FACEBOOK Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 It is always changing. Maybe it would be beneficial to me to play the game, so to speak. But it would not be so for society as a whole. Progressive Land reform is serious, it is life changing, it lifts people out of people. It raises agricultural production, it brings with it prosperity for all. China and Vietnam are good examples, with land reform they have massively reduced poverty... But society doesn't care about you chem, it's every man for himself and anyone who doesn't believe this will realise a very harsh reality in old age. "Society" won't help you when you're old, you'll be screwed if you make no provision. If you're young, you could be using all this energy to give yourself a chance and a nice future. You need saving from yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStar Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 We do grow food in this country.... Im not sure that you grasp the concept that farming isn't something you can "just do" - it kinda takes a lot of learning Chemist is just pointing out the Common Agricultural Policy which requires no knowledge of farming or even the intention of farming to receive. This policy is effectively welfare benefits for the rich and creates scarcity of land for no useful reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 16, 2012 Author Share Posted September 16, 2012 We do grow food in this country.... Im not sure that you grasp the concept that farming isn't something you can "just do" - it kinda takes a lot of learning We could be growing a lot more, and we could do so without a subsidy that rewards people for merely owning land and increases the cost of production for tenant farmers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 16, 2012 Author Share Posted September 16, 2012 But society doesn't care about you chem, it's every man for himself and anyone who doesn't believe this will realise a very harsh reality in old age. "Society" won't help you when you're old, you'll be screwed if you make no provision. If you're young, you could be using all this energy to give yourself a chance and a nice future. You need saving from yourself. Sections of society do care, some don't. I won't be making it to old age anyhow. I can make the system work for me so to speak. But to be fair the system should work for everyone and reward productive work. Rentiers should be wiped out, they are nothing but a curse upon society. Besides, if everybody was selfish to the core, the future wouldn't be worth living in, in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 We could be growing a lot more, and we could do so without a subsidy that rewards people for merely owning land and increases the cost of production for tenant farmers. Here's a link about set aside showing the benefits and percentages for you to ignore (like all the other points I raise). Somebody might read it. http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-environ-obs-research-setaside-ieepreport-feb08.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Build cost is irrelevant, it is land cost. The idle land is the monopolised land. We pay people for merely owning land that their ancestors stole. That is wrong, and the theft of the land form the people was also wrong. Some thieving parasites stole the land and killed off those who opposed their criminal behaviour. They levied rents upon the (newly created) lower classes, and exploited them for centuries, they still do so today. Not only do they control the land, they control the inherently flawed 'legal' medium of exchange which we are legally forced to use. These criminals are one and the same, they are the bankers, the landowners and the lawyers. They aren't all bad, but that does not excuse the original crime. They are THIEVES! If I were to rape and kill a woman then feed her child it's supper I would not be a good man, I would be but a murderer and a rapist. Feeding a starving child might be a good mark upon my character, but it would not excuse the aforementioned theoretical crime. Here we go again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 17, 2012 Author Share Posted September 17, 2012 Here's a link about set aside showing the benefits and percentages for you to ignore (like all the other points I raise). Somebody might read it. http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-environ-obs-research-setaside-ieepreport-feb08.pdf The diversity of plant species depends on soil type, the past history of the field and the availability of seed sources from adjacent habitat. It is unusual for set-aside to contain scarce arable plant species as very little remains of the seedbank in most intensive arable areas. The point makes out the case for some environmental benefits of rotational farming and leaving some land to nature. Set aside would be easier to implement if there was a land value tax. It is basically leaving land idle. Currently a lot of it is people claiming payments for leaving land idle. People should not be getting paid for this. Tax them, make sure the land is left idle - if you wish for it to be idle. You could have plots of land taxed very highly every 7 years as an example, to ensure every 7 years each plot is left idle for one of them. (the amount of plots available could be reduced/increased in times of famine and times of plenty). When it comes to land that is to be left permanently idle - large chunks of the national parks for example, the land tax could be levied at a rate that nobody could afford, and all would have access to walk upon it etc. Would also like to point out small farms are more land productive, and not only are they more land productive, they have higher levels of biodiversity. So presumably you are in favour of land redistribution and land tax? More food produced, more wealth created, more wealth held via tenure by individual citizens, greater biodiversity, complete loss of rentiership in agriculture, fruits of a farmers labour go to a farmer instead of a rentier... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Build cost is irrelevant, it is land cost. The idle land is the monopolised land. We pay people for merely owning land that their ancestors stole. That is wrong, and the theft of the land form the people was also wrong. Some thieving parasites stole the land and killed off those who opposed their criminal behaviour. They levied rents upon the (newly created) lower classes, and exploited them for centuries, they still do so today. Not only do they control the land, they control the inherently flawed 'legal' medium of exchange which we are legally forced to use. These criminals are one and the same, they are the bankers, the landowners and the lawyers. They aren't all bad, but that does not excuse the original crime. They are THIEVES! If I were to rape and kill a woman then feed her child it's supper I would not be a good man, I would be but a murderer and a rapist. Feeding a starving child might be a good mark upon my character, but it would not excuse the aforementioned theoretical crime. You want to be very careful calling people criminals so freely. I paid for the land I own. My parents didn't steal it, nor did I steal the money I used to buy it, and I certainly didn't steal that land when I paid a fair consideration for it. Yet you consider that I'm a criminal merely for buying it and putting it to use? Like I said, I'd be very careful with that sort of take on things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 No it is not. I didn't mention HB - that is just one form of government control over the market. There are MANY MANY more. The market in housing is not a free-market. The fact that there are many factors affecting the market does not stop it being a free market. A free market doesn't have to exist in a vacuum. I disagree with I1L2T3 about the banks influence meaning the market is not free. They are just one of the equations that affects the market, they don't alter the fact that it is fundamentally free. A free-market would be affected by supply and demand. House prices are high, yet building is low. The market is rigged, and there are many ways in which it is rigged. And so prices stay high, we can see that affect in play. Boom and bust is but a symptom of the land monopoly and parasitic speculation that exists in the UK. In a free-market, the cost of housing would be driven down to build cost. If by the cost of building you mean including a reasonable profit for building companies and including the value of the land, then yes it would tend to that. In reality it does. Any rise in the price of housing would signal a lack of housing - this would in turn cause more housing to be built and housing would be driven down to build cost. And within the restrictions that exist to stop people like you building on the green built or building shacks on the village green that is what happens. Build costs are low as it is , and they can be driven lower. We can have very nice housing at £25k/unit. We can have nice housing for £15k/unit. Only in your dream world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidneystone Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Not a day goes by without a rant from you on housing. Why are rents high? Because of bad tenants. Tenants who damage properties, tenants who don't pay their rent, tenants who have to be taken to county courts, tenants who have solicitor letters sent to them. You are absolutely clueless with the real world! I think you forgot to include greedy landlords You are talking about a very very small minority of bad tenants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.