Clean air or jobs?

[elephant]

Forced redistribution, taking from the rich and giving to the poor.......gottcha commie.

I am under the impression Huck means 'take from the goverment and sell to the rich', i.e. a large amount of inefficiency in L.A. comes from the lack of privatization.

I understood this to mean less like communism - not more.

 

[Said1]

I am under the impression Huck means 'take from the goverment and
sell to the rich', i.e. a large amount of inefficiency in L.A. comes from
the lack of privatization.

I understood this to mean less like communism - not more.

Possibly, but he also says this:

Local resource control extends to all resources (I had not even
considerd oil) and is a major problem in L.A. where one or two groups
control a vast amount of resource (primarly land) and use it
ineffectively.

Land is his primary concern, but he did say all resources. I don't think anyone with controlling interests in revenue generating resources will be willing to give them up, including the government. I'm thinking he means sell/transfer??? land and resousrces to smaller regional governments, not the rich, since he mentions resource control exteneding more than one group. Maybe he changed his mind?

I understand his conservation theory ect, but my question is: How do they get to ownership, then to the green revolution?

 

[elephant]

I understand his conservation theory ect, but my question is: How do they get to ownership, then to the green revolution?

I am still waiting for confirmation or denial on the redistribution through privatization part.

 

[Huckleburry]

Gang,
I am really enjoying this conversation and would love to continue it. Please, Please, Please let us keep up this civil discourse going. Now to your questions.

First to resources and their distribution.
As is property rights in South America is a shady subject. Most countries still do not have clearly defined rules and some cannot even agree on the surveys of what they have. The worst case is in Brazil.

In many cases, huge tracks of land are managed or held by the central government. For instance, even though much of northern Brazil is in production that land is technically under the ownership of the Central Authority. Still other massive tracks of land (think in terms of land areas the size of American States) are under the control of a single family or firm. They do not pay taxes on this land and their only claim to it stems from their ability to hire a private militia to protect it. Much of this land is kept out of production or destroyed through mismanagement. In the case of the government land, I think that it should be given to the local inhabitants who already live there. This new legal title will make it more productive, and give the inhabitants a stake in their future (privatization). In the case of the large landholders, I think that a large portion of their holdings should be confiscated by the central authority and redistributed in smaller parcels to local or displaced workers. Empirical evidence suggests that this will increase the productivity of the land. I am not arguing for communism, which would lead to central authority control of all resources. I am arguing for redistribution and privatization.

Now to the green revolution. Get ready to follow the bouncing ball....ready...ok here we go.

Redistribution will increase productivity. This will lead to increased incomes, which can be taxed. Thus, government revenues will increase because of the redistribution. With this money, the government should subsidize those entrepreneurs, and researchers that are pursuing "green" technology or business applications. In many cases this will meaning importing capital equipment. This is ok because right now that equipment is cheaper than it will be in the future (it is marginally cheaper today). This will also give LA experience with this kind of technology. This usually leads to innovation and invention. Thus, LA will be positioned to emerge as the leader in green technology and business application. They will also have a society that is used to living with this technology and can envision other/ more efficient applications. As the world moves off oil, other countries will be looking for alternative options. Demand will increase as will the price. Other nations trying to jump into the game will now have to compete against a region with a sizeable head start. Upstarts in India will have to compete against giants in Argentina. The odds will be against the upstarts and the LA will emerge as developed region exporting information, and value added capital goods rather than raw materials and commodities.
Huck

 

[Said1]

Gang,
I am really enjoying this conversation and would love to continue it. Please, Please, Please let us keep up this civil discourse going. Now to your questions.

Only if you come down to earth a little.

First to resources and their distribution.
As is property rights in South America is a shady subject. Most countries still do not have clearly defined rules and some cannot even agree on the surveys of what they have. The worst case is in Brazil.

In many cases, huge tracks of land are managed or held by the central government. For instance, even though much of northern Brazil is in production that land is technically under the ownership of the Central Authority. Still other massive tracks of land (think in terms of land areas the size of American States) are under the control of a single family or firm. They do not pay taxes on this land and their only claim to it stems from their ability to hire a private militia to protect it. Much of this land is kept out of production or destroyed through mismanagement. In the case of the government land, I think that it should be given to the local inhabitants who already live there. This new legal title will make it more productive, and give the inhabitants a stake in their future (privatization). In the case of the large landholders, I think that a large portion of their holdings should be confiscated by the central authority and redistributed in smaller parcels to local or displaced workers. Empirical evidence suggests that this will increase the productivity of the land. I am not arguing for communism, which would lead to central authority control of all resources. I am arguing for redistribution and privatization.

Now to the green revolution. Get ready to follow the bouncing ball....ready...ok here we go.

Redistribution will increase productivity. This will lead to increased incomes, which can be taxed. Thus, government revenues will increase because of the redistribution. With this money, the government should subsidize those entrepreneurs, and researchers that are pursuing "green" technology or business applications. In many cases this will meaning importing capital equipment. This is ok because right now that equipment is cheaper than it will be in the future (it is marginally cheaper today). This will also give LA experience with this kind of technology. This usually leads to innovation and invention. Thus, LA will be positioned to emerge as the leader in green technology and business application. They will also have a society that is used to living with this technology and can envision other/ more efficient applications. As the world moves off oil, other countries will be looking for alternative options. Demand will increase as will the price. Other nations trying to jump into the game will now have to compete against a region with a sizeable head start. Upstarts in India will have to compete against giants in Argentina. The odds will be against the upstarts and the LA will emerge as developed region exporting information, and value added capital goods rather than raw materials and commodities.
Huck

Wouldn't it be easier to just tax the rich?

So let me get this straight; for the most part, you want to kick people with armed guerillas off their land and give it to the poor for relatively small scale agriculture production. Then you want to tax them and give it to the rich. How will this benefit farmers, since it sounds like they will shoulder the biggest share of subsidizing your green revoltion? Are you concerned about the consequeces of over production as a result of increased tax demands?

Don't think we do not understand your ideas, because we do. However, the devil IS in the details, and that's mainly what I'm intersted in discussing. Boing, boing, boing.

How do you spell boing?

 

[Huckleburry]

Only if you come down to earth a little.

Wouldn't it be easier to just tax the rich?

So let me get this straight; for the most part, you want to kick people with armed guerillas off their land and give it to the poor for relatively small scale agriculture production. Then you want to tax them and give it to the rich. How will this benefit farmers, since it sounds like they will shoulder the biggest share of subsidizing your green revoltion? Are you concerned about the consequences of over production as a result of increased tax demands?

Don't think we do not understand your ideas, because we do. However, the devil IS in the details, and that's mainly what I'm intersted in discussing. Boing, boing, boing.

How do you spell boing?

No one is getting kicked off. Large holders are relieved of their unproductive resources. Consequently, they will no longer bear the financial burden of those unproductive assets. Those resources are transferred to entrepreneurs able to put said resources to productive use. Yes government revenues increase because of the increase in efficiency and production (remember Clinton and his surplus...what do you think caused that surplus?). That increase in governmental revenues should focus on growth industries because those industries will support continued growth. The steady upward trend of green technology use makes that sector an appropriate choice for government encouragement (China or Japan any one?). Thus, government spending would be targeted to those individuals or institutions promoting those ends.

Our own economic history is one of toil and conflict. What makes us so naive to think that other nations will enjoy a path of growth paved in gold? My suggestion is not a nice one. It is a necessary one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Huck. You're a socialist, communist, despotice tyrant supporter. Your ideas are full of mindless, and irresponsible assumptions.

 

[Said1]

No one is getting kicked off. Large holders are relieved of their unproductive resources. Consequently, they will no longer bear the financial burden of those unproductive assets. Those resources are transferred to entrepreneurs able to put said resources to productive use

Let's examin this first shall we?

Wtf do you mean by resources exactly? You constantly jump from land to resources, could please be consistant in your examples where necessary. Not to nit pick or anything.

Ok, so the "resources" are GIVEN to entrepreneurs who will hire displaced workers? I'm not with you again, because you originally said this:

In the case of the government land, I think that it should be given to the local inhabitants who already live there. This new legal title will make it more productive, and give the inhabitants a stake in their future (privatization). In the case of the large landholders, I think that a large portion of their holdings should be confiscated by the central authority and redistributed in smaller parcels to local or displaced workers.

I'm sure you see the inconsistancies in your statements without me pointing all of them out. Could you please address the above, and only the above before moving on.

 

[Said1]

Huck. You're a socialist, communist, despotice tyrant supporter. Your ideas are full of mindless, and irresponsible assumptions.

Too be honest, the more he writes, the more he sounds like Hugo Chavez.

 

[elephant]

Have a good old fashioned land rush. I'll make the rules:

1) The method of transportation will be by foot
2) No shoes - to give the advantage to poor people, they do not have shoes now.
3) Plots will be divided by 'value' not size. Value will be calculated by a) Proximity to civilization and b) the value of the clear cut lumber. c) Value of man-made capital will not be counted - I understand some business people will have buy back their current property, but they can pay the fastest runners to get their stuff back first. I'll work out the details for any interested parties.

If you think I have overlooked something let me know. It seems pretty comprehensive to me.

To be clear, I want to land rush the whole continent. It is a wasteland of economic inefficiency. Also, as the organizer, I recognize that LA has already had a fair shake at running their own continent, so half the participants will be Americans. Now that is development economics, baby.

I want Antarctica too.

 

[Said1]

Have a good old fashioned land rush. I'll make the rules:

1) The method of transportation will be by foot
2) No shoes - to give the advantage to poor people, they do not have shoes now.
3) Plots will be divided by 'value' not size. Value will be calculated by a) Proximity to civilization and b) the value of the clear cut lumber. c) Value of man-made capital will not be counted - I understand some business people will have buy back their current property, but they can pay the fastest runners to get their stuff back first. I'll work out the details for any interested parties.

If you think I have overlooked something let me know. It seems pretty comprehensive to me.

To be clear, I want to land rush the whole continent. It is a wasteland of economic inefficiency. Also, as the organizer, I recognize that LA has already had a fair shake at running their own continent, so half the participants will be Americans. Now that is development economics, baby.

I want Antarctica too.

Sounds good to me!
I want the drug cartels, that won't be a problem will it?

 

[elephant]

Sounds good to me!
I want the drug cartels, that won't be a problem will it?

How fast are you? I imagine they will be hiring a team of Olympic sprinters and distance runners. Good luck!

 

[Said1]

How fast are you? I imagine they will be hiring a team of Olympic sprinters and distance runners. Good luck!

Thanks! I have assembled my own militia, consisting of bored out of work welfare recipients, just waiting around to take part in petty crime and "continental land rushes". Oye!

 

[elephant]

Thanks! I have assembled my own militia, consisting of bored out of work welfare recipients, just waiting around to take part in petty crime and "continental land rushes". Oye!

Touché!

Thanks for reading my welfare rant!

 

[Said1]

Touché!

Thanks for reading my welfare rant!

Think of it as a new world order. We'll form our own coalition of barefoot peseants and single mothers on welfare in order to defeat the evil doers.

 

[Huckleburry]

Resources = Land and the things on that land. However I am not suggesting we take factories from their owners. In fact most of this is applicable only to rural areas (which most of Latin America is). The Theory on urabn growth in South America has already been written, examined, adopted and successfull. This leaves very litte room for scholarