hearing that
expression over and over again into the future.
>
>NarniaFan
Stephen J. Fromm
Some claim that wages respond far less to demand for exports than one
might think.
Fourth paragraph of "There's Only So Much That Foreign Trade Can Do,"
Washington Post, Sunday, June 2, 2002, by Alan Tonelson (link at
http://www.globalexchange.org/wto/20020610_137.html):
"Contrary to the view of globalization supporters and even some
critics, trade with the United States does not automatically provide
Third World workers with the keys to wealth and happiness. In a recent
survey, the Reston-based consulting firm Werner International Inc. has
compiled nearly a decade's worth of hard data on actual wages paid to
workers in an industry that is seen as crucial to Third World hopes
for industrialization -- apparel. Perhaps no other industry has
profited more from exporting to the United States. And yet the figures
show that there has been almost uniform wage meltdown in the apparel
industry in the Third World."
David Lloyd-Jones
>Some claim that wages respond far less to demand for exports than one
>might think.
>Fourth paragraph of "There's Only So Much That Foreign Trade Can Do,"
>Washington Post, Sunday, June 2, 2002, by Alan Tonelson (link at
>http://www.globalexchange.org/wto/20020610_137.html):
>
>"Contrary to the view of globalization supporters and even some
>critics, trade with the United States does not automatically provide
>Third World workers with the keys to wealth and happiness. In a recent
>survey, the Reston-based consulting firm Werner International Inc. has
>compiled nearly a decade's worth of hard data on actual wages paid to
>workers in an industry that is seen as crucial to Third World hopes
>for industrialization -- apparel. Perhaps no other industry has
>profited more from exporting to the United States. And yet the figures
>show that there has been almost uniform wage meltdown in the apparel
>industry in the Third World."
>
Stephen,
Thanks for the pointer to http://www.globalexchange.org . They're a
little too sickly sweet for my taste, and although they don't really
identify themselves I suspect Nashville Church money at work here, just
judging from the flavor.
The bit you quote, above, is pretty convincing, but does not confront
the point that industrialising the third world sends wealth to the third
world. Within the developing countries the entrepreneurs seem, on the
evidence you point to, to be getting most of the spoils, and that's a
bit of a shame -- though not the worst thing in the world. The working
people, getting the short end of the stick as usual, are still better
off than if they were a rural landless rabble, living on the literal
edge. Their children will have the advantages of urban life, some
schooling, good clothing and sneakers obviously, and will be a few steps
ahead of where their great-grandparents were.
More wealth for the third world suggests that union organizing might be
a good thing in many of these places. Note that if the unions of
Indonesia take a bit of it away from the entrepreneurs of Indonesia, it
does not mean the business automatically goes to Vietnam. To a first cut
it simply means that Indonesian entrepreneurs make a bit less.
Those us us with nasty minds, of course, look forward to the
organization of the ILGWU's Hanoi Local. If George Bush really cared
about terrorism, he would have zeroed out the Pakistan textile quota
months ago -- and sent in a bunch of New York union organizers to train
the Pakistani textile workers in unionism on the ground. This is the
sort of issue where I assure you Jews and Moslems get along just fine, tyvm.
Best,
-dlj.
Stephen J Fromm
"David Lloyd-Jones" <d...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3E73C37C...@rogers.com...
> Stephen J. Fromm wrote:
>
> >Some claim that wages respond far less to demand for exports than one
> >might think.
> >Fourth paragraph of "There's Only So Much That Foreign Trade Can Do,"
> >Washington Post, Sunday, June 2, 2002, by Alan Tonelson (link at
> >http://www.globalexchange.org/wto/20020610_137.html):
> >
> >"Contrary to the view of globalization supporters and even some
> >critics, trade with the United States does not automatically provide
> >Third World workers with the keys to wealth and happiness. In a recent
> >survey, the Reston-based consulting firm Werner International Inc. has
> >compiled nearly a decade's worth of hard data on actual wages paid to
> >workers in an industry that is seen as crucial to Third World hopes
> >for industrialization -- apparel. Perhaps no other industry has
> >profited more from exporting to the United States. And yet the figures
> >show that there has been almost uniform wage meltdown in the apparel
> >industry in the Third World."
> >
>
> Stephen,
>
> Thanks for the pointer to http://www.globalexchange.org . They're a
> little too sickly sweet for my taste, and although they don't really
> identify themselves I suspect Nashville Church money at work here, just
> judging from the flavor.
The article, though, is from the Washington Post. I didn't save the link to
the Post, so I googled to find a copy somewhere. Doesn't mean the guy is
associated with global exchange.
> The bit you quote, above, is pretty convincing, but does not confront
> the point that industrialising the third world sends wealth to the third
> world. Within the developing countries the entrepreneurs seem, on the
> evidence you point to, to be getting most of the spoils, and that's a
> bit of a shame -- though not the worst thing in the world. The working
> people, getting the short end of the stick as usual, are still better
> off than if they were a rural landless rabble, living on the literal
> edge. Their children will have the advantages of urban life, some
> schooling, good clothing and sneakers obviously, and will be a few steps
> ahead of where their great-grandparents were.
Hmm...well, the full article claims that wages are stagnating despite steady
or increasing exports.
I think there's nothing "bad" about export industries in the Third World. I
do think, for various reasons, that the ability of poor countries to enrich
themselves by exporting is exaggerated.
I assume (don't have the #s from economic history) that an important way for
a country to become richer is through capital accumulation. E.g. when
Carnegie operated in the US, not only did he pay his workers wages; he
accumulated capital, the so-called surplus value of labor (just throwing
that in for reference; I don't buy into Marxist economics). That capital,
by and large, stayed within the US. Now, if a US corporation operates a
plant in the third world, the capital stays there only to the extent that
corporation decides to expand operations, pays local taxes, etc. But profit
repatriated to (say) a bank in NY doesn't help the country grow.
David Lloyd-Jones
Thank you for your sensible note. No disagreements, but one quibble:
>I assume (don't have the #s from economic history) that an important way for
>a country to become richer is through capital accumulation. E.g. when
>Carnegie operated in the US, not only did he pay his workers wages; he
>accumulated capital, the so-called surplus value of labor (just throwing
>that in for reference; I don't buy into Marxist economics). That capital,
>by and large, stayed within the US. Now, if a US corporation operates a
>plant in the third world, the capital stays there only to the extent that
>corporation decides to expand operations, pays local taxes, etc. But profit
>repatriated to (say) a bank in NY doesn't help the country grow.
>
You can't take capital out: if you've built the plant, the plant stays
there.
You can take out cash flow, but this is not "taking" from the people
where the plant is: the cash flow was generated by the whole effort you
and they created. They got paid labor rate for their labor, and you took
part of whatever was left to do the next thing with it, maybe pay your
shareholders, maybe start up another plant someplace else.
I emphatically agree with you -- and with the workers -- that they get
paid lousy wages, and their bosses are driving around in Mercedes,
typically Mercedes on which the import duty is well north of 100%, so
that the baby Merc that would normally cost $35,000 or so may have cost
them $70~100,000. The difference, as an excise tax, filters up through
the bureaucracy, and, mirabile dictu, there may even be a little left to
become graft when it hits the policy level.
The answer to this is twofold: education and organization. Educated
workes know what they're worth, and can make their case. That's your
tradesmen, masters, and professionals -- skilled, very skilled, and
skilled enough to know about learning and teaching skills,
respectively. Organized workers can simply say "More!" and make it
stick. AEI, and suchlike, propaganda to the contrary, this does not
drive the work elsewhere for quite a while: the way the elasticities
work out, most of it comes out of the skin of the Mercedes-driving class.
When the economy gets jiggy, and workers in Vietnam are thinking the
same thoughts as workers in Indonesia, then they can't be played off
against each other, and *all* of it comes out of the skin of the
Mercedes driving class, at least up until the point of NAIRU, full
employment, and all those places where powers and principalities
converge on the idea of inflation. (An oddity: from about 1865, post
Civil War, until about mid-1960's, inflation was uniiformly good for
wage-earners. Since then it hasn't been. Can Rational Expectations have
been discovered at the very same time as it came into existence? :-) )
Just one last note: the coda of your quote above is "profits repatriated
... don't help a country grow." This is as stupid as saying that eau de
cologne doesn't make the girl under the street-lamp even more
attractive. Free trade makes the opportunities bloom; free flow of funds
brings people back with more seeds.
Now all we need is free flow of labor -- which I think would mean
comparatively few people moving: How the Hell many unhappy Ghanaian
cocoa-pod dryers want to become mink-shit shovellers in Northern
Ontario? Think of the tens of thousands of pensioned-off American
border guards taking their pensions and rushing to become bouncers in
Bankok bars. Imagine the number of Toronto taxi-drivers who would be
happy to practice medicine, for which they're qualified, in Nigeria, as
long as they were sure they had a safe out, back to Canada, if the shit
really hit the fan.
This brings up my last point about free flow of labor: people need to be
able to use their skills. The friction in labor markets right where
people are is as important, or more, than friction over large geographic
leaps. It is an outrage that doctors, or a friend of mine a radiologist,
or engineers, should be driving taxis because they are banned by
professional associations. An engineer friend, a Nigerian with a Russian
degree in engineering, got his iron ring and the initials P.E. in only
two years -- but that's partly because he's a metallurgist, and every
engineer stands up and salutes at the idea "Russian steel." The medical
mafia are far worse; interestingly a Hamilton jury recently let an
Indian doctor practicing without a Canadian license off with something
like a five dollar fine, because they so clearly saw how he -- and his
patients and potential patients -- were being screwed by the medical
Colleges.
Best,
-dlj.
ro...@telus.net
Fromm) wrote:
>Some claim that wages respond far less to demand for exports than one
>might think.
Henry George demonstrated this fact in "Progress and Poverty," over
120 years ago.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Within the developing countries the entrepreneurs seem, on the
>evidence you point to, to be getting most of the spoils,
Except that it's landowners who are actually pocketing most of the
money....
>The working
>people, getting the short end of the stick as usual, are still better
>off than if they were a rural landless rabble,
Key word: landless.
As a significant landowner, David knows that owning land entitles you
to something for nothing. Not owning land entitles you to the
corresponding nothing for something.
>More wealth for the third world suggests that union organizing might be
>a good thing in many of these places.
"Fight rentiers with rentiers!"
Unfortunately, like fighting fire with fire, fighting rentiers with
rentiers usually just ends up burning more. As you fight fire with
water, its opposite, you fight private collection of rent with
justice, its opposite.
>Note that if the unions of
>Indonesia take a bit of it away from the entrepreneurs of Indonesia, it
>does not mean the business automatically goes to Vietnam. To a first cut
>it simply means that Indonesian entrepreneurs make a bit less.
??? Look at the rich of Indonesia, or almost any of these other
places: they're not entrepreneurs; they just own the land, or other
rent-collection privileges like government-granted trade monopolies.
-- Roy L
Stephen J. Fromm
*That's* interesting.
How did he demonstrate this?
Also, Roy, a general question: what are the political and practical
obstacles to taxing land value as you propose? My gut feeling is that
it's a very good idea (along with taxing other forms of rent
collection), but it seems like a nonstarter because of the "homeowner
vote".
Finally, is there any interesting interaction between taxing land
value and environmentalism? I'm thinking that taxing land value would
weaken the hand of the developers, lead to more efficient use of urban
space, etc, but don't really know.
Cheers,
sjfromm
Ron Peterson
> Also, Roy, a general question: what are the political and practical
> obstacles to taxing land value as you propose? My gut feeling is that
> it's a very good idea (along with taxing other forms of rent
> collection), but it seems like a nonstarter because of the "homeowner
> vote".
As a homeowner, I find most of my taxes are due to the 'improvements'.
Basing the taxes on the bare lot value might be an improvement, at least
taxes wouldn't discourage me from improving my home.
I am not sure that land taxes would be a major incentive for good land
use unless the taxes could exceed that needed by the government.
> Finally, is there any interesting interaction between taxing land
> value and environmentalism? I'm thinking that taxing land value would
> weaken the hand of the developers, lead to more efficient use of urban
> space, etc, but don't really know.
I think that it would result in more agricultural production which does
put a strain on the environment in terms of pesticides and run-off.
--
Ron
David Lloyd-Jones
>Also, Roy, a general question: what are the political and practical
>obstacles to taxing land value as you propose? My gut feeling is that
>it's a very good idea (along with taxing other forms of rent
>collection), but it seems like a nonstarter because of the "homeowner
>vote".
>
Stephen,
This could be fun.
I think Roy/George's central point, that landowners have "rents," i.e.
intramarginal benefits, brought about by the actions of "society" rather
than any useful thing they did themselves, is interesting -- and in some
cases true.
Roy hurts his case a lot with his Usenet-psychotic style of posting, but
I think the more important thing is he has never gotten very much into
the practicalities of his/George's theories.
At a theoretical level his whole case is weak on Rational Expectations
grounds: assume that there are such huge and noxious rents; aren't their
value built into the present market value of the land or its owner?
At a practical level, there is a horrible question of separating out the
rent from the value, the fat from the meat, on any plat of land. V.S.
Naipul's father was a land assessor, and from time to time in his essays
you will get a glimpse of how a flick of the pen or a discreet erasure
can help finance an Oxford education.
If Roy would settle down and confront these very real problems he might
help all of us winnow a bit of useable policy out of his stook of rant.
Cheers,
-dlj.
Stephen J Fromm
> Stephen J. Fromm wrote:
>
> >Also, Roy, a general question: what are the political and practical
> >obstacles to taxing land value as you propose? My gut feeling is that
> >it's a very good idea (along with taxing other forms of rent
> >collection), but it seems like a nonstarter because of the "homeowner
> >vote".
> >
>
> Stephen,
>
> This could be fun.
>
> I think Roy/George's central point, that landowners have "rents," i.e.
> intramarginal benefits, brought about by the actions of "society" rather
> than any useful thing they did themselves, is interesting -- and in some
> cases true.
Of course it's not juts Roy's idea. People in urban planning are very aware
of this.
> Roy hurts his case a lot with his Usenet-psychotic style of posting, but
Come, come. I myself eagerly await the day that he tells me I'm a filthy
liar.
> I think the more important thing is he has never gotten very much into
> the practicalities of his/George's theories.
Hmm...I'll bet a lot has been written about this, and I don't mean on
USENET.
> At a theoretical level his whole case is weak on Rational Expectations
> grounds: assume that there are such huge and noxious rents; aren't their
> value built into the present market value of the land or its owner?
I don't follow that.
It's simply true what Roy and other Georgists (or perhaps neo-Georgists; RL
doesn't like being labelled a pure Georgist) say: as George himself
pointed out, you can buy land (or a house sitting on land), do nothing, then
collect a profit in the form of capital gains.
> At a practical level, there is a horrible question of separating out the
> rent from the value, the fat from the meat, on any plat of land. V.S.
> Naipul's father was a land assessor, and from time to time in his essays
> you will get a glimpse of how a flick of the pen or a discreet erasure
> can help finance an Oxford education.
I'm sure these kinds of problems could be solved, if anyone had an interest
in doing so.
> If Roy would settle down and confront these very real problems he might
> help all of us winnow a bit of useable policy out of his stook of rant.
Well...we *could* do our own Google searches...
Cheers,
S
David Lloyd-Jones
>As a homeowner, I find most of my taxes are due to the 'improvements'.
>Basing the taxes on the bare lot value might be an improvement, at least
>taxes wouldn't discourage me from improving my home.
>
Ron,
I think this is a very general problem.
Urban property taxes are generally based on entirely notional ideas of
property value, so that you get people going around with rules like
"Take the market value and divide it by six, to make it normal in terms
of 1914" and stuff like that.
Since these rules are sometimes not applied to improvements, you get
strangeness like "He went to Home Hardware and added a $2,000 porch to
his $2,000 house, so naturally his taxes doubled..."
Toronto is wrestling with this at the moment. Our present mayor, Mayor
Mel, is a major league asshole, but fortunately he is both smart and
honest. He tried to bring in mark-to-market property tax assessment,
which sounds like a good idea on the surface. I know the whole issue is
surrounded with lobbyists like flies on fresh doggie-poo, but the fact
is it's a hell of a difficult question to implement.
There is, as far as I can see, no automatically self-correcting way of
building a tax on land or property taxes.
VAT's and Canada's GST, by contrast, may have bad points, but they do
not have any built-in encouragement to dishonesty. This means they need
very very little policing, and the scams are pretty easily picked off.
As an ex-auditor, I know: you can just flip through the pages, fifty
returns every five seconds, and the weirdies jump out at you. 90% of the
time there's a reason for it, and it takes you half an hour to find out
what it is. The remainder you turn over to the Mounties, they put in
some beer-swilling kid who always has money to treat everybody to pizza,
and three years later you get a conviction. Cheating on a well-designed
tax is a bad plan.
I have never seen a well-designed land or property tax, though I'm
thinking about it. (I also came up with a Constitutional reason --
extremely far fetched, and right now I've forgotten what it was -- for a
California government to get around Proposition 19. I've probably
repressed it because the thought of my being sneakier than the
litigators of California was too much for my forebrain to take.) Can
anybody fill me in? Is there such a tax anywhere which works fairly,
efficiently, and remuneratively?
-dlj.
ro...@telus.net
<stephe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"David Lloyd-Jones" <d...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:3E7611A5...@rogers.com...
>> Stephen J. Fromm wrote:
>>
>> I think Roy/George's central point, that landowners have "rents," i.e.
>> intramarginal benefits, brought about by the actions of "society" rather
>> than any useful thing they did themselves, is interesting -- and in some
>> cases true.
It's almost always true. With very few and unimportant exceptions,
land rents are created by government and the community, not the
landowner.
>Of course it's not juts Roy's idea. People in urban planning are very aware
>of this.
Right. Were it not for the political influence of ignorance, greed,
laziness, stupidity, myopia, cowardice and inertia, land value
taxation would be in universal use already.
>> Roy hurts his case a lot with his Usenet-psychotic style of posting, but
>
>Come, come. I myself eagerly await the day that he tells me I'm a filthy
>liar.
Tell a lie, and it could happen.
>> I think the more important thing is he has never gotten very much into
>> the practicalities of his/George's theories.
>
>Hmm...I'll bet a lot has been written about this, and I don't mean on
>USENET.
Any good public or university library has at least a shelf full of
books on the technical side of the subject.
>> At a theoretical level his whole case is weak on Rational Expectations
>> grounds: assume that there are such huge and noxious rents; aren't their
>> value built into the present market value of the land or its owner?
>
>I don't follow that.
It's true but irrelevant. Of course the value of the land reflects
the expectation of unearned profits to the owner. Suppose governments
issued licenses to steal called "land titles." Each person who owned
a "land title" would be privileged to take money from others by force,
and the police would do nothing to stop them. How much would such
licenses trade for? The fact that the value of a "land title" would
reflect the amount of unearned money one could expect to reap as its
owner in no way justifies the existence of such licenses, nor does it
argue that such a system of legalized theft, once implemented, should
be maintained just because the current owners of the "land titles"
paid good money for them.
>It's simply true what Roy and other Georgists (or perhaps neo-Georgists; RL
>doesn't like being labelled a pure Georgist) say: as George himself
>pointed out, you can buy land (or a house sitting on land), do nothing, then
>collect a profit in the form of capital gains.
It's more than that: you can also do the same thing (much less
reliably, of course) with gold or pork bellies. The difference is,
with land you are not paying the land's _producer_, nor did any
previous owner pay the producer. Buying low and selling high with any
produced good is not a parasitic activity, because ultimately the
transactions trace back to the product's original producer, who was
paid for his act of value creation. But land is not a product, and
transactions involving land never trace back to the land's producer,
because land was by definition not produced by the labor of any human
being. Profits from speculating in produced items thus originate in
an act of creation, while profits from speculating in land originate,
and can only ever originate, in an act of appropriation.
>> At a practical level, there is a horrible question of separating out the
>> rent from the value, the fat from the meat, on any plat of land. V.S.
>> Naipul's father was a land assessor, and from time to time in his essays
>> you will get a glimpse of how a flick of the pen or a discreet erasure
>> can help finance an Oxford education.
>
>I'm sure these kinds of problems could be solved, if anyone had an interest
>in doing so.
Corruption and dishonesty are always a problem (think of a Supreme
Court that ignores the Constitution...), but much less of a problem
when tax liabilities are essentially self-imposed. Fairhope, Alabama
and Arden, Delaware, which recover essentially all the land rent, have
no noticeable problem with assessments.
>> If Roy would settle down and confront these very real problems he might
>> help all of us winnow a bit of useable policy out of his stook of rant.
>
>Well...we *could* do our own Google searches...
And risk enlightenment? Not likely...
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>In sci.econ Stephen J. Fromm <stephe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Also, Roy, a general question: what are the political and practical
>> obstacles to taxing land value as you propose? My gut feeling is that
>> it's a very good idea (along with taxing other forms of rent
>> collection), but it seems like a nonstarter because of the "homeowner
>> vote".
>
>As a homeowner, I find most of my taxes are due to the 'improvements'.
That may be a function of the improvement value fraction of your
property, or it may be a function of deliberate inaccuracy in the
assessment (over-assessment of improvements and concomitant
under-assessment of land is a common problem in many US jurisdictions
because it allows a reduction in the owner's federal taxes).
>Basing the taxes on the bare lot value might be an improvement, at least
>taxes wouldn't discourage me from improving my home.
Right. Improvement value is what the landowner contributes to the
wealth of the community. Land value is what the community contributes
to the wealth of the landowner. It doesn't take a genius to figure
out which should be taxed.
>I am not sure that land taxes would be a major incentive for good land
>use unless the taxes could exceed that needed by the government.
There is overwhelming evidence that the benefit of land value taxation
is available even at quite low levels of taxation, and the damage done
by improvement value taxation also occurs at quite low levels.
Consider the difference between NYC, which taxes improvements at twice
the rate on land, and Pittsburgh, which taxes land at six times the
rate on improvements. NYC has sky-high housing costs and many
homeless people, and despite being the world's great financial center,
also has crumbling infrastructure, rotten schools, lots of abandoned
buildings, vacant lots and blighted areas. Pittsburgh has plenty of
affordable housing, few or no homeless, and despite being in the
middle of America's Rust Belt, almost no vacant lots or abandoned
buildings, good infrastructure and schools, a vibrant downtown core,
etc.
>> Finally, is there any interesting interaction between taxing land
>> value and environmentalism? I'm thinking that taxing land value would
>> weaken the hand of the developers, lead to more efficient use of urban
>> space, etc, but don't really know.
>
>I think that it would result in more agricultural production which does
>put a strain on the environment in terms of pesticides and run-off.
Not necessarily. The increased production is due to more effective
and appropriate use of the land, which normally means _less_ need for
fertilizers and pesticides.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
Fromm) wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3e74cdbe...@news.telus.net>...
>> On 15 Mar 2003 14:51:54 -0800, stephe...@verizon.net (Stephen J.
>> Fromm) wrote:
>>
>> >Some claim that wages respond far less to demand for exports than one
>> >might think.
>>
>> Henry George demonstrated this fact in "Progress and Poverty," over
>> 120 years ago.
>
>*That's* interesting.
>
>How did he demonstrate this?
By showing how increased production of wealth results in increased
land rents much more reliably than increased wages. Indeed, in some
circumstances (depending on whether advancing technology and
accumulation of capital are "land-using" or "land-sparing"),
increasing production -- _even_per_capita_ -- can actually lead to
decreased wages. This result follows from the Law of Rent first
demonstrated by David Ricardo in 1809.
The accuracy of George's analysis was proved long before he was born,
by the economic effects of Europe's Black Death in the 1340s: the
sudden decline in population caused a significant decline in per
capita production and a large decline in trade -- but a far greater
decline in land rents, and a huge _increase_ in wages.
>Also, Roy, a general question: what are the political and practical
>obstacles to taxing land value as you propose?
The practical obstacles in terms of system design are insignificant,
as proved by the brilliant success of a number of historical examples;
but the political obstacles are enormous. History proves over and
over again that the wealthy who control government would rather perish
in flaming revolution and watch their own children slaughtered before
their eyes than relinquish the privilege of pocketing the wealth
created by others. Zimbabwe is just the latest example.
>My gut feeling is that
>it's a very good idea (along with taxing other forms of rent
>collection), but it seems like a nonstarter because of the "homeowner
>vote".
Right. The typical homeowner does not understand how he and his
children are the victims of a vast and ancient evil, because the same
people who own most of the land also own the media and control most of
the universities, so there is very little chance to educate ordinary
people about the issue. Any journalist who tries to communicate the
facts about land value taxation to his audience is fired immediately.
Such facts are taboo even in the "alternative" press.
Like slavery, socialism, and other vast evils, landowner privilege
first forces innocent people to adapt their behavior to it in sheer
self-defense. This adaptation process gradually results in otherwise
good and honest people making themselves _dependent_ on the evil
system. And finally, realizing that they have become dependent on the
system, they are recruited as its defenders.
Unlike the system of landowner privilege, at least slavery and
socialism never succeeded in recruiting their most tormented victims
as their stoutest defenders...
>Finally, is there any interesting interaction between taxing land
>value and environmentalism?
Yes. LVT leads to much better environmental outcomes, reduced urban
sprawl, etc., and many Green parties have accordingly put it in their
platforms.
>I'm thinking that taxing land value would
>weaken the hand of the developers, lead to more efficient use of urban
>space, etc, but don't really know.
Yes. These beneficial effects are well known, which is why the
developers and large landowners who finance almost all successful
civic election campaigns will not hesitate to lie, cheat, steal and
kill to prevent the facts about LVT from becoming generally known.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>At a theoretical level his whole case is weak on Rational Expectations
>grounds: assume that there are such huge and noxious rents; aren't their
>value built into the present market value of the land or its owner?
Yes. So? See my response to Stephen. The economic rent of slaves
(created by government enforcement of the slave owners' "property
rights") was also built into their value. How does that weaken the
economic (let alone moral) case against slavery on Rational
Expectations grounds?
>At a practical level, there is a horrible question of separating out the
>rent from the value, the fat from the meat, on any plat of land.
You can take either of two approaches: tax the unimproved value of
privately owned land, which requires a system of assessments based on
transactions, or just rent out the land as a public asset, as is done
in HK and Singapore (and to some extent China). In neither case is
there anything resembling a "horrible question" of separating rent
from value.
>V.S.
>Naipul's father was a land assessor, and from time to time in his essays
>you will get a glimpse of how a flick of the pen or a discreet erasure
>can help finance an Oxford education.
Corruption and dishonesty are always an issue. LVT can be made far
less vulnerable to them than other taxes because land cannot be
hidden, and it cannot be moved. The land-rent communities of Fairhope
and Arden have no problems with assessments: they just rent to the
highest bidder.
-- Roy L
David Lloyd-Jones
>"David Lloyd-Jones" <d...@rogers.com> wrote
>
>>At a theoretical level his whole case is weak on Rational Expectations
>>grounds: assume that there are such huge and noxious rents; aren't their
>>value built into the present market value of the land or its owner?
>>
>>
>
>I don't follow that.
>
>It's simply true what Roy and other Georgists (or perhaps neo-Georgists; RL
>doesn't like being labelled a pure Georgist) say: as George himself
>pointed out, you can buy land (or a house sitting on land), do nothing, then
>collect a profit in the form of capital gains.
>
>
Stephen,
I'll try to give you a fast gloss here, but you should also google it,
because it's one of the most important ideas in modern economics. It's
not totally correct, but it's correct enough to be important.
The idea is the present contains the future.
If I own a piece of Canadian Shield with an annual yield of three
daisies and the slight fattening of forty cattle, my price for selling
it to you will increase somewhat if I know that Hydro are coming through
with a new power line and need a place to stick a control substation.
The price you are willing to pay, ditto.
Most land has been bought and sold within human memory, and in all cases
the prices paid/received reflected the future rents as estimated by both
the buyers and the sellers.
>>At a practical level, there is a horrible question of separating out the
>>rent from the value, the fat from the meat, on any plat of land. V.S.
>>Naipul's father was a land assessor, and from time to time in his essays
>>you will get a glimpse of how a flick of the pen or a discreet erasure
>>can help finance an Oxford education.
>>
>>
>
>I'm sure these kinds of problems could be solved, if anyone had an interest
>in doing so.
>
You may be sure. I'm not. Some things are like gravity and Chicken Man,
they're everywhere, they're everywhere. Self interest is one of those
things. If you don't got a tax that appeals deeply to either people's
self-interest or people's instinctive sense of justice, you don't got no
starting proposition.
Best,
-dlj.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>If you don't got a tax that appeals deeply to either people's
>self-interest or people's instinctive sense of justice, you don't got no
>starting proposition.
??? Then how do you explain taxation of earned income, which is
grossly contrary to almost everyone's self-interest, and could hardly
be made less just by dint of deliberate effort?
-- Roy L
John Hall
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:3e764230...@news.telus.net...
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:54:53 GMT, "Stephen J Fromm"
> <stephe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >"David Lloyd-Jones" <d...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> >news:3E7611A5...@rogers.com...
> >> Stephen J. Fromm wrote:
> >doesn't like being labelled a pure Georgist) say: as George himself
> >pointed out, you can buy land (or a house sitting on land), do nothing,
then
> >collect a profit in the form of capital gains.
>
> It's more than that: you can also do the same thing (much less
> reliably, of course) with gold or pork bellies. The difference is,
Does George say that return is in excess of the
market rate of interest?
jmh
David Lloyd-Jones
>On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:19:57 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>At a theoretical level his whole case is weak on Rational Expectations
>>grounds: assume that there are such huge and noxious rents; aren't their
>>value built into the present market value of the land or its owner?
>>
>>
>
>Yes. So? See my response to Stephen. The economic rent of slaves
>(created by government enforcement of the slave owners' "property
>rights") was also built into their value. How does that weaken the
>economic (let alone moral) case against slavery on Rational
>Expectations grounds?
>
Roy,
You have mastered the alembication of random blither. Perhaps Conway's
Law needs to be updated to include the waving around of "slavery."
-dlj.
Ron Peterson
> Toronto is wrestling with this at the moment. Our present mayor, Mayor
> Mel, is a major league asshole, but fortunately he is both smart and
> honest. He tried to bring in mark-to-market property tax assessment,
> which sounds like a good idea on the surface. I know the whole issue is
> surrounded with lobbyists like flies on fresh doggie-poo, but the fact
> is it's a hell of a difficult question to implement.
I think that property tax assessment works well in my community, except
for some of the expensive properties being under appraised.
> I have never seen a well-designed land or property tax, though I'm
> thinking about it. (I also came up with a Constitutional reason --
> extremely far fetched, and right now I've forgotten what it was -- for a
> California government to get around Proposition 19. I've probably
> repressed it because the thought of my being sneakier than the
> litigators of California was too much for my forebrain to take.) Can
> anybody fill me in? Is there such a tax anywhere which works fairly,
> efficiently, and remuneratively?
I think that taxes have a number of trade-offs, but we need to ask which
tax causes the least economic harm.
--
Ron
Stephen J. Fromm
How does this interact with the better-known claim that NYC's problems
are due to rent control?
David Lloyd-Jones
Easily, competently, and gracefully, Roy.
I think that both you and I agree that the so-called income tax is a
crock. Just pulling one of my copies of the Canadian Income Tax Act (the
Carswell "Practitioners" as it happens), the taxation section runs six
pages, but that's because they natter on a lot. In the old
Clarkson-Gordon Accountants' version it's a page an a half.
The provisions for interpreting it -- and this is only in the bit that
the government puts out -- is 1566 pages in the version I have before
me, and about the same in the others. Accountants' reports on rulings,
which are sent around to everybody by fax (remember them?) occupy about
thirty shelf-feet in a good tax office. A two-page tax that takes
two-thousand pages to define, and a full room in your office to keep up
with? Gimme a break.
Why, then, does this inane tax continue?
I think there are two reasons. First, people feel that if they are
making more they have an obligation to pay more. When the income tax was
first introduced in Canada in the middle of WWI, with a top rate of
1.2%, I think it was, the richest man in Canada, whose name I forget,
but who was the father of the guy whose estate established the Canada
Council, said "I am proud to give a part of my wealth blah blah blah and
furgle murgle, I am safe in saying this because they haven't invented
the right injection to make me shut up yet. Breeble glorp. Jeeves, is
there enough coal in the yacht to get me to this Bali place that French
guy has been painting? "
The second reason is slightly askew to the first. Not orthogonal, just
slightly different: the "income" tax is in fact badly named. It's really
a payroll tax, since pay is easily identified but income is not.
As a general rule people with large incomes do not get a whole lot of
pay. Bill Gates, for instance, has a pay of something just under
$700,000 a year, and his total income in recent years has been in the
realm of $20 billion, with a B, underwater. In happier times he had an
income of plus $5~10 billion year after year after year.
People in that sort of sky-clouds-wonderland really don't want to be
pestered about taxes, so a tax on their employees' take-home is
perfectly reasonable to them.
* * *
I am not a great lover of pay-cheque taxes, and I've discussed it at
greater length elsewhere. Go google.
But the reasons for their popularity is clear, Roy: the feeling of
obligation by the payer, the ease of collection by the payee.
Best,
-dlj.
Stephen J. Fromm
So what would ensue if I started a campaign to tax land value in my
locality (Montgomery County, MD, USA)? I've seen the influence of
developers on elections for decades now---IMHO they often have city
councils in their pockets.
Developers have more $$, yes, but suppose the issue just got talked
about for years, decades, ...?
Cheers,
S
David Lloyd-Jones
>In sci.econ David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Toronto is wrestling with this at the moment. Our present mayor, Mayor
>>Mel, is a major league asshole, but fortunately he is both smart and
>>honest. He tried to bring in mark-to-market property tax assessment,
>>which sounds like a good idea on the surface. I know the whole issue is
>>surrounded with lobbyists like flies on fresh doggie-poo, but the fact
>>is it's a hell of a difficult question to implement.
>>
>>
>
>I think that property tax assessment works well in my community, except
>for some of the expensive properties being under appraised.
>
Ron,
My point exactly. In your earlier post you said you were being taxed too
much, Now, above, you say that the tax system is biased in favor of the
rich folks with the big houses.
Can you maybe post even once without whining about the injustice of your
tax system? :-)
One of my many points -- I spend a good deal of my life thinking about
this stuff -- is that a workable tax has to be generally perceived as
fair. You have just joined me in showing that your particular tax system
doesn't hack it.
Best,
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3e7647d5...@news.telus.net>...
>
>
>>On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:39:19 -0000, Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com>
>>wrote:
>>
<All flushed>
Stephen, Roy, Ron,
That discussion is going nowhere whatsoever until youse guys learn to
distinguish between "value" and "price."
When I read somebody writing about the value of land I just hit ^n. The
fool is on some other planet from the other six billion of us.
Verbum sap,
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>So what would ensue if I started a campaign to tax land value in my
>locality (Montgomery County, MD, USA)? I've seen the influence of
>developers on elections for decades now---IMHO they often have city
>councils in their pockets.
>
Maryland, hunh?
I know where that is. It's up beyond Kalorama Circle, near Pennsylvania
and Vermont and all those other places.
-dlj.
Ron Peterson
>>I think that property tax assessment works well in my community, except
>>for some of the expensive properties being under appraised.
> My point exactly. In your earlier post you said you were being taxed too
> much, Now, above, you say that the tax system is biased in favor of the
> rich folks with the big houses.
I was saying that the property taxes weren't economically sound in that
they discourage improvements. And I meant to say that the high valued
lots were typically being under appraised.
> Can you maybe post even once without whining about the injustice of your
> tax system? :-)
I don't see how you can interpret my comments as whining or claiming
that the tax system is an injustice.
> One of my many points -- I spend a good deal of my life thinking about
> this stuff -- is that a workable tax has to be generally perceived as
> fair. You have just joined me in showing that your particular tax system
> doesn't hack it.
I am not sure what you mean by fair. I was merely pointing out a failure
in the implementation of the property tax system. All privately held
property pays the same tax rate based on a market appraisal. Why isn't
that fair?
--
Ron
Stephen J. Fromm
Roy,
When you make claims about the size of the effective "land value
subsidy" (I think you've written that it's a nontrivial fraction of
GDP), where are you geting the numbers?
Cheers,
sjfromm
ro...@telus.net
I don't know if he ever said that; anyway, what do you call the
"market" rate? Land does have a higher long-term return than any
other large asset class, for one simple reason: people are mortal, and
tend to steeply discount any return that is going to happen after they
die. But land is effectively eternal, and its current rent tends to
be orders of magnitude greater than was ever considered possible by
people a few hundred years back.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Urban property taxes are generally based on entirely notional ideas of
>property value, so that you get people going around with rules like
>"Take the market value and divide it by six, to make it normal in terms
>of 1914" and stuff like that.
>
>Since these rules are sometimes not applied to improvements, you get
>strangeness like "He went to Home Hardware and added a $2,000 porch to
>his $2,000 house, so naturally his taxes doubled..."
Right. In most jurisdictions, landowners have been successful in
making the property tax system tax anything but land value.
>I know the whole issue is
>surrounded with lobbyists like flies on fresh doggie-poo, but the fact
>is it's a hell of a difficult question to implement.
But the difficulties are political, not economic. I.e., the problem
consists in nothing other than landowner resistance to paying
appropriately for the benefits they receive.
>There is, as far as I can see, no automatically self-correcting way of
>building a tax on land or property taxes.
The systems used in HK, Singapore, Arden and Fairhope are
self-correcting, because the land is just let to the highest bidder.
But that doesn't work when the land is privately owned. For those
cases, computers make it relatively straightforward to correct
assessments based on actual transactions.
>VAT's and Canada's GST, by contrast, may have bad points, but they do
>not have any built-in encouragement to dishonesty.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!! "That'll be $240, please. Or $150 cash."
>This means they need
>very very little policing, and the scams are pretty easily picked off.
Uh-huh. Not keeping up with the news very well, are we?
>I have never seen a well-designed land or property tax, though I'm
>thinking about it.
There are lots of historical examples.
>Is there such a tax anywhere which works fairly,
>efficiently, and remuneratively?
Pittsburgh's is pretty good. The city is consistently named one of
the most livable in the country. New Hampshire's is not bad, either.
Although the rates here in BC are far too low, there is very little
complaint about assessments, thanks to the efforts of people like the
redoubtable Mary Rawson at BC Assessment Authority. But it's a very
unequal match when you have freedom, justice and truth on one side,
and landowner money on the other.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>That discussion is going nowhere whatsoever until youse guys learn to
>distinguish between "value" and "price."
I think we know the difference. Price is what something trades for.
Value is what the people willing and able to trade it think it would
trade for.
>When I read somebody writing about the value of land I just hit ^n. The
>fool is on some other planet from the other six billion of us.
Don't you know what the value of land means? I think most people do.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:19:57 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>At a theoretical level his whole case is weak on Rational Expectations
>>>grounds: assume that there are such huge and noxious rents; aren't their
>>>value built into the present market value of the land or its owner?
>>
>>Yes. So? See my response to Stephen. The economic rent of slaves
>>(created by government enforcement of the slave owners' "property
>>rights") was also built into their value. How does that weaken the
>>economic (let alone moral) case against slavery on Rational
>>Expectations grounds?
>
>You have mastered the alembication of random blither. Perhaps Conway's
>Law needs to be updated to include the waving around of "slavery."
No answer, I see. Thought not.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net asked:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:03:03 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>If you don't got a tax that appeals deeply to either people's
>>>self-interest or people's instinctive sense of justice, you don't got no
>>>starting proposition.
>>
>>??? Then how do you explain taxation of earned income, which is
>>grossly contrary to almost everyone's self-interest, and could hardly
>>be made less just by dint of deliberate effort?
>>
>Easily, competently, and gracefully, Roy.
<yawn> In your dreams, David...
>I think that both you and I agree that the so-called income tax is a
>crock. Just pulling one of my copies of the Canadian Income Tax Act (the
>Carswell "Practitioners" as it happens), the taxation section runs six
>pages, but that's because they natter on a lot. In the old
>Clarkson-Gordon Accountants' version it's a page an a half.
>
>The provisions for interpreting it -- and this is only in the bit that
>the government puts out -- is 1566 pages in the version I have before
>me, and about the same in the others. Accountants' reports on rulings,
>which are sent around to everybody by fax (remember them?) occupy about
>thirty shelf-feet in a good tax office. A two-page tax that takes
>two-thousand pages to define, and a full room in your office to keep up
>with? Gimme a break.
Right. Because taxation of income -- especially earned income -- is
inherently evil, unjust and economically suicidal, such taxes must be
tweaked and tweaked to conceal the damage they do. Also, of course,
the need to ensure that the unearned incomes of the rich are _not_
taxed requires a lot of labyrinthine reinterpretation of unearned
income as somehow being not taxable.
>Why, then, does this inane tax continue?
>
>I think there are two reasons. First, people feel that if they are
>making more they have an obligation to pay more.
Right. They have been brainwashed that there is no such thing as
unearned income, and as a result have a sneaking feeling that they are
no more entitled to what they produce than the rich are to what they
don't produce.
>The second reason is slightly askew to the first. Not orthogonal, just
>slightly different: the "income" tax is in fact badly named. It's really
>a payroll tax, since pay is easily identified but income is not.
??? How does this serve to convince people that government should
take their rightful earnings from them?
>People in that sort of sky-clouds-wonderland really don't want to be
>pestered about taxes, so a tax on their employees' take-home is
>perfectly reasonable to them.
Well, certainly. A tax on what society contributes to the rich would
be sinful... in the eyes of the rich -- who just happen to own the
government and the media. Much better to tax working people in
proportion to what they contribute to society.
See? If you just say it baldly like that, the way Peter Lawrence
likes to do, it almost sounds reasonable....
>I am not a great lover of pay-cheque taxes, and I've discussed it at
>greater length elsewhere. Go google.
>
>But the reasons for their popularity is clear, Roy: the feeling of
>obligation by the payer,
It's unfortunate that working people feel a greater obligation to pay
for contributing to society than the rich feel for receiving from
society...
>the ease of collection by the payee.
If ease of collection were a consideration, property tax revenues
would be a large multiple of income tax revenues.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
Fromm) wrote:
>When you make claims about the size of the effective "land value
>subsidy" (I think you've written that it's a nontrivial fraction of
>GDP), where are you geting the numbers?
It is a very difficult thing to calculate, but to me, the most
convincing evidence that it is a large fraction of GDP are the
patently absurd and grossly tendentious methodologies of those who
estimate it at less than 10%.
Steven Cord (1991) estimated the economic rent of land in the U.S. in
1986 at $680 billion, then 20% of national income. Michael Hudson
(1997) calculated it at 25%. While their methods are not beyond
criticism, they strike me as far more realistic than those of the
low-ballers.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>daisies and the slight fattening of forty cattle, my price for selling
>it to you will increase somewhat if I know that Hydro are coming through
>with a new power line and need a place to stick a control substation.
>The price you are willing to pay, ditto.
And that price increase (the thing that other people call land value,
but you can't seem to understand) comes from....?
>Most land has been bought and sold within human memory, and in all cases
>the prices paid/received reflected the future rents as estimated by both
>the buyers and the sellers.
Right. Just as the value of a taxi medallion or a slave reflects the
rents the owner can collect.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
Fromm) wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3e7647d5...@news.telus.net>...
>>
>> There is overwhelming evidence that the benefit of land value taxation
>> is available even at quite low levels of taxation, and the damage done
>> by improvement value taxation also occurs at quite low levels.
>> Consider the difference between NYC, which taxes improvements at twice
>> the rate on land, and Pittsburgh, which taxes land at six times the
>> rate on improvements. NYC has sky-high housing costs and many
>
>How does this interact with the better-known claim that NYC's problems
>are due to rent control?
NYC has made three huge policy errors related to land use:
1. Taxing improvements at double the rate on land.
2. Forbidding redevelopment.
3. Rent control.
The problem is, rent control was imposed in a doomed and wrong-headed
attempt to undo some of the damage done by the other two errors, and
now the effects of all three are difficult to separate out. However,
_if_ the tax was straightened out _and_ redevelopment was allowed,
rent control would quickly be rendered superfluous, and its economic
effects would cease to be significant. A study many years ago
concluded that even if rent control was kept in place, reversing the
tax system to tax land at twice the rate on improvements would result
in redevelopment of all NYC's blighted areas and abandoned buildings
within 10 years.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
Fromm) wrote:
>So what would ensue if I started a campaign to tax land value in my
>locality (Montgomery County, MD, USA)?
You would be shouted down, shut out, silenced. If you tried to bring
the issue before the public by writing letters to the editor, the
editor would perhaps publish your first letter, and then one or (more
likely) more letters arguing against you, and then when you wrote
again to demolish those arguments, he would simply decline to publish
your letter, in order to leave readers with the impression that you
had no answers. This technique has been employed to great effect for
over a century.
>I've seen the influence of
>developers on elections for decades now---IMHO they often have city
>councils in their pockets.
Almost always.
>Developers have more $$, yes, but suppose the issue just got talked
>about for years, decades, ...?
How are you going to get it talked about? The landowners also own the
media. Public meetings? The landowners' catamites have their fingers
on the microphone buttons.
What you have to understand is that this issue _was_ talked about for
decades in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Land value
taxation and the Single Tax movement were serious _global_ rivals to
the socialist and communist movements. Virtually all major labor
organizations had advocacy of land value taxation as integral parts of
their mission statements. Henry George's "Progress and Poverty" was
the best-selling book _ever_written_by_any_American_. Many towering
figures in the political and intellectual worlds in the first half of
the 20th C named Henry George as their principal inspiration,
including people like David Lloyd-George and Winston Churchill. And
many jurisdictions derived enormous benefit from taxing land value at
that time, especially in Western North America.
But landowner greed is stronger than freedom, justice and truth. The
entire science of economics was sabotaged to deny the Single Taxers
the logical tools they had been using to prove their case (see "The
Corruption of Economics" by Professor Mason Gaffney of UC RIverside --
an intro is available at
http://www.taxreform.com.au/essays/corrupt.htm). Labor unions were
granted their own rent-collection privileges, in return for dropping
their objections to landowner rent-seeking. Relentless campaigns to
silence anyone speaking the truth about land were prosecuted through
the media and academe (you can see some of this described at
http://www.progress.org/archive/gaffnint.htm).
A fifth of GDP is an immense amount of money. The people who are
getting it for doing nothing are not going to just give it up, even if
the alternative is the guillotine. The French landowners who got rid
of Jacques Turgot proved that.
-- Roy L
Stephen J. Fromm
Well, we could start trying.
An important strategic realization is that these things take decades,
or perhaps a century. Some book entitled "Why ERA [Equal Rights
Amendment] Failed" (which I found on my mom's bookshelf) pointed out
that things like suffrage for women took that long.
Cheers,
sjfromm
Jim Blair
>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 17:26:42 -0500, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 21:25:30 GMT, William F Hummel
>><wfhu...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ricardo's classic argument regarding comparative advantage
>>>>> Implicitly assumes full employment. Without full employment it
>>>>> is a race to the bottom in real wages.
Hi,
Just about everyone in the 3rd world is "employed". But "wages" are
deceptive as a measure of their economic well being since many who now
work for wages were previously "employed" at subsistance agriculture:
scratching a meager living from the soil.
>>>
>>>Well, let look at some of the jobs that have migrated overseas:
>>>Software and tech support to India; most computers to Asian
>>>tiger; textiles and clothing to Pakistan, Bangladesh, and
>>>Dominican Republic; athletic shoes to China; and numerous goods
>>>to Mexican plants below the border. All for cheaper labor costs.
Grinch:
>>
>>But those jobs provide *higher* wages than were previously available
>>in the countries where they move to, which is why so many people there
>>want them. Contradicting the "race to the bottom" scenario in those
>>countries.
Mason Clark <masonc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>No. The bottom is rising in some countries.
Yes, especially in those countries cited above where investment is going.
So "race to the bottom" means the "bottom" is rising and lifting living
standards? The "race to the bottom" is that "rising tide that lifts all
boats"?
Grinch:
>>And wages in the US have been notably strong for years now, in spite
>>of Nafta et.al., in spite even of the recent recession and current
>>weak economy, during which very weak corporate investment has been
>>offset by strong consumer spending as worker wages continue to grow.
To which I add that living standards (a better measure than "wages") are
rising just about everywhere in the world as evidenced by the falling
birth rates.
Or does anyone think the historic inverse correlation between standard of
living and birth rate has recently broken?
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Jim Blair
>Stephen J. Fromm wrote:
>
>>Some claim that wages respond far less to demand for exports than one
>>might think.
>>Washington Post, Sunday, June 2, 2002, by Alan Tonelson (link at
>>http://www.globalexchange.org/wto/20020610_137.html):
>>
>>"Contrary to the view of globalization supporters and even some
>>critics, trade with the United States does not automatically provide
>>Third World workers with the keys to wealth and happiness. In a recent
>>survey, the Reston-based consulting firm Werner International Inc. has
>>compiled nearly a decade's worth of hard data on actual wages paid to
>>workers in an industry that is seen as crucial to Third World hopes
>>for industrialization -- apparel. Perhaps no other industry has
>>profited more from exporting to the United States. And yet the figures
>>show that there has been almost uniform wage meltdown in the apparel
>>industry in the Third World."
>>
>
>Stephen,
Hi,
The article seems to presume that living standards in the 3rd world are
falling. But that is contrary to all evidence, and especially the falling
birth rates.
"Wages" are not a good indicator of living standards, especially in the
3rd world and especially not the wage in a particular low wage industry.
This seems so obvious, but perhaps an example will illustrate my point: In
country X 1% of the people are skilled diamond cutters and earn $50 per
hour. 99% are subsistence farmers. The "average wage" is $50 per hr and
most of the population is very poor.
A shirt factory opens and 10% are employed at $1 per hour. The "average
wage" drops but more people are living better. As more factories open the
average wage drops as ever more people leave the farm to work for wages.
Later, when most are employed at $1 an hour (except for those diamond
cutters), the more skilled and educated advance to other jobs making $2
-$10. So that shirt factory relocates to some OTHER even poorer country
to keep labor costs at $1. So the average wage in X now slowly rises (but
not likely to get back to the $50 at the start any time soon), but the
wage of shirt factory workers does not increase.
(And nowhere in the article does the author hint that people everywhere
have cheaper clothes as a result of this process)
David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com> wrote:
>More wealth for the third world suggests that union organizing might be
>a good thing in many of these places.
But that will come only AFTER the industry and the jobs are there. Do
subsistence farmers form unions?
>...Note that if the unions of
>Indonesia take a bit of it away from the entrepreneurs of Indonesia, it
>does not mean the business automatically goes to Vietnam. To a first cut
>it simply means that Indonesian entrepreneurs make a bit less.
Would it be BAD for the Vietnamese to get in on this?
>
>Those us us with nasty minds, of course, look forward to the
>organization of the ILGWU's Hanoi Local. If George Bush really cared
>about terrorism, he would have zeroed out the Pakistan textile quota
>months ago --
I agree. And Pakistan has complained about this.
>...and sent in a bunch of New York union organizers to train
>the Pakistani textile workers in unionism on the ground.
Isn't that called Imperialism? New Yorkers telling 3rd world folks how to
live?
>...This is the
>sort of issue where I assure you Jews and Moslems get along just fine, tyvm.
>
> Best,
>
> -dlj.
All kinds of people can learn to get along when the goal is to make money.
Peter Lawrence
.
.
.
> "Wages" are not a good indicator of living standards, especially in the
> 3rd world and especially not the wage in a particular low wage industry.
Here and in one of your other posts you show an understanding of some matters
Nassau Senior clarified in his early 19th century work on wages. But then you
miss this...
.
.
.
As more factories open the
> average wage drops as ever more people leave the farm to work for wages.
That's actually bad, unless some further compensating things happen. The
thing is, total food production drops unless productivity rises. Yes, a true
free market, operating without shocks, would only let people off the farms if
capital came in to do that or if imports of food kept food supply up instead.
But on its own, a drift from the land in search of wages means food prices go
up too - and sheer demographics and inelasticity of demand for food means
that the gains in factory wages can't make up for losses in susbsistence food
availability. Of course, the actual losers are usually those who don't manage
to get into the factories, which makes the factories look good - but the
overall effect is harmful. UNLESS the other adjustments get made, enough and
fast enough.
And, oddly enough, historically these are just the sort of market
deficiencies you get - the sort that separate winners from losers as wealth
transfers concentrate the gains of progress, often arising from inadequate
institutions labouring under the new conditions. We had the English Enclosure
of the Commons, the Scottish Highland Clearances, and Irish Absentee
Landlordism. Who runs may read.
>
> Later, when most are employed at $1 an hour (except for those diamond
> cutters), the more skilled and educated advance to other jobs making $2
> -$10. So that shirt factory relocates to some OTHER even poorer country
> to keep labor costs at $1. So the average wage in X now slowly rises (but
> not likely to get back to the $50 at the start any time soon), but the
> wage of shirt factory workers does not increase.
>
> (And nowhere in the article does the author hint that people everywhere
> have cheaper clothes as a result of this process)
Well, that's wrong. Not people everywhere - just the ones who didn't get
marginalised and did get on those rising boats being lifted.
>
> David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >More wealth for the third world suggests that union organizing might be
> >a good thing in many of these places.
>
> But that will come only AFTER the industry and the jobs are there. Do
> subsistence farmers form unions?
Actually, these are the ones with a comparative advantage over the urbanites.
They don't need to work for a living wage but for a top up wage lower than
that, say as outworkers supplementing their insufficient subsistence
resources, so they outcompete the landless or urban poor.
.
.
.
> All kinds of people can learn to get along when the goal is to make money.
No. Only those kinds that are willing to adopt values that INCLUDE that, at
least as a non-clashing peripheral. But see how certain lifestyles get
squeezed out by that, aren't that compatible with it. Ask any Amish for
details, say about their struggle not to pay for a form of education they
don't want. PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS
I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
items on that page for some reasons why.
Jim Blair
>Jim Blair wrote:
>.
>.
>.
>> "Wages" are not a good indicator of living standards, especially in the
>> 3rd world and especially not the wage in a particular low wage industry.
Peter Lawrence <pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>
>Here and in one of your other posts you show an understanding of some matters
>Nassau Senior clarified in his early 19th century work on wages. But then you
>miss this...
>
>.
>.
>.
>As more factories open the
>> average wage drops as ever more people leave the farm to work for wages.
>
>That's actually bad, unless some further compensating things happen. The
>thing is, total food production drops unless productivity rises.
Hi,
Agricultural productivity in the 3rd world HAS been increasing. Mostly
because of technology imported from the industrial nations. Much of
this because of new crop plants. As in "Green Revolution". India for
example had famine for centuries, but now exports food.
>...Yes, a true
>free market, operating without shocks, would only let people off the farms if
>capital came in to do that or if imports of food kept food supply up instead.
I was reading about how BAD globalization is because it has provided cheap
food to poor countries like Haiti. This has been BAD for local farmers
who can't compete with rice grown in the US and sold in local stores.
(no suggestion that cheap food could be GOOD for the people who eat)
>But on its own, a drift from the land in search of wages means food prices go
>up too -
The critics of Globalization complain that food prices fall. See above.
>...and sheer demographics and inelasticity of demand for food means
>that the gains in factory wages can't make up for losses in susbsistence food
>availability.
Add "Green Revolution" crops to imports from the industrial nations, and
some poor countries want to "protect" their farmers from falling food
prices.
>..Of course, the actual losers are usually those who don't manage
>to get into the factories, which makes the factories look good - but the
>overall effect is harmful. UNLESS the other adjustments get made, enough and
>fast enough.
I agree that cheaper food undercuts farmers and speeds the move from rural
to urban. And that SOME farmers don't want to get a job in the city.
>
>And, oddly enough, historically these are just the sort of market
>deficiencies you get - the sort that separate winners from losers as wealth
>transfers concentrate the gains of progress, often arising from inadequate
>institutions labouring under the new conditions.
Globalization and industrialization does increase inequality within most
countries, even as it increases equality world wide.
>....We had the English Enclosure
>of the Commons, the Scottish Highland Clearances, and Irish Absentee
>Landlordism. Who runs may read.
Would the English and Irish be better off today if the Industrial
Revolution had not happened? Would YOU want to live the life of a
14th century farmer? (I would not).
..
>>
>> (And nowhere in the article does the author hint that people everywhere
>> have cheaper clothes as a result of this process)
>
>Well, that's wrong. Not people everywhere - just the ones who didn't get
>marginalised and did get on those rising boats being lifted.
I see even the poorest people today wearing factory made clothes.
Including New York Yankee tee-shirts and hats. Who makes their own
clothes today except rich yuppies who want to "go back to nature"?
Clothes used to be a big item in the budget, or else took a lot of peoples
time to make.
>
>>
>> David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>> >More wealth for the third world suggests that union organizing might be
>> >a good thing in many of these places.
>>
>> But that will come only AFTER the industry and the jobs are there. Do
>> subsistence farmers form unions?
>
>Actually, these are the ones with a comparative advantage over the urbanites.
>They don't need to work for a living wage but for a top up wage lower than
>that, say as outworkers supplementing their insufficient subsistence
>resources, so they outcompete the landless or urban poor.
Are you saying those who stay on the farm gain the most from
industrialization? I know some people do some of each. Even at my lab in
Madison some people work full time but also run a small farm and sell eggs
and veggies to other workers.
ro...@telus.net
<pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>And, oddly enough, historically these are just the sort of market
>deficiencies you get - the sort that separate winners from losers as wealth
>transfers concentrate the gains of progress, often arising from inadequate
>institutions labouring under the new conditions.
It's not a market deficiency. It's the predictable and inevitable
result of taxing the producers so idle landowners can pocket more
rent.
>We had the English Enclosure
>of the Commons, the Scottish Highland Clearances, and Irish Absentee
>Landlordism. Who runs may read.
??? This, from the guy who refuses to understand anything about land?
Who reads may not understand...
>> All kinds of people can learn to get along when the goal is to make money.
>
>No. Only those kinds that are willing to adopt values that INCLUDE that, at
>least as a non-clashing peripheral. But see how certain lifestyles get
>squeezed out by that, aren't that compatible with it. Ask any Amish for
>details, say about their struggle not to pay for a form of education they
>don't want.
The education they don't want nevertheless supports the democratic
institutions that protect their helpless asses from aggression and
tyranny. Oh, I forgot: you don't believe in "beneficiary pay."
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>Jim Blair wrote:
>>.
>>As more factories open the
>>> average wage drops as ever more people leave the farm to work for wages.
>>
>>That's actually bad, unless some further compensating things happen. The
>>thing is, total food production drops unless productivity rises.
Peter of course cannot point to any examples where this has actually
happened...
>Agricultural productivity in the 3rd world HAS been increasing. Mostly
>because of technology imported from the industrial nations. Much of
>this because of new crop plants. As in "Green Revolution". India for
>example had famine for centuries, but now exports food.
Peter doesn't understand relationships that are too subtle for a
five-year-old.
>>But on its own, a drift from the land in search of wages means food prices go
>>up too -
>
>The critics of Globalization complain that food prices fall. See above.
Peter also doesn't understand that "drift from the land in search of
wages" is the classic response to _falling_ food prices. Why drift
from the land if food prices are rising?
>>...and sheer demographics and inelasticity of demand for food means
>>that the gains in factory wages can't make up for losses in susbsistence food
>>availability.
Wrong, as Henry George explained so clearly, patiently, and
irrefutably in "Progress and Poverty." Food supply does not decrease
with economic progress and increased population, it increases. The
hunger only appears because the resulting increased land rents can
reduce wages, directing more of the food to idle landowners.
>>..Of course, the actual losers are usually those who don't manage
>>to get into the factories,
The losers are precisely the landless. As usual.
>which makes the factories look good - but the
>>overall effect is harmful. UNLESS the other adjustments get made, enough and
>>fast enough.
>
>I agree that cheaper food undercuts farmers and speeds the move from rural
>to urban. And that SOME farmers don't want to get a job in the city.
Peter believes in the divine right of the landed to always get
everything they want, at the unwilling expense of the productive, in
return for no contribution whatsoever.
>>> (And nowhere in the article does the author hint that people everywhere
>>> have cheaper clothes as a result of this process)
>>
>>Well, that's wrong.
Peter is of course lying again.
>Not people everywhere - just the ones who didn't get
>>marginalised and did get on those rising boats being lifted.
Wrong. Clothing is now so cheap that many thousands of tons of good
used clothing are now shipped from rich countries to poor ones every
year and _given_away_. No one who wants clothing (and doesn't mind
what it looks like) need do without it.
>>> David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >More wealth for the third world suggests that union organizing might be
>>> >a good thing in many of these places.
>>>
>>> But that will come only AFTER the industry and the jobs are there. Do
>>> subsistence farmers form unions?
>>
>>Actually, these are the ones with a comparative advantage over the urbanites.
>>They don't need to work for a living wage but for a top up wage lower than
>>that, say as outworkers supplementing their insufficient subsistence
>>resources, so they outcompete the landless or urban poor.
>
>Are you saying those who stay on the farm gain the most from
>industrialization?
Peter refuses to understand that those who _own_ the farms (and the
urban land) do.
-- Roy L
bill turner
>On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 20:35:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Blair
><jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>>>Jim Blair wrote:
>>>.
>>>As more factories open the
>>>> average wage drops as ever more people leave the farm to work for wages.
>>>
>>>That's actually bad, unless some further compensating things happen. The
>>>thing is, total food production drops unless productivity rises.
>
>Peter of course cannot point to any examples where this has actually
>happened...
>
>>Agricultural productivity in the 3rd world HAS been increasing. Mostly
>>because of technology imported from the industrial nations. Much of
>>this because of new crop plants. As in "Green Revolution". India for
>>example had famine for centuries, but now exports food.
>
>Peter doesn't understand relationships that are too subtle for a
>five-year-old.
>
>>>But on its own, a drift from the land in search of wages means food prices go
>>>up too -
>>
>>The critics of Globalization complain that food prices fall. See above.
>
>Peter also doesn't understand that "drift from the land in search of
>wages" is the classic response to _falling_ food prices. Why drift
>from the land if food prices are rising?
This is all very interesting, but why are food prices falling. Many
reasons, to be sure. Undoubtedly part of the reason farmers in Haiti
cannot compete with the rice growers in America is that the American
rice grower is heavily subsidized (this may be an invalid example, for
I do not know how much rice farmers are subsidized in America).
Another reason prices are lower is that the European and American
farmer have done fantastic jobs at convincing their respective
governments that barriers to the importation of food stuffs from the
poor countries is smart. Didn't Stiglitz say that the loss of sales
was almost equivalent (or greater than) the amount of aid that the
West gives these countries?
<remaining snipped>
Bill
Peter Lawrence
.
.
[Jim Blair wrote]
> >> All kinds of people can learn to get along when the goal is to make money.
> >
> >No. Only those kinds that are willing to adopt values that INCLUDE that, at
> >least as a non-clashing peripheral. But see how certain lifestyles get
> >squeezed out by that, aren't that compatible with it. Ask any Amish for
> >details, say about their struggle not to pay for a form of education they
> >don't want.
>
> The education they don't want nevertheless supports the democratic
> institutions that protect their helpless asses from aggression and
> tyranny.
It doesn't, not if those things they don't want get imposed on them in the
name of doing that - because when they are imposed AGAINST THEIR WILL, they
ARE tyranny. Which is the point.
Oh, I forgot: you don't believe in "beneficiary pay."
I do - only, I don't roll over and accept royls's sense of values and
everything that lines up under the heading of obligation when he is the one
doing the defining. PML.
Peter Lawrence
Jim Blair wrote:
>
> >Jim Blair wrote:
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >> "Wages" are not a good indicator of living standards, especially in the
> >> 3rd world and especially not the wage in a particular low wage industry.
>
> Peter Lawrence <pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >Here and in one of your other posts you show an understanding of some matters
> >Nassau Senior clarified in his early 19th century work on wages. But then you
> >miss this...
> >
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >As more factories open the
> >> average wage drops as ever more people leave the farm to work for wages.
> >
> >That's actually bad, unless some further compensating things happen. The
> >thing is, total food production drops unless productivity rises.
>
> Hi,
>
> Agricultural productivity in the 3rd world HAS been increasing. Mostly
> because of technology imported from the industrial nations. Much of
> this because of new crop plants. As in "Green Revolution". India for
> example had famine for centuries, but now exports food.
Not what I was getting at. I agree, most of those things I mentioned as
necessary to avoid the problems really are happening, so we don't get the
problems - at least, not everywhere. What I was driving at was that your
description was incomplete, leaving those necessary adjustments out of the
picture.
But your comments also don't apply everywhere; some places really do get
problems. They are worse when the countries go in for cash crop production
for export, but oddly enough Nike factories etc. - the usual suspects -
usually make things better as they don't cut down on agricultural resources
in themselves like, say, coffee growing. Even coffee growing is OK in East
Timor, because their limits aren't Malthusian.
>
> >...Yes, a true
> >free market, operating without shocks, would only let people off the farms if
> >capital came in to do that or if imports of food kept food supply up instead.
>
> I was reading about how BAD globalization is because it has provided cheap
> food to poor countries like Haiti. This has been BAD for local farmers
> who can't compete with rice grown in the US and sold in local stores.
> (no suggestion that cheap food could be GOOD for the people who eat)
All correct - and institutions like Christian Aid are trying to change this
and help that sort of export. It really would help the FARMERS - it's just
that it would hurt those already on the margins and those who got squeezed
out of farming. Contrariwise, cheap food is no use to those on the margins
and making their way within the subsistence sector, the "Ruth the gleaner"s
of this world. They have no money anyway; that explains a Hungarian
proverbial curse I heard that said "may you live off bread bought in the
market", i.e. may you be forced to live off your cash savings (by
implication, until they are all gone).
>
> >But on its own, a drift from the land in search of wages means food prices go
> >up too -
>
> The critics of Globalization complain that food prices fall. See above.
Depends which critics. I told you Christian Aid was wrong headedly making
things worse. Actually, with the feedback mechanisms, it all depends what's
driving it; the outside food supplies generate local production changes
tending to restore prices. If the same levels happened for other reasons
(say, diverting land to export cash crop production), the same local
phenomena wouldn't have offsetting food supplies driving prices down - and
they'd go up.
>
> >...and sheer demographics and inelasticity of demand for food means
> >that the gains in factory wages can't make up for losses in susbsistence food
> >availability.
>
> Add "Green Revolution" crops to imports from the industrial nations, and
> some poor countries want to "protect" their farmers from falling food
> prices.
Yes - but that's NOT protecting the poor, it's middle class welfare as far as
those countries go. It's protecting those who have a surplus and protecting
the revenue base that comes along with them. Boaz was middle class compared
with Ruth.
>
> >..Of course, the actual losers are usually those who don't manage
> >to get into the factories, which makes the factories look good - but the
> >overall effect is harmful. UNLESS the other adjustments get made, enough and
> >fast enough.
>
> I agree that cheaper food undercuts farmers and speeds the move from rural
> to urban. And that SOME farmers don't want to get a job in the city.
>
> >
> >And, oddly enough, historically these are just the sort of market
> >deficiencies you get - the sort that separate winners from losers as wealth
> >transfers concentrate the gains of progress, often arising from inadequate
> >institutions labouring under the new conditions.
>
> Globalization and industrialization does increase inequality within most
> countries, even as it increases equality world wide.
"Equality world wide" is meaningless, since it only shows one country in
aggregate against another. What counts is what individuals can buy or
otherwise obtain, in absolute terms; the local equality measures show
something there, when all up production is nearly constant (i.e., when up
against Malthusian constraints so productivity can't rise fast enough to
help).
>
> >....We had the English Enclosure
> >of the Commons, the Scottish Highland Clearances, and Irish Absentee
> >Landlordism. Who runs may read.
>
> Would the English and Irish be better off today if the Industrial
> Revolution had not happened? Would YOU want to live the life of a
> 14th century farmer? (I would not).
NOT the point. You are looking at two different things from the things that
matter:-
- we are the inheritors of the winners, not of the broken men (who perished);
and
- for us, the cost is all sunk cost.
To those countries, the situation is offering many people outright losses,
and many others a loss now for a return later - on terms they would rather
not accept. Your comparison is only looking at the good sense of taking the
winnings now we have paid anyway.
> ..
>
> >>
> >> (And nowhere in the article does the author hint that people everywhere
> >> have cheaper clothes as a result of this process)
> >
> >Well, that's wrong. Not people everywhere - just the ones who didn't get
> >marginalised and did get on those rising boats being lifted.
>
> I see even the poorest people today wearing factory made clothes.
> Including New York Yankee tee-shirts and hats.
No you don't. You see the WINNERS doing that. The losers are all perishing
off stage, where you don't see them.
Who makes their own
> clothes today except rich yuppies who want to "go back to nature"?
>
> Clothes used to be a big item in the budget, or else took a lot of peoples
> time to make.
Yes - and now, either they get them easily, or they don't eat either.
>
> >
> >>
> >> David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >More wealth for the third world suggests that union organizing might be
> >> >a good thing in many of these places.
> >>
> >> But that will come only AFTER the industry and the jobs are there. Do
> >> subsistence farmers form unions?
> >
> >Actually, these are the ones with a comparative advantage over the urbanites.
> >They don't need to work for a living wage but for a top up wage lower than
> >that, say as outworkers supplementing their insufficient subsistence
> >resources, so they outcompete the landless or urban poor.
>
> Are you saying those who stay on the farm gain the most from
> industrialization?
No. I am saying that those who have a chance to take in work handed out on
the old putting out system help keep prices down. They don't GAIN from
industrialisation - in fact they are using preindustrial methods - but they
don't suffer as much as those who don't even have subsistence resources.
I know some people do some of each. Even at my lab in
> Madison some people work full time but also run a small farm and sell eggs
> and veggies to other workers.
Different thing. What those gain from is the fact that their prices haven't
been forced down - they are working in a context that doesn't have outworkers
with subsistence resources setting the pace; they live and work in a largely
industrialISED world. They aren't facing the "iron law of wages".
I suspect you don't know just how poor poor can get. I do, both from oral
tradition and from living in some of those countries. PML.
Peter Lawrence
>
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 20:35:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Blair
> <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> >>Jim Blair wrote:
> >>.
> >>As more factories open the
> >>> average wage drops as ever more people leave the farm to work for wages.
> >>
> >>That's actually bad, unless some further compensating things happen. The
> >>thing is, total food production drops unless productivity rises.
>
> Peter of course cannot point to any examples where this has actually
> happened...
Huh? You mean, apart from England, Scotland and Ireland in the 18th and 19th
centuries?
>
> >Agricultural productivity in the 3rd world HAS been increasing. Mostly
> >because of technology imported from the industrial nations. Much of
> >this because of new crop plants. As in "Green Revolution". India for
> >example had famine for centuries, but now exports food.
>
> Peter doesn't understand relationships that are too subtle for a
> five-year-old.
Now, now. I do understand - that's why I reached different conclusions from
you.
>
> >>But on its own, a drift from the land in search of wages means food prices go
> >>up too -
> >
> >The critics of Globalization complain that food prices fall. See above.
>
> Peter also doesn't understand that "drift from the land in search of
> wages" is the classic response to _falling_ food prices. Why drift
> from the land if food prices are rising?
Readers, this fellow has forgotten that lots of different things can happen
and lots of different outcomes have different causes on different occasions.
For instance, during the Irish potato famine food prices rose and people left
the land. Why leave and starve on the road? Because they were evicted for not
paying rents.
>
> >>...and sheer demographics and inelasticity of demand for food means
> >>that the gains in factory wages can't make up for losses in susbsistence food
> >>availability.
>
> Wrong, as Henry George explained so clearly, patiently, and
> irrefutably in "Progress and Poverty." Food supply does not decrease
> with economic progress and increased population, it increases.
Er... ONLY when you aren't up against the Malthusian limits. Sometimes yes,
sometimes no. He was looking at a special case, and his followers today are
trying to plug his ideas into a context where they don't fit even as much as
they did for him.
The
> hunger only appears because the resulting increased land rents can
> reduce wages, directing more of the food to idle landowners.
Other possibilities exist. All we need note just here is that that pattern
can occur.
>
> >>..Of course, the actual losers are usually those who don't manage
> >>to get into the factories,
>
> The losers are precisely the landless. As usual.
Well... yes, sort of. Only, other things would also save them - such as
having an industrial take up FASTER than the damaging processes. But that's
just another way of saying, push back the Malthusian limits. It can be done,
sometimes, but here we are just looking at it, not acting.
>
> >which makes the factories look good - but the
> >>overall effect is harmful. UNLESS the other adjustments get made, enough and
> >>fast enough.
> >
> >I agree that cheaper food undercuts farmers and speeds the move from rural
> >to urban. And that SOME farmers don't want to get a job in the city.
>
> Peter believes in the divine right of the landed to always get
> everything they want, at the unwilling expense of the productive, in
> return for no contribution whatsoever.
Readers, consult the archives for my true views. This fellow does not speak
for me when he caricatures me.
>
> >>> (And nowhere in the article does the author hint that people everywhere
> >>> have cheaper clothes as a result of this process)
> >>
> >>Well, that's wrong.
>
> Peter is of course lying again.
>
> >Not people everywhere - just the ones who didn't get
> >>marginalised and did get on those rising boats being lifted.
>
> Wrong. Clothing is now so cheap that many thousands of tons of good
> used clothing are now shipped from rich countries to poor ones every
> year and _given_away_. No one who wants clothing (and doesn't mind
> what it looks like) need do without it.
That's not much use to people who can't eat. Any more than cheap clothing was
good for everybody in the early 19th century.
>
> >>> David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >More wealth for the third world suggests that union organizing might be
> >>> >a good thing in many of these places.
> >>>
> >>> But that will come only AFTER the industry and the jobs are there. Do
> >>> subsistence farmers form unions?
> >>
> >>Actually, these are the ones with a comparative advantage over the urbanites.
> >>They don't need to work for a living wage but for a top up wage lower than
> >>that, say as outworkers supplementing their insufficient subsistence
> >>resources, so they outcompete the landless or urban poor.
> >
> >Are you saying those who stay on the farm gain the most from
> >industrialization?
>
> Peter refuses to understand that those who _own_ the farms (and the
> urban land) do.
Now, now. I was pointing at some of the claw back mechanisms, not at the
outright winners. PML.
Jim Blair
>><jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>Jim Blair wrote:
>>
>>>Agricultural productivity in the 3rd world HAS been increasing. Mostly
>>>because of technology imported from the industrial nations. Much of
>>>this because of new crop plants. As in "Green Revolution". India for
>>>example had famine for centuries, but now exports food.
>>
....
>>>The critics of Globalization complain that food prices fall. See above.
>>
>On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 23:11:32 GMT, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>Peter also doesn't understand that "drift from the land in search of
>>wages" is the classic response to _falling_ food prices. Why drift
>>from the land if food prices are rising?
bill turner <51004898135...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>This is all very interesting, but why are food prices falling. Many
>reasons, to be sure. Undoubtedly part of the reason farmers in Haiti
>cannot compete with the rice growers in America is that the American
>rice grower is heavily subsidized (this may be an invalid example, for
>I do not know how much rice farmers are subsidized in America).
Hi,
Food prices are falling because of greater productivity: it is ever
cheaper and requires ever less labor to grow ever more food often on ever
less land. By using more and better machinery and new crops which produce
more faster. The down side is that most of this requires ever more
energy, mostly in the form of petroleum.
Government policies to aid farmers are mostly directed at making food
prices HIGHER. So I would say the fall in food prices is in spite of
subsidized agriculture. With the exception of the research done (much at
land grant universities like Wisconsin) which is government money spent to
increase productivity in agriculture.
>Another reason prices are lower is that the European and American
>farmer have done fantastic jobs at convincing their respective
>governments that barriers to the importation of food stuffs from the
>poor countries is smart. Didn't Stiglitz say that the loss of sales
>was almost equivalent (or greater than) the amount of aid that the
>West gives these countries?
>
><remaining snipped>
>
>Bill
>
Again food prices in the US and EU are higher because of these barriers.
But maybe food prices are lower in the 3rd world if they can't sell their
products abroad? Or do they just grow less?
ro...@telus.net
<51004898135...@t-online.de> wrote:
>This is all very interesting, but why are food prices falling. Many
>reasons, to be sure.
More efficient production.
>Undoubtedly part of the reason farmers in Haiti
>cannot compete with the rice growers in America is that the American
>rice grower is heavily subsidized (this may be an invalid example, for
>I do not know how much rice farmers are subsidized in America).
He is heavily _mechanized_ and _fertilized_, too.
>Another reason prices are lower is that the European and American
>farmer have done fantastic jobs at convincing their respective
>governments that barriers to the importation of food stuffs from the
>poor countries is smart. Didn't Stiglitz say that the loss of sales
>was almost equivalent (or greater than) the amount of aid that the
>West gives these countries?
Quite likely.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Again food prices in the US and EU are higher because of these barriers.
>But maybe food prices are lower in the 3rd world if they can't sell their
>products abroad? Or do they just grow less?
Both effects would be expected.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 11:32:40 GMT, Peter Lawrence
>> <pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:.
>
>[Jim Blair wrote]
>
>> >> All kinds of people can learn to get along when the goal is to make money.
>> >
>> >No. Only those kinds that are willing to adopt values that INCLUDE that, at
>> >least as a non-clashing peripheral. But see how certain lifestyles get
>> >squeezed out by that, aren't that compatible with it. Ask any Amish for
>> >details, say about their struggle not to pay for a form of education they
>> >don't want.
>>
>> The education they don't want nevertheless supports the democratic
>> institutions that protect their helpless asses from aggression and
>> tyranny.
>
>It doesn't,
Lie.
>not if those things they don't want get imposed on them in the
>name of doing that - because when they are imposed AGAINST THEIR WILL, they
>ARE tyranny. Which is the point.
So, in your world, almost any tax is "tyranny," because it is imposed
against the payer's will? What about your pet GST, hmmmm?
> Oh, I forgot: you don't believe in "beneficiary pay."
>
>I do
Liar.
>- only, I don't roll over and accept royls's sense of values and
>everything that lines up under the heading of obligation when he is the one
>doing the defining.
It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. Best if it's someone who
knows how (not you).
-- Roy L
Jim Blair
>[Jim Blair wrote]
>
>> >> All kinds of people can learn to get along when the goal is to make money.
Peter Lawrence <pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>> >No. Only those kinds that are willing to adopt values that INCLUDE that, at
>> >least as a non-clashing peripheral. But see how certain lifestyles get
>> >squeezed out by that, aren't that compatible with it. Ask any Amish for
>> >details, say about their struggle not to pay for a form of education they
>> >don't want.
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>
>> The education they don't want nevertheless supports the democratic
>> institutions that protect their helpless asses from aggression and
>> tyranny.
Peter Lawrence:
>
>It doesn't, not if those things they don't want get imposed on them in the
>name of doing that - because when they are imposed AGAINST THEIR WILL, they
>ARE tyranny. Which is the point.
>
Hi,
Education is ususlly imposed on children against their will. And often
schools teach the kids things that the parent don't approve of. Reading.
Evolution. Biology. Sex Education. Science. History,
Education is Tyranny! It undermines and even destroys certain lifestyles.
ro...@telus.net
<pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>Jim Blair wrote:
>>
>> >Jim Blair wrote:
>> >.
>> >> "Wages" are not a good indicator of living standards, especially in the
>> >> 3rd world and especially not the wage in a particular low wage industry.
>>
>> Peter Lawrence <pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >Here and in one of your other posts you show an understanding of some matters
>> >Nassau Senior clarified in his early 19th century work on wages. But then you
>> >miss this...
>> >
>> >As more factories open the
>> >> average wage drops as ever more people leave the farm to work for wages.
>> >
>> >That's actually bad, unless some further compensating things happen. The
>> >thing is, total food production drops unless productivity rises.
>>
>> Agricultural productivity in the 3rd world HAS been increasing. Mostly
>> because of technology imported from the industrial nations. Much of
>> this because of new crop plants. As in "Green Revolution". India for
>> example had famine for centuries, but now exports food.
>
>Not what I was getting at.
This is Peter's way of saying he realizes he was wrong, but won't
admit it.
>> >But on its own, a drift from the land in search of wages means food prices go
>> >up too -
>>
>> The critics of Globalization complain that food prices fall. See above.
>
>Depends which critics. I told you Christian Aid was wrong headedly making
>things worse. Actually, with the feedback mechanisms, it all depends what's
>driving it; the outside food supplies generate local production changes
>tending to restore prices. If the same levels happened for other reasons
>(say, diverting land to export cash crop production), the same local
>phenomena wouldn't have offsetting food supplies driving prices down - and
>they'd go up.
Except that they don't.
>> >....We had the English Enclosure
>> >of the Commons, the Scottish Highland Clearances, and Irish Absentee
>> >Landlordism. Who runs may read.
>>
>> Would the English and Irish be better off today if the Industrial
>> Revolution had not happened? Would YOU want to live the life of a
>> 14th century farmer? (I would not).
>
>NOT the point. You are looking at two different things from the things that
>matter:-
>
>- we are the inheritors of the winners, not of the broken men (who perished);
>and
>
>- for us, the cost is all sunk cost.
It would be difficult to imagine two factors that matter less than
these.
>To those countries, the situation is offering many people outright losses,
A's loss of privilege is everyone else's gain.
>and many others a loss now for a return later - on terms they would rather
>not accept. Your comparison is only looking at the good sense of taking the
>winnings now we have paid anyway.
How many broken, perished men would there have been by now if there
had been no Industrial Revolution?
>> >> (And nowhere in the article does the author hint that people everywhere
>> >> have cheaper clothes as a result of this process)
>> >
>> >Well, that's wrong. Not people everywhere - just the ones who didn't get
>> >marginalised and did get on those rising boats being lifted.
>>
>> I see even the poorest people today wearing factory made clothes.
>> Including New York Yankee tee-shirts and hats.
>
>No you don't.
Liar.
>You see the WINNERS doing that.
Liar.
>The losers are all perishing
>off stage, where you don't see them.
Garbage. Jim was 100% correct. You can go to the poorest countries,
and find the poorest people, and many of them are wearing factory-made
clothes. They may not fit very well, and they seldom look very
stylish, but they are there. When there is a crisis, some even starve
to death wearing those factory-made clothes.
> Who makes their own
>> clothes today except rich yuppies who want to "go back to nature"?
>>
>> Clothes used to be a big item in the budget, or else took a lot of peoples
>> time to make.
>
>Yes - and now, either they get them easily, or they don't eat either.
Wrong. They get them easily anyway. Whether they eat or not is a
different issue because food doesn't last as long as clothing, and has
a different demand function.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 20:35:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Blair
>> <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >>Jim Blair wrote:
>> >>.
>> >>As more factories open the
>> >>> average wage drops as ever more people leave the farm to work for wages.
>> >>
>> >>That's actually bad, unless some further compensating things happen. The
>> >>thing is, total food production drops unless productivity rises.
>>
>> Peter of course cannot point to any examples where this has actually
>> happened...
>
>Huh? You mean, apart from England, Scotland and Ireland in the 18th and 19th
>centuries?
Total food production rose in each of those cases (except during the
Irish potato blight, of course -- but that had nothing to do with
conditions of production).
>> >>But on its own, a drift from the land in search of wages means food prices go
>> >>up too -
>> >
>> >The critics of Globalization complain that food prices fall. See above.
>>
>> Peter also doesn't understand that "drift from the land in search of
>> wages" is the classic response to _falling_ food prices. Why drift
>> from the land if food prices are rising?
>
>Readers, this fellow has forgotten that lots of different things can happen
>and lots of different outcomes have different causes on different occasions.
>For instance, during the Irish potato famine food prices rose and people left
>the land.
A typical dishonest example. They left because they had become
completely reliant on one crop, and when suddenly they could not grow
that crop any more, they did not know what to do. There were also
some _highly_ non-market things going on, like the Corn Laws -- but
Peter Lawrence always refuses to know any of the multitude of facts
that prove him wrong.
>Why leave and starve on the road? Because they were evicted for not
>paying rents.
??? A classic case of blaming the symptom. They left because they
could no longer grow anything but potatoes, and then suddenly found
they couldn't grow potatoes, either.
>> >>...and sheer demographics and inelasticity of demand for food means
>> >>that the gains in factory wages can't make up for losses in susbsistence food
>> >>availability.
>>
>> Wrong, as Henry George explained so clearly, patiently, and
>> irrefutably in "Progress and Poverty." Food supply does not decrease
>> with economic progress and increased population, it increases.
>
>Er... ONLY when you aren't up against the Malthusian limits.
Which George (and history) proved do not exist....
>Sometimes yes,
>sometimes no. He was looking at a special case,
Lie. He explicitly proved his point for the general case.
>and his followers today are
>trying to plug his ideas into a context where they don't fit even as much as
>they did for him.
Lie. I know you are lying, Peter, because I know that you have
already seen the following quotes from the greatest experts in the
field, more than once, and have never been able to dispute them:
"Pure ground rent is in the nature of a 'surplus,' which can be taxed
heavily without distorting production incentives or reducing
efficiency."
-- Paul Samuelson, Nobel laureate in Economics
"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, Nobel laureate in Economics
"It is important that the rent of land be retained as a source of
government revenue."
-- Franco Modigliani, Nobel laureate in Economics
"For efficiency, for adequate revenue, and for justice, every user of
land should be required to make an annual payment to the local
government equal to the current rental value of the land he or she
prevents others from using."
-- Robert Solow, Nobel laureate in Economics
"While the governments of developed nations with market economies
collect some of the rent of land, they do not collect nearly as much
as they could, and they therefore make unnecessarily great use of
taxes that impede their economies -- taxes on such things as incomes,
sales, and the value of capital goods."
-- William Vickrey, Nobel laureate in Economics and past
president of the American Economics Association
> The
>> hunger only appears because the resulting increased land rents can
>> reduce wages, directing more of the food to idle landowners.
>
>Other possibilities exist. All we need note just here is that that pattern
>can occur.
And you advocate it, as long as the food goes to idle landowners
rather than to those who produce it.
>> >>..Of course, the actual losers are usually those who don't manage
>> >>to get into the factories,
>>
>> The losers are precisely the landless. As usual.
>
>Well... yes, sort of.
This is Peter's way of saying he knows he is wrong, but won't admit
it.
>> >>> (And nowhere in the article does the author hint that people everywhere
>> >>> have cheaper clothes as a result of this process)
>> >>
>> >>Well, that's wrong.
