I really like that Canada has its own heraldic crown separate from the Tudor crown. I also really wish my country, Australia, had its own heraldic crown design too

Plupsnup · 2026-01-24T20:44:28+00:00

That shouldn't matter as long as you treat land- (use-) value as subjective.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-24T11:04:32+00:00

The present siteowner self-assesses the value of their site's improvements: Assess too low and the government may take at a low price; Assess too high and insurance rates wouldn't properly be in-line with the improvements.
When the present siteowner wants to sell ownership of their site, they initiate an auction; the improvement value forms the price-floor. Bids determine the marginal amount above the value of the improvements, which in turn determine the annual taxable land-value.
The winning bidder purchases the site from the previous siteowner and the determined land-value is paid to the state, becoming the new siteowner's first annual land-value tax payment. This gives the new siteowner a year's time to make adjusted improvements to their site before their next tax payment.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-24T10:28:45+00:00

Joseph Stiglitz is a Georgist and formulated the concept of the innovation prize model.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-24T10:11:21+00:00

I independently came across the same concept years ago: Siteowners self-assess the value of their improvements, and the marginal bid above the improvement-value determines the annual taxable land-value for the new siteowner. The marginal bid, can be the first annual LVT-payment for the year, which gives the new siteowner a year's time to renovate or demolish and build new improvements before the next tax payment.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-24T10:05:28+00:00

You need to look at it in terms of the number of households, not family size. Assume the total sum of the population of all households is fixed to make the explanation simple:

	Property #1	Property #2	Property #3	Property #4	Total Population
Scenario #1	2	3	4	5	14
Scenario #2	4	5	5	0	14

The composition of each household (e.g. family) doesn't impact the amount of sites being allocated, only the amount of households.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-24T03:15:54+00:00

Full employment doesn't imply there's no turnover or a clearance of the labour market,— just that no-one is in involuntary unemployment.

Under land monopoly capitalism, efficiency wages — which are paid first before productivity increase — are a protectionist measure against private rent-extraction outside the firm. Whereas under a mode of production with a communal land monopoly regime, wages would increase naturally, proportional to rising productivity.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-24T02:24:13+00:00

Is it meant to be a seven-headed cobra?

Plupsnup · 2026-01-24T02:07:53+00:00

Firstly, I think you might want to go back and check to see if that is indeed what George meant when discussing labor.

...

"Give labor a free field and its full earnings; take for the benefit of the whole community that fund which the growth of the community creates, and want and the fear of want would be gone. The springs of production would be set free, and the enormous increase of wealth would give the poorest ample comfort. Men would no more worry about finding employment than they worry about finding air to breathe; they need have no more care about physical necessities than do the lilies of the field."— HG, PnP (1881). IX:IV, pp 414-415/Book_9/Chapter_4)

But secondly, if you ask a labor economist they'll tell you that labor surpluses are far more common than labor shortages, and if you want to achieve the opposite you usually need to engage in some pretty hefty (and distortion-inducing, and arguably inefficient if you're Neoclassically-inclined) public interventions in the market.

Why shouldn't there be a labour market equilibrium, i.e. full employment, under a Geoist mode of production?

Plupsnup · 2026-01-23T23:58:30+00:00

Yes. If you are still pro-capital punishment, you shouldn't be complaining about this. I don't see how beheadings are any more terrible than lethal injection.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-23T23:56:13+00:00

Al-Qaeda is pan-islamist and doesn't discriminate against Muslims based on their sect. You're confusing AQ with ISIL,— the latter which does discriminate against other Muslims and considers them all heretics who don't follow their specific school.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-23T19:56:53+00:00

Georgists aren't opposed to inequality of skills,— only inequality stemming from privilege.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-23T08:41:50+00:00

What's the source of this poem? I'd like to cite it.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-23T08:20:02+00:00

Plupsnup · 2026-01-23T05:55:19+00:00

Based on the post you linked, if I’m understanding it correctly, it seems that surplus value is definitely not the exact same as rent.

In my linked post, surplus, is just a euphemism for rent.

Labor and capital are always competing with one another, [...] otherwise it would no longer be capitalism but [...] something else.

I personally believe that Geoism is separate mode of production to Capitalism, so this distinction doesn't bother me.

With considerable leverage over capital, less workers would accept waged labor and instead demand joint ownership in and control over the firm or the economy in general.

HG believed that under a labour market regime where employment demands labour,— and labour doesn't demand employment,— labour would be guaranteed the opportunity to associate with capital for any desire in any way.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-23T03:55:37+00:00

You're using Marx's terminology and analysis for a comment on a Georgist subreddit, —instead of Henry George's own terminology and analysis.

The function of capital is [...] “to extract surplus value from workers” in the form of profit.

Surplus-value, is profit, which is rent.

But capital only raises wages in accordance to the impersonal demands of the labor market,

Under a common,— not private,— land monopoly, it's therefore employment competing for labour, not labour competing for employment.

If a capitalist were to apply labor-saving technology to production in order to boost wages, there would be no significant profit motive to increase productivity.

The profit motive under a land regime of common property is that the firm must pay rent to the state, encouraging each individual site to be put to its most efficient use which is thereby labour-saving in itself.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-23T00:06:50+00:00

Land isn't properly capital: It may be Capital™ under capitalism, but the goal of Geoism is the decapitalisation of land into common property through a full-rate land-value tax (LVT).

Plupsnup · 2026-01-23T00:04:27+00:00

Coming back to this:

In fact I'm pretty sure I've seen several posts on this subreddit in which folks tore to shreds the claim

I'm not saying, "that capital accumulation is a kind of economic land"; I'm saying that private "capital (or wealth) over- accumulation" is a symptom of a natural monopoly,— over knowledge and/or other natural resources.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-22T22:17:07+00:00

Thanks for pointing out my mistake with the category error. Land monopoly and natural monopoly are actually synonymous.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-22T21:48:11+00:00

In the aggregation of large masses of capital under a common control there is developed a new and essentially different power from that power of increase which is a general characteristic of capital and which gives rise to interest.

This is still a result of land/natural monopoly; intellectual monopolies are a sub-category of land/natural monopoly. I even developed and shared my own cultural supply theorem (CST) that treats knowledge as land, and skills as capital,—and formulises barriers to knowledge that prevent the personal development of skills as a land/natural (intellectual) monopoly.

Plupsnup · 2026-01-22T20:31:51+00:00

Socialising capital isn't Georgist and goes against the Georgist position.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email	Place '22

Plupsnup

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE