Frontier
Whether we formulate it as an extension of the margin
of production, or as a carrying of the rent line beyond
the margin of production, the influence of speculation in
land in increasing rent is a great fact which cannot be
ignored in any complete theory of the distribution of
wealth in progressive countries. It is the force, evolved
by material progress, which tends constantly to increase
rent in a greater ratio than progress increases
production, and thus constantly tends, as material
progress goes on and productive power increases, to
reduce wages, not merely relatively, but absolutely.
The cause which limits speculation in commodities, the
tendency of increasing price to draw forth additional
supplies, cannot limit the speculative advance in land
values, as land is a fixed quantity, which human agency
can neither increase nor diminish; but there is
nevertheless a limit to the price of land, in the minimum
required by labor and capital as the condition of
engaging in production. If it were possible continuously
to reduce wages until zero were reached, it would be
possible continuously to increase rent until it swallowed
up the whole produce. But as wages cannot be permanently
reduced below the point at which laborers will consent to
work and reproduce, nor interest below the point at which
capital will be devoted to production, there is a limit
which restrains the speculative advance of rent.
Hence speculation cannot have the same scope to
advance rent in countries where wages and interest are
already near the minimum, as in countries where they are
considerably above it. ... read the whole
chapter
Mason Gaffney: Land
as a Distinctive Factor of Production
The initial distribution of land - the origin of
property in land - is military, legal, and political, not
economic. The prime business of nations throughout
history has been to gain and defend land. What was won by
force has no higher sanction than lex
fortioris, and must be kept and defended by
force.
After land is appropriated by a nation the
original distribution is political. The nature of
societies, cultures and economies for centuries
afterwards are moulded by that initial distribution,
exemplified by the differences between Costa Rica (equal
partition) and El Salvador with its fabled "Fourteen
Families" (Las Catorce), or
between Canada and Argentina.
Political redistribution also occurs within
nations, as with the English enclosures and Scottish
"clearances", when one part of the population in effect
conquered the rest by political machinations, and took
over their land, their source of livelihood.
Reappropriation and new appropriation of tenures is not
just an ancient or a sometime thing but an on-going
process. This very day, proprietary claims to water
sources, pollution rights, access to rights of way, radio
spectrum, signal relay sites, landing rights, beach
access, oil and gas, space on telephone and power
poles(e.g. for cable TV), taxi licences, etc. are being
created under our noses. In developing countries of
unstable government the current strong man often grants
concessions to imperialistic adventurers who can bolster
his hold on power by supplying both cash up front, and
help from various US and UN agencies from the IMF to the
United States Marine Corps.
Ordinary economic thinking today would have it
that a nation that distributes land among private parties
by "selling to the highest bidder" is using an economic
method of distribution. Such thinking guides World Bank
and IMF economists as they advise nations emerging from
communism on how to privatise land. The neutrality is
specious, at best. Even selling to the highest bidder is
a political decision, as 19th century American history
makes clear.
The right to sell was won by force, is not
universally honoured, and must be kept by continuous use
of force. In practice, selling for cash up front reserves
most land for a few with front-money advantage, inside
information, good contacts, corrupt aids, etc. The
history of disposal of US public domain leaves no doubt
about this and it is still going on with air rights,
water, radio, landing rights, fishing licenses, etc.
Choices being made currently are just as tainted as those
of 19th century history.
Selling land in large blocks
under frontier conditions is to sell at a time before it
begins yielding much if any rent. It is bid in by
those few who have large discretionary funds of patient
money. Politicians, meantime, treat the proceeds as
current revenues used to hold down other taxes today,
leaving the nation with inadequate revenues in the
future.
The ability to bid high does not necessarily come
from legitimate savings. The early wealth of Liverpool
came from the slave trade. High bidders for many
properties today are middle eastern potentates who
neither produced nor saved the wealth they control. Other
high bidders are criminals, who find the "sanctity of
property" a splendid route for laundering their gains,
and a permanent shelter against further
prosecution. Read the
whole article
Henry George: The Land Question
(1881)
The truth is that the Irish land system is simply
the general system of modern civilization. In no
essential feature does it differ from the system that
obtains here – in what we are accustomed to
consider the freest country under the sun. Entails and
primogeniture and family settlements may be in themselves
bad things, and may sometimes interfere with putting the
land to its best use, but their effects upon the
relations of landlord and tenant are not worth talking
about. As for rack-rent, which is
simply a rent fixed at short intervals by competition,
that is in the United States even a more common way of
letting land than in Ireland. In our cities the majority
of our people live in houses rented from month to month
or year to year for the highest price the landlord thinks
he can get. The usual term, in the newer
States, at least, for the letting of agricultural land is
from season to season. And that the rent of land in the
United States comes, on the whole, more closely to the
standard of rack, or full competition rent, there can be,
I think, little doubt. That the land of Ireland
is, as the apologists for landlordism say, largely
under-rented (that is, not rented for the full amount the
landlord might get with free competition) is probably
true. Miss C. G. O'Brien, in a recent
article in the Nineteenth
Century, states that the tenant-farmers generally
get for such patches as they sub-let to their laborers
twice the rent they pay the landlords. And we hear
incidentally of many "good landlords," i.e., landlords
not in the habit of pushing their tenants for as much as
they might get by rigorously demanding all that any one
would give. ... read
the whole article
Dan Sullivan: Are
you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?
John Locke is often misrepresented by royal
libertarians, who quote him very selectively. For
example, Locke did say that:
Whatsoever then he removes out of the
state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath
mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is
his own, and thereby makes it his property.
But Locke condemned anyone who took
more than he needed as a "spoiler of the
commons":
...if the fruits rotted, or the
venison putrified, before he could spend it, he offended
against the common law of nature, and was liable to be
punished; he invaded his neighbour's share, for he had no
right, farther than his use called for any of them, and
they might serve to afford him conveniences of
life.
The same measures governed the
possession of land too: whatsoever he tilled and reaped,
laid up and made use of, before it spoiled, that was his
peculiar right; whatsoever he enclosed, and could feed,
and make use of, the cattle and product was also his. But
if either the grass of his enclosure rotted on the
ground, or the fruit of his planting perished without
gathering, and laying up, this part of the earth,
notwithstanding his enclosure, was still to be looked on
as waste, and might be the possession of any
other.
Locke also restricted appropriation
of land by the proviso, ignored by royal libertarians, that
there must be still enough, and as good left; and more than
the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was
never the less left for others because of his enclosure for
himself: for he that leaves as much as another can make use
of, does as good as take nothing at all.
Now if the situation is that there is
enough free land, and as good, left after you take and
cultivate your land, than your land has no market value,
for who would pay you for land that is not better than land
that can be had for free? So, besides the fact that Locke's
justification of privatizing land is far more limited than
royal libertarians portray it to be, it is irrelevant to
the question of land value tax, as it applies only to land
that has no value.
Furthermore, Locke based his scenario on
pre-monetary societies, where a landholder would find
that "it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve
himself too much, or take more than he needed." With the
introduction of money, Locke noted, all land quickly
became appropriated. Why? Because with money, those who
can take more land than they have personal use for
suddenly have reason to do so, as between them they will
have taken all the land, and others will have to pay rent
to them. So, with the introduction of money, the Lockean
rationale for landed property falls apart, even according
to Locke.
And while Locke did not propose a
remedy specifically for to this problem, he repeatedly
stated that all taxes should be on real estate. ...
Read
the whole piece
Henry George: The Savannah
(excerpt from Progress &
Poverty, Book IV: Chapter 2: The Effect of Increase of
Population upon the Distribution of Wealth; also found in
Significant
Paragraphs from Progress & Poverty, Chapter 3: Land
Rent Grows as Community Develops)
Here, let us imagine, is an unbounded savannah,
stretching off in unbroken sameness of grass and flower,
tree and rill, till the traveler tires of the monotony.
Along comes the wagon of the first immigrant. Where to
settle he cannot tell — every acre seems as good as
every other acre. As to wood, as to water, as to
fertility, as to situation, there is absolutely no
choice, and he is perplexed by the embarrassment of
richness. Tired out with the search for one place that is
better than another, he stops — somewhere, anywhere
— and starts to make himself a home. The soil is
virgin and rich, game is abundant, the streams flash with
the finest trout. Nature is at her very best. He has
what, were he in a populous district, would make him
rich; but he is very poor. To say nothing of the mental
craving, which would lead him to welcome the sorriest
stranger, he labors under all the material disadvantages
of solitude. He can get no temporary assistance for any
work that requires a greater union of strength than that
afforded by his own family, or by such help as he can
permanently keep. Though he has cattle, he cannot often
have fresh meat, for to get a beefsteak he must kill a
bullock. He must be his own blacksmith, wagonmaker,
carpenter, and cobbler — in short, a "jack of all
trades and master of none." He cannot have his children
schooled, for, to do so, he must himself pay and maintain
a teacher. Such things as he cannot produce himself, he
must buy in quantities and keep on hand, or else go
without, for he cannot be constantly leaving his work and
making a long journey to the verge of civilization; and
when forced to do so, the getting of a vial of medicine
or the replacement of a broken auger may cost him the
labor of himself and horses for days. Under such
circumstances, though nature is prolific, the man is
poor. It is an easy matter for him to get enough to eat;
but beyond this, his labor will suffice to satisfy only
the simplest wants in the rudest way.
Soon there comes another immigrant. Although every
quarter section* of the boundless plain is as good as
every other quarter section, he is not beset by any
embarrassment as to where to settle. Though the land is
the same, there is one place that is clearly better for
him than any other place, and that is where there is
already a settler and he may have a neighbor. He settles
by the side of the first comer, whose condition is at
once greatly improved, and to whom many things are now
possible that were before impossible, for two men may
help each other to do things that one man could never
do.
*The public prairie lands of the
United States were surveyed into sections of one mile
square, and a quarter section (160 acres) was the usual
government allotment to a settler under the Homestead
Act.
Another immigrant comes, and, guided by the same
attraction, settles where there are already two. Another,
and another, until around our first comer there are a
score of neighbors. Labor has now an effectiveness which,
in the solitary state, it could not approach. If heavy
work is to be done, the settlers have a logrolling, and
together accomplish in a day what singly would require
years. When one kills a bullock, the others take part of
it, returning when they kill, and thus they have fresh
meat all the time. Together they hire a schoolmaster, and
the children of each are taught for a fractional part of
what similar teaching would have cost the first settler.
It becomes a comparatively easy matter to send to the
nearest town, for some one is always going. But there is
less need for such journeys. A blacksmith and a
wheelwright soon set up shops, and our settler can have
his tools repaired for a small part of the labor it
formerly cost him. A store is opened and he can get what
he wants as he wants it; a postoffice, soon added, gives
him regular communication with the rest of the world.
Then come a cobbler, a carpenter, a harness maker, a
doctor; and a little church soon arises. Satisfactions
become possible that in the solitary state were
impossible. There are gratifications for the social and
the intellectual nature — for that part of the man
that rises above the animal. The power of sympathy, the
sense of companionship, the emulation of comparison and
contrast, open a wider, and fuller, and more varied life.
In rejoicing, there are others to rejoice; in sorrow, the
mourners do not mourn alone. There are husking bees, and
apple parings, and quilting parties. Though the ballroom
be unplastered and the orchestra but a fiddle, the notes
of the magician are yet in the strain, and Cupid dances
with the dancers. At the wedding, there are others to
admire and enjoy; in the house of death, there are
watchers; by the open grave, stands human sympathy to
sustain the mourners. Occasionally, comes a straggling
lecturer to open up glimpses of the world of science, of
literature, or of art; in election times, come stump
speakers, and the citizen rises to a sense of dignity and
power, as the cause of empires is tried before him in the
struggle of John Doe and Richard Roe for his support and
vote. And, by and by, comes the circus, talked of months
before, and opening to children whose horizon has been
the prairie, all the realms of the imagination —
princes and princesses of fairy tale, mailclad crusaders
and turbaned Moors, Cinderella's fairy coach, and the
giants of nursery lore; lions such as crouched before
Daniel, or in circling Roman amphitheater tore the saints
of God; ostriches who recall the sandy deserts; camels
such as stood around when the wicked brethren raised
Joseph from the well and sold him into bondage; elephants
such as crossed the Alps with Hannibal, or felt the sword
of the Maccabees; and glorious music that thrills and
builds in the chambers of the mind as rose the sunny dome
of Kubla Khan.
Go to our settler now, and say to him: "You have so
many fruit trees which you planted; so much fencing, such
a well, a barn, a house — in short, you have by
your labor added so much value to this farm. Your land
itself is not quite so good. You have been cropping it,
and by and by it will need manure. I will give you the
full value of all your improvements if you will give it
to me, and go again with your family beyond the verge of
settlement." He would laugh at you. His land yields no
more wheat or potatoes than before, but it does yield far
more of all the necessaries and comforts of life. His
labor upon it will bring no heavier crops, and, we will
suppose, no more valuable crops, but it will bring far
more of all the other things for which men work. The
presence of other settlers — the increase of
population — has added to the productiveness, in
these things, of labor bestowed upon it, and this added
productiveness gives it a superiority over land of equal
natural quality where there are as yet no settlers. If no
land remains to be taken up, except such as is as far
removed from population as was our settler's land when he
first went upon it, the value or rent of this land will
be measured by the whole of this added capability. If,
however, as we have supposed, there is a continuous
stretch of equal land, over which population is now
spreading, it will not be necessary for the new settler
to go into the wilderness, as did the first. He will
settle just beyond the other settlers, and will get the
advantage of proximity to them. The value or rent of our
settler's land will thus depend on the advantage which it
has, from being at the center of population, over that on
the verge. In the one case, the margin of production will
remain as before; in the other, the margin of production
will be raised.
Population still continues to increase, and as it
increases so do the economies which its increase permits,
and which in effect add to the productiveness of the
land. Our first settler's land, being the center of
population, the store, the blacksmith's forge, the
wheelwright's shop, are set up on it, or on its margin,
where soon arises a village, which rapidly grows into a
town, the center of exchanges for the people of the whole
district. With no greater agricultural productiveness
than it had at first, this land now begins to develop a
productiveness of a higher kind. To labor expended in
raising corn, or wheat, or potatoes, it will yield no
more of those things than at first; but to labor expended
in the subdivided branches of production which require
proximity to other producers, and, especially, to labor
expended in that final part of production, which consists
in distribution, it will yield much larger returns. The
wheatgrower may go further on, and find land on which his
labor will produce as much wheat, and nearly as much
wealth; but the artisan, the manufacturer, the
storekeeper, the professional man, find that their labor
expended here, at the center of exchanges, will yield
them much more than if expended even at a little distance
away from it; and this excess of productiveness for such
purposes the landowner can claim just as he could an
excess in its wheat-producing power. And so our settler
is able to sell in building lots a few of his acres for
prices which it would not bring for wheatgrowing if its
fertility had been multiplied many times. With the
proceeds, he builds himself a fine house, and furnishes
it handsomely. That is to say, to reduce the transaction
to its lowest terms, the people who wish to use the land
build and furnish the house for him, on condition that he
will let them avail themselves of the superior
productiveness which the increase of population has given
the land.
Population still keeps on increasing, giving greater
and greater utility to the land, and more and more wealth
to its owner. The town has grown into a city — a
St. Louis, a Chicago or a San Francisco — and still
it grows. Production is here carried on upon a great
scale, with the best machinery and the most favorable
facilities; the division of labor becomes extremely
minute, wonderfully multiplying efficiency; exchanges are
of such volume and rapidity that they are made with the
minimum of friction and loss. Here is the heart, the
brain, of the vast social organism that has grown up from
the germ of the first settlement; here has developed one
of the great ganglia of the human world. Hither run all
roads, hither set all currents, through all the vast
regions round about. Here, if you have anything to sell,
is the market; here, if you have anything to buy, is the
largest and the choicest stock. Here intellectual
activity is gathered into a focus, and here springs that
stimulus which is born of the collision of mind with
mind. Here are the great libraries, the storehouses and
granaries of knowledge, the learned professors, the
famous specialists. Here are museums and art galleries,
collections of philosophical apparatus, and all things
rare, and valuable, and best of their kind. Here come
great actors, and orators, and singers, from all over the
world. Here, in short, is a center of human life, in all
its varied manifestations.
So enormous are the advantages which this land now
offers for the application of labor, that instead of one
man — with a span of horses scratching over acres,
you may count in places thousands of workers to the acre,
working tier on tier, on floors raised one above the
other, five, six, seven and eight stories from the
ground, while underneath the surface of the earth engines
are throbbing with pulsations that exert the force of
thousands of horses.
All these advantages attach to the land; it is on
this land and no other that they can be utilized, for
here is the center of population — the focus of
exchanges, the market place and workshop of the highest
forms of industry. The productive powers which
density of population has attached to this land are
equivalent to the multiplication of its original
fertility by the hundredfold and the thousandfold. And
rent, which measures the difference between this added
productiveness and that of the least productive land in
use, has increased accordingly. Our settler, or whoever
has succeeded to his right to the land, is now a
millionaire. Like another Rip Van Winkle, he may have lain
down and slept; still he is rich — not from
anything he has done, but from the increase of
population. There are lots from which for every foot of
frontage the owner may draw more than an average mechanic
can earn; there are lots that will sell for more than
would suffice to pave them with gold coin. In the
principal streets are towering buildings, of granite,
marble, iron, and plate glass, finished in the most
expensive style, replete with every convenience. Yet they
are not worth as much as the land upon which they rest
— the same land, in nothing changed, which when our
first settler came upon it had no value at all.
That this is the way in which the increase of
population powerfully acts in increasing rent, whoever,
in a progressive country, will look around him, may see
for himself. The process is going on under his eyes. The
increasing difference in the productiveness of the land
in use, which causes an increasing rise in rent, results
not so much from the necessities of increased population
compelling the resort to inferior land, as from the
increased productiveness which increased population gives
to the lands already in use. The most valuable lands
on the globe, the lands which yield the highest rent, are
not lands of surpassing natural fertility, but lands to
which a surpassing utility has been given by the increase
of population.
The increase of productiveness or utility which
increase of population gives to certain lands, in the way
to which I have been calling attention, attaches, as it
were, to the mere quality of extension. The valuable
quality of land that has become a center of population is
its superficial capacity — it makes no difference
whether it is fertile, alluvial soil like that of
Philadelphia, rich bottom land like that of New Orleans;
a filled-in marsh like that of St. Petersburg, or a sandy
waste like the greater part of San Francisco.
And where value seems to arise from superior
natural qualities, such as deep water and good anchorage,
rich deposits of coal and iron, or heavy timber,
observation also shows that these superior qualities are
brought out, rendered tangible, by population. The
coal and iron fields of Pennsylvania, that today [1879]
are worth enormous sums, were fifty years ago valueless.
What is the efficient cause of the difference? Simply the
difference in population. The coal and iron beds of
Wyoming and Montana, which today are valueless, will, in
fifty years from now, be worth millions on millions,
simply because, in the meantime, population will have
greatly increased.
It is a well-provisioned ship, this on which we sail
through space. If the bread and beef above decks seem to
grow scarce, we but open a hatch and there is a new
supply, of which before we never dreamed. And very great command over the services of others
comes to those who as the hatches are opened are
permitted to say, "This is mine!" ... read the whole chapter of
Significant Paragraphs
|
To share this page with a friend:
right click, choose "send," and add your
comments.
|
|
Red links have not been
visited; .
Green links are pages you've seen
|
Essential Documents pertinent
to this theme:
essential_documents
|
|