>>
>> Peter is of course lying again.
>>
>> >Not people everywhere - just the ones who didn't get
>> >>marginalised and did get on those rising boats being lifted.
>>
>> Wrong. Clothing is now so cheap that many thousands of tons of good
>> used clothing are now shipped from rich countries to poor ones every
>> year and _given_away_. No one who wants clothing (and doesn't mind
>> what it looks like) need do without it.
>
>That's not much use to people who can't eat.
Lie. It may be a lot of use. Having some clothing instead of no
clothing might just conserve enough of their body heat to keep them
alive.
>Any more than cheap clothing was
>good for everybody in the early 19th century.
Notice the dishonest bait-and-switch, here. Of course prosperity and
abundance are not good for _everybody_: increased supply means that
the suppliers lose some of their ability to extort tribute from
consumers.
-- Roy L
Peter Lawrence
.
.
.
those things they don't want get imposed on them in the
> >name of doing that - because when they are imposed AGAINST THEIR WILL, they
> >ARE tyranny. Which is the point.
>
> So, in your world, almost any tax is "tyranny," because it is imposed
> against the payer's will? What about your pet GST, hmmmm?
"My" pet GST? Readers, this fellow doesn't know what he is talking about. A
GST is seriously defective at several levels, but it does happen to be part
of what we have here in Australia at the moment, so we could use it since we
have it (making the best of a bad job). Anyone who wants my further opinions
about it can see some of them at the publications page I link to in my
signature below. PML.
Jim Blair
>Sorry - last time I forgot you prefer to be emailed as well.
Hi,
That's OK I saw your reply. Just that often I do miss them.
>
>Jim Blair wrote:
>>
>> Agricultural productivity in the 3rd world HAS been increasing. Mostly
>> because of technology imported from the industrial nations. Much of
>> this because of new crop plants. As in "Green Revolution". India for
>> example had famine for centuries, but now exports food.
Peter Lawrence
>
>Not what I was getting at. I agree, most of those things I mentioned as
>necessary to avoid the problems really are happening, so we don't get the
>problems - at least, not everywhere. What I was driving at was that your
>description was incomplete, leaving those necessary adjustments out of the
>picture.
>
>But your comments also don't apply everywhere; some places really do get
>problems. They are worse when the countries go in for cash crop production
>for export, ...
I agree that some places try cash crops just as the market for them drops.
Coffee is one good example. Then they proved to be a "bad investment".
What good is a "cash crop" that you can't sell for some cash?
>...but oddly enough Nike factories etc. - the usual suspects -
>usually make things better as they don't cut down on agricultural resources
>in themselves like, say, coffee growing.
AND because there is a good market for the shoes.
>...Even coffee growing is OK in East
>Timor, because their limits aren't Malthusian.
I wonder how this "fair trade" coffee will work out. Coffee in the US
still sells for a lot and we drink a lot of it.
>"Equality world wide" is meaningless, since it only shows one country in
>aggregate against another.
But all of the people in the world can be rated by economic well being,
and I say the gap between the top and the bottom is shrinking.
>No you don't. You see the WINNERS doing that. The losers are all perishing
>off stage, where you don't see them.
If they don't reproduce, should we be sorry about that? Darwin and all.
Jim Blair
>No you don't. You see the WINNERS doing that. The losers are all perishing
>off stage, where you don't see them.....
>
>- we are the inheritors of the winners, not of the broken men (who perished);
Hi,
My last reply was cut short because I had a lunch date. I'll expand on
it.
Your point here is strange. EVERY LIVING BEING on earth today is here
because they are a "winner". Because we live in a world of "survival of
the fittest". Should we be worrying about the Neanderthals and all the
other species (and human cultures) that did not survive? They were not as
well suited to the environment and that is why they are no longer here.
Too bad for them, but good for us. Adapt or check out; that is what life
is about.
jeb:
>> (And nowhere in the article does the author hint that people everywhere
>> have cheaper clothes as a result of this process)
>> >Well, that's wrong. Not people everywhere - just the ones who didn't get
>> >marginalised and did get on those rising boats being lifted.
Jim Blair:
>>
>> I see even the poorest people today wearing factory made clothes.
>> Including New York Yankee tee-shirts and hats.
>
...
>> Who makes their own
>> clothes today except rich yuppies who want to "go back to nature"?
>>
>> Clothes used to be a big item in the budget, or else took a lot of peoples
>> time to make.
>
>Yes - and now, either they get them easily, or they don't eat either.
>
>
>I suspect you don't know just how poor poor can get. I do, both from oral
>tradition and from living in some of those countries. PML.
>
>--
Where are there people so poor that they don't wear factory made clothes?
And what do they wear? And where do people not have enough food except
where the political situation is their problem? Famine was commonplace
just a few decades ago, and in the 1960's Paul Ehrlich was predicting
world wide famine by the 1990's.
It didn't happen that way.
Isn't it clear that overall, people are getting better off everywhere
(with the possible exception of Africa)? Aren't the falling birthrates an
indication of that?
bill turner
>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 07:43:53 +0200, bill turner
><51004898135...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>>This is all very interesting, but why are food prices falling. Many
>>reasons, to be sure.
>
>More efficient production.
Improved infrastructure, hence improved distribution and less loss,
would have to be another. Protectionism in the west would definitely
lower the prices elsewhere. So, as I stated, many reasons to be sure.
bill turner
<jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
I sincerely doubt that protectionism, subsidized agriculture, in the
West is raising the price of crops in the Third World.
>>Another reason prices are lower is that the European and American
>>farmer have done fantastic jobs at convincing their respective
>>governments that barriers to the importation of food stuffs from the
>>poor countries is smart. Didn't Stiglitz say that the loss of sales
>>was almost equivalent (or greater than) the amount of aid that the
>>West gives these countries?
>>
>><remaining snipped>
>>
>>Bill
>>
>
>Again food prices in the US and EU are higher because of these barriers.
>But maybe food prices are lower in the 3rd world if they can't sell their
>products abroad? Or do they just grow less?
I don't understand the point here at all. Are you saying that demand
for food from the Third World is unaffected by the barriers in the
West? Your first question does not make sense to me at all. The second
seems really odd, for if farmers could get a better price for their
crops, they would, of course, farm even more land until the marginal
utility was met. Maybe you are saying my assumption that food prices
would rise in the Third World is wrong. Even if so, most of the
benefits to both the West and the Third World of removing these
barriers would still exist. It seems that by removing the price
supports or other barriers in the West the value of crops would
increase in the Third World. It would mean lower prices for the
consumers in the West. Increased income in the Third World. Less
urbanization pressure there as well, with all the attendent problems
that arise from migration to the cities. Since farmers now would earn
more money, non-farm labor would have to compensated better in order
to attract workers. With the increased income in the Third World, it
is perceivable that less aid from the West would be required.
Therefore, greater consumption and/or investment. Same is true due to
the lower food costs. The increased consumption would undoubtedly lead
to an increase in demand for other products manufactured in the Third
World.
bill
David Lloyd-Jones
>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:45:36 GMT, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 07:43:53 +0200, bill turner
>><51004898135...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>This is all very interesting, but why are food prices falling. Many
>>>reasons, to be sure.
>>>
>>>
>>More efficient production.
>>
>>
>
>Improved infrastructure, hence improved distribution and less loss,
>would have to be another. Protectionism in the west would definitely
>lower the prices elsewhere. So, as I stated, many reasons to be sure.Food Prices Query. Was
>
Do we have any evidence that "food prices," whatever that means, are
falling?
Certainly Engels' Ratio, the percentage of income spent on food, dropped
for generations in the industrial world -- but I wouldn't be surprised
if it's currently rising, thanks to the invasion of Pizza-Pops and their
like into the diet. Anybody got the facts?
For the on-industrial world you have two problems, defining "food" and
finding the prices. Despite all the hell going on in Africa, the African
middle class is expanding, and hence tastes are shifting from various
porridges to white bread in many places. Wheat prices declined for
decades from their high roughly 90 years ago, but it is my impression
that they have risen in the last five years or so, though still
fluctuating fairly widely. Fish prices rose fairly steeply in the
1970's, it seemed to me, but have held fairly steady since then, it's my
impression. I haven't seen any decline in chicken or other meat prices
in the last little while. Is there a meat price index anywhere?
Does anybody have any good numbers on food prices world-wide?
-dlj.
bill turner
wrote:
>bill turner wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:45:36 GMT, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 07:43:53 +0200, bill turner
>>><51004898135...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is all very interesting, but why are food prices falling. Many
>>>>reasons, to be sure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>More efficient production.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Improved infrastructure, hence improved distribution and less loss,
>>would have to be another. Protectionism in the west would definitely
>>lower the prices elsewhere. So, as I stated, many reasons to be sure.Food Prices Query. Was
>>
>
>Do we have any evidence that "food prices," whatever that means, are
>falling?
That was the assertion of others. I do not have any facts on this one
way or another. I was just pointing out that if food prices were
falling, that were likely many causes.
<remainder snipped>
bill
David Lloyd-Jones
>On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:21:45 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>bill turner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:45:36 GMT, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 07:43:53 +0200, bill turner
>>>><51004898135...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This is all very interesting, but why are food prices falling. Many
>>>>>reasons, to be sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>Do we have any evidence that "food prices," whatever that means, are
>>falling?
>>
>>
>
>That was the assertion of others. I do not have any facts on this one
>way or another. I was just pointing out that if food prices were
>falling, that were likely many causes.
>
Bill,
'Fess up: you're lying. You didn't say anything of the sort -- as the
quote above demonstrates. You asked
"but why are food prices falling. Many reasons, to be sure."
Now your recent position, which is different from your original one, is
something anybody can agree with. I would only add that if prices are
staying level or rising there were " likely many causes."
I stand in awe of your wisdom.
-dlj.
ro...@telus.net
>falling?
There are of course the commodity exchange prices: wheat, beans,
bellies, FCOJ, etc.
>Certainly Engels' Ratio, the percentage of income spent on food, dropped
>for generations in the industrial world -- but I wouldn't be surprised
>if it's currently rising, thanks to the invasion of Pizza-Pops and their
>like into the diet. Anybody got the facts?
Even the prices of convenience foods do not pace inflation.
>For the on-industrial world you have two problems, defining "food" and
>finding the prices. Despite all the hell going on in Africa, the African
>middle class is expanding, and hence tastes are shifting from various
>porridges to white bread in many places. Wheat prices declined for
>decades from their high roughly 90 years ago, but it is my impression
>that they have risen in the last five years or so, though still
>fluctuating fairly widely.
The real price of wheat continues to fall.
>Fish prices rose fairly steeply in the
>1970's, it seemed to me, but have held fairly steady since then, it's my
>impression.
Fish has become very expensive.
>I haven't seen any decline in chicken or other meat prices
>in the last little while. Is there a meat price index anywhere?
You could check out bellies, at least.
>Does anybody have any good numbers on food prices world-wide?
Depends how much convenience you mix with the food...
-- Roy L
Grinch
<51004898135...@t-online.de> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:21:45 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>bill turner wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:45:36 GMT, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 07:43:53 +0200, bill turner
>>>><51004898135...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This is all very interesting, but why are food prices falling. Many
>>>>>reasons, to be sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>More efficient production.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Improved infrastructure, hence improved distribution and less loss,
>>>would have to be another. Protectionism in the west would definitely
>>>lower the prices elsewhere. So, as I stated, many reasons to be sure.Food Prices Query. Was
>>>
>>
>>Do we have any evidence that "food prices," whatever that means, are
>>falling?
>
>That was the assertion of others. I do not have any facts on this one
>way or another. I was just pointing out that if food prices were
>falling, that were likely many causes.
sample prices for basic items in 2002 dollars
pounds and quarts
1914 2002
Dozen eggs $6.30 $0.89
Flour .61 .27
Potatoes 3.23 .89
Sugar 10.61 .59
Milk 1.60 1.49
Ham 4.91 2.09
Sirloin steak 4.68 3.48
Coffee 5.40 2.66
http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=418
More detail:
http://www.gti.net/mocolib1/kid/foodfaq5.html
Prices at your grocer may vary.
But then we should also consider both that many foods available today
weren't available in 1914 at any price, and that since wages have
incrased throughout this period prices measured in terms of the
average hourly wage have fallen a good deal more.
>bill
David Lloyd-Jones
>On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:21:45 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Do we have any evidence that "food prices," whatever that means, are
>>falling?
>>
>>
>
>There are of course the commodity exchange prices: wheat, beans,
>bellies, FCOJ, etc.
>
Yes, Roy. That's where what I say about wheat, below, comes from.
>>Certainly Engels' Ratio, the percentage of income spent on food, dropped
>>for generations in the industrial world -- but I wouldn't be surprised
>>if it's currently rising, thanks to the invasion of Pizza-Pops and their
>>like into the diet. Anybody got the facts?
>>
>>
>
>Even the prices of convenience foods do not pace inflation.
>
I think that is very unlikely to be true. You might find it true for
pizza, home delivered or in the pizza stand, because of the gross over
building and, uh, murderous competition. I would be surprised, however,
if it were true of supermarket pizza (not just the bargain brands, but
including the nationally advertised ones, which have most of the volume)
-- and I would be very very surprised if this were true of, say,
boil-in-the-bag carrots with butter sauce.
Do you have a single fact with which to support your allegation? I
thought not. Normal Roy.
>>For the on-industrial world you have two problems, defining "food" and
>>finding the prices. Despite all the hell going on in Africa, the African
>>middle class is expanding, and hence tastes are shifting from various
>>porridges to white bread in many places. Wheat prices declined for
>>decades from their high roughly 90 years ago, but it is my impression
>>that they have risen in the last five years or so, though still
>>fluctuating fairly widely.
>>
>>
>
>The real price of wheat continues to fall.
>
My claim is clearly stated above. Would you like to put your "continues
to fall" claim in some form that we can bet $200 on? Period of fall,
definition of price, and how you propose to pay me.
>>Fish prices rose fairly steeply in the
>>1970's, it seemed to me, but have held fairly steady since then, it's my
>>impression.
>>
>>
>
>Fish has become very expensive.
>
"Expensive" is a relative, not an absolute. Perhaps you grew up thinking
fish was some junk you had to be forced to eat on Fridays, while I grew
up thinking thatThursday was a good day, because that is when we got
haddock poached uin milk. When?And which fish? Where, andin what form?
>>I haven't seen any decline in chicken or other meat prices
>>in the last little while. Is there a meat price index anywhere?
>>
>>
>
>You could check out bellies, at least.
>
>
Sorry, Roy, I'm Jewish. And most of the trade in pork bellies is just
gambling for the guys on the Chicago floor. Bacon has stayed CDN$2.79
per half kilo at my local No-Frills, over a period when Chicago
pork-bellies have tersivigorated to the sky and to Al Capone's crypt.
>>Does anybody have any good numbers on food prices world-wide?
>>
>>
>
>Depends how much convenience you mix with the food...
>
And you propose to separate out corn cobs by the road side from corn
cobs in the parking lot of the supermarket exactly how? How much of
flour do you claim is in the milling? How much of bread do you claim is
somebody making the flour more convenient?
Your pre-emptive fraudulence: I love it!
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>>On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:21:45 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Do we have any evidence that "food prices," whatever that means, are
>>>falling?
>>>
>>>
>sample prices for basic items in 2002 dollars
>pounds and quarts
>
> 1914 2002
>Dozen eggs $6.30 $0.89
>Flour .61 .27
>Potatoes 3.23 .89
>Sugar 10.61 .59
>Milk 1.60 1.49
>Ham 4.91 2.09
>Sirloin steak 4.68 3.48
>Coffee 5.40 2.66
>
>
Jim,
]Thanks for the references:
>http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=418
>More detail:
>http://www.gti.net/mocolib1/kid/foodfaq5.html
>Prices at your grocer may vary.
>
>
In the American context the milk and sugar prices are meaningless
because of government interference. Also the flour price, because flour
is made out of wheat, is meaningless. (In any event most of that price
drop happened between 1914 and 1935; in the last few years wheat has
climbed from its traditional $1.75~1.80 a bushel to the high high $2++
range.
I seem to recall that sirloin steak is made out of cattle, so we don't
know the market price of that in America, the EU, or Japan, in all three
of which its price is governed by tax law.
The price of coffee has some meaning, maybe, except that the present low
prices are governed by the government of Vietnam's price fixing of their
currency. That's what you get when you put a Harvard Business School
graduate in charge of a Communist central bank.
Thus you seem to be scoring zero for eight, Jim, -- roughly your normal
level of reliability. Ah, Republicans with numbers!
* * *
What I want is a.) trustworthy definitions of "food" for the advanced
world and for everybody on the planet, and then b.) somethig useful
about their prices. Grinch's stuff above doesn't qualify by a country mile.
-dlj.
Peter Lawrence
.
.
.
> >>
> >> The education they don't want nevertheless supports the democratic
> >> institutions that protect their helpless asses from aggression and
> >> tyranny.
>
> Peter Lawrence:
> >
> >It doesn't, not if those things they don't want get imposed on them in the
> >name of doing that - because when they are imposed AGAINST THEIR WILL, they
> >ARE tyranny. Which is the point.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Education is ususlly imposed on children against their will. And often
> schools teach the kids things that the parent don't approve of. Reading.
> Evolution. Biology. Sex Education. Science. History,
>
> Education is Tyranny! It undermines and even destroys certain lifestyles.
Yes - if done like that.
In fact, if you look at the career of the American educationist Horace Mann
(not Walpole's correspondent Horace Mann, that is), you will find that that
is just precisely why he did what what he did.
And it IS monstrous, and it is a measure of his success that you don't find
it so, that you find its attached merits a sufficient justification. You are
what he made you. But I'm not.
Now, public education in the European tradition is NOT like that; it came in
to provide training and reinforce EXISTING sets of values - not to
indoctrinate and digest peoples with different sets of values. PML.
bill turner
wrote:
>bill turner wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:21:45 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>bill turner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:45:36 GMT, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 07:43:53 +0200, bill turner
>>>>><51004898135...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>This is all very interesting, but why are food prices falling. Many
>>>>>>reasons, to be sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>Do we have any evidence that "food prices," whatever that means, are
>>>falling?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That was the assertion of others. I do not have any facts on this one
>>way or another. I was just pointing out that if food prices were
>>falling, that were likely many causes.
>>
>
>Bill,
>
>'Fess up: you're lying. You didn't say anything of the sort -- as the
>quote above demonstrates. You asked
>"but why are food prices falling. Many reasons, to be sure."
>
By saying that I am lying, you are calling me a liar. An ad hominem
attack. This is a major issue I have with this NG. Sadly, people would
rather attack individuals than critique arguments or otherwise correct
misunderstandings, in my opinion. Your statement was neither called
for, nor correct. My prose, my writing skill, may leave something to
be desired. If I seem to contradict myself, point it out. If I am
being inconsistent, point it out. If my facts are wrong, point it out.
As I stated in the follow-up post, the assertion that prices were
falling were made by others, not myself. If this is not what you
understood, it was a communication error, either on your part or on
mine. I assure you that I am not a liar.
The quote you supply is a direct indication that I am following the
assertion of others. (The first part was a question, though I left off
the question mark. Poor typing skills. ) Asking a question
demonstrates clearly that I am not the originator of the assertion. My
OP was in response to the following post by royls, who was responding
to Jim Blair:
">The critics of Globalization complain that food prices fall. See
above.
Peter also doesn't understand that "drift from the land in search of
wages" is the classic response to _falling_ food prices. Why drift
from the land if food prices are rising?"
Because of these statements, I, therefore, assumed that these postings
were based upon solid evidence. At no point did I make that claim. It
was a claim that I accepted and maybe should not have.
Regardless of which way the pricess are moving, there would likely be
many causes. In fact, my later statements regarding the need for the
West to eliminate the barriers of entry are only strengthened, in my
opinion, if prices are rising.
>Now your recent position, which is different from your original one, is
>something anybody can agree with. I would only add that if prices are
>staying level or rising there were " likely many causes."
>
I do not see how my position has changed in any sense. Perhaps you
can explain how I have been inconsistent?
>I stand in awe of your wisdom.
>
Is this sarcasm? I certainly don't think I am very wise. My knowledge
of economics, I feel, is quite weak. That is why I post questions and
comments. I want to enter a dialogue from which I can learn.
Bill
bill turner
wrote:
Because the structure of the economy changes so much, and has been
changing very rapidly since the industrial revolution, comparing
prices from different eras is quite unreliable. A better gauge would
be how many hours of labor were required by different economic groups
in order to earn the income necessary to purchase the products. Even
this measure is weak. The greater the time difference, the less
meaningful the comparison.
Bill
Tim Worstall
Not sure I want to take the bet as my prediction is over a time period
I would not be around to collect on.
But wheat prices over the next 30 - 40 years ? Fall from current
levels, by 30 - 40 %. ( constant dollars ofcourse )
Why ? Because the Ukraine and Southern Russia will finally get rid of
their absurd farming systems and embrace efficient private farming.
Bringing the world愀 second great bread basket back into the world
economy will have the same effect it did last time, in the 1890愀 when
the railroads connected up there. Falling grain and agricultural land
prices across Europe and perhaps N America as well this time.
Tim Worstall
David Lloyd-Jones
>By saying that I am lying, you are calling me a liar. An ad hominem
>attack.
>
No, that would be an anti-hominem. An *ad* hominem is an argument which
is addressed *to* a person, rather than being based on fact and logic.
I.e. it is argument by appeal to bias.
When you write something and then write that you didn't write it, that
is called a "lie," a technical term.
>This is a major issue I have with this NG. Sadly, people would
>rather attack individuals than critique arguments or otherwise correct
>misunderstandings, in my opinion. Your statement was neither called
>for, nor correct. My prose, my writing skill, may leave something to
>be desired.
>
OK, Your second statement was a direct contradiction of what you had
visibly said in your first. Happy now?
>If I seem to contradict myself, point it out.
>
I think I did. That's what you are complaining about.
>If I am
>being inconsistent, point it out.
>
I think I did. That's what you are complaining about.
>If my facts are wrong, point it out.
>As I stated in the follow-up post, the assertion that prices were
>falling were made by others, not myself. If this is not what you
>understood, it was a communication error, either on your part or on
>mine. I assure you that I am not a liar.
>
>The quote you supply is a direct indication that I am following the
>assertion of others. (The first part was a question, though I left off
>the question mark. Poor typing skills. )
>
That, combined with your private note to me, adds up to the claim that
two different dogs ate two different bits of homework.
>Peter also doesn't understand that "drift from the land in search of
>wages" is the classic response to _falling_ food prices. Why drift
>from the land if food prices are rising?"
>
Because rising prices have paid for investment in improved technology
which made farm labor superfluous, maybe? The sharecroppers being
"tractored off" Mississippi was the result of pure technical change, and
would have happened whether the price of cotton went up, down, or
sideways. In Japan the price of rice is fixed, but the mechanical rice
planter and stooker liberated a generation of workers to go into the
factories.
>Because of these statements, I, therefore, assumed that these postings
>were based upon solid evidence. At no point did I make that claim. It
>was a claim that I accepted and maybe should not have.
>
You didn't make it. You just accepted it and repeated it. And when asked
for evidence you simply denied that you had said it, which was clearly,
uh, incorrect. That's where I came in saying 'fess up.
>Regardless of which way the pricess are moving, there would likely be
>many causes. In fact, my later statements regarding the need for the
>West to eliminate the barriers of entry are only strengthened, in my
>opinion, if prices are rising.
>
>
As it happens I quite agree with you, without regard to the direction of
prices, whatever it is. On the other hand your opinion would be worth
more on the subject is you kept all the damn dogs away from your homework.
Cheers,
-dlj.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:21:45 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Certainly Engels' Ratio, the percentage of income spent on food, dropped
>>>for generations in the industrial world -- but I wouldn't be surprised
>>>if it's currently rising, thanks to the invasion of Pizza-Pops and their
>>>like into the diet. Anybody got the facts?
>>
>>Even the prices of convenience foods do not pace inflation.
>>
>I think that is very unlikely to be true. You might find it true for
>pizza, home delivered or in the pizza stand, because of the gross over
>building and, uh, murderous competition.
Competition is murderous for any producer.
>I would be surprised, however,
>if it were true of supermarket pizza (not just the bargain brands, but
>including the nationally advertised ones, which have most of the volume)
>-- and I would be very very surprised if this were true of, say,
>boil-in-the-bag carrots with butter sauce.
Nevertheless, it is true.
>Do you have a single fact with which to support your allegation?
Yes. The first Macdonald's hamburger I bought in the early 60s cost
$.19. Today the exact same burger costs $.89, about five times as
much, but the consumer price index has risen by a factor of 8-10 (not
sure of the exact year I bought that burger).
Of course, there is also the fact that competition, capital
accumulation and technological progress tend to gradually reduce the
real prices of almost all products.
>I thought not. Normal Roy.
Well, you're wrong, then, aren't you? Normal David...
>>>For the on-industrial world you have two problems, defining "food" and
>>>finding the prices. Despite all the hell going on in Africa, the African
>>>middle class is expanding, and hence tastes are shifting from various
>>>porridges to white bread in many places. Wheat prices declined for
>>>decades from their high roughly 90 years ago, but it is my impression
>>>that they have risen in the last five years or so, though still
>>>fluctuating fairly widely.
>>
>>The real price of wheat continues to fall.
>>
>My claim is clearly stated above. Would you like to put your "continues
>to fall" claim in some form that we can bet $200 on? Period of fall,
20 years, ending now.
>definition of price,
Chicago Commodity Exchange spot, relative to CPI.
>and how you propose to pay me.
You can donate it anonymously to the Red Crescent.
>>>Fish prices rose fairly steeply in the
>>>1970's, it seemed to me, but have held fairly steady since then, it's my
>>>impression.
>>
>>Fish has become very expensive.
>>
>"Expensive" is a relative, not an absolute.
Call it relative to chicken.
>Perhaps you grew up thinking
>fish was some junk you had to be forced to eat on Fridays, while I grew
>up thinking thatThursday was a good day, because that is when we got
>haddock poached in milk. When?And which fish? Where, andin what form?
Wild BC sockeye, in season, fresh at the dockside. That's admittedly
a bit parochial, but I was just reporting my personal experience on
that one.
>>>I haven't seen any decline in chicken or other meat prices
>>>in the last little while. Is there a meat price index anywhere?
>>
>>You could check out bellies, at least.
>>
>Sorry, Roy, I'm Jewish. And most of the trade in pork bellies is just
>gambling for the guys on the Chicago floor.
??? People take delivery at the spot price.
>Bacon has stayed CDN$2.79
>per half kilo at my local No-Frills, over a period when Chicago
>pork-bellies have tersivigorated to the sky and to Al Capone's crypt.
The bellies aren't a large fraction of the price of a half-kilo of
bacon.
>>>Does anybody have any good numbers on food prices world-wide?>
>>
>>Depends how much convenience you mix with the food...
>
>And you propose to separate out corn cobs by the road side from corn
>cobs in the parking lot of the supermarket exactly how? How much of
>flour do you claim is in the milling? How much of bread do you claim is
>somebody making the flour more convenient?
Exactly.
>Your pre-emptive fraudulence: I love it!
<yawn> Grinch posted some numbers. Deal with it.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Grinch wrote:
>
>>sample prices for basic items in 2002 dollars
>>pounds and quarts
>>
>> 1914 2002
>>Dozen eggs $6.30 $0.89
>>Flour .61 .27
>>Potatoes 3.23 .89
>>Sugar 10.61 .59
>>Milk 1.60 1.49
>>Ham 4.91 2.09
>>Sirloin steak 4.68 3.48
>>Coffee 5.40 2.66
>>
> In the American context the milk and sugar prices are meaningless
>because of government interference. Also the flour price, because flour
>is made out of wheat, is meaningless.
Ah. That's the ticket. Whatever facts are cited, just say they're
meaningless!
>(In any event most of that price
>drop happened between 1914 and 1935; in the last few years wheat has
>climbed from its traditional $1.75~1.80 a bushel to the high high $2++
>range.
Over the same time the CPI has doubled, perhaps?
> I seem to recall that sirloin steak is made out of cattle, so we don't
>know the market price of that in America, the EU, or Japan, in all three
>of which its price is governed by tax law.
All prices are governed by tax laws. Duh.
>The price of coffee has some meaning, maybe, except that the present low
>prices are governed by the government of Vietnam's price fixing of their
>currency.
Garbage.
>Thus you seem to be scoring zero for eight, Jim,
??? Uh, let's see: the ham doesn't count because you're Jewish, the
eggs don't count because they go with the ham, and the potatoes don't
count because, well, because hashbrowns with ham and eggs has too much
cholesterol.
Gee, I think I could get the hang of this Lloyd-Jones approach to
rhetoric...
>What I want is a.) trustworthy definitions of "food" for the advanced
>world and for everybody on the planet, and then b.) somethig useful
>about their prices. Grinch's stuff above doesn't qualify by a country mile.
<sigh> If you don't like the facts, make up your own...
-- Roy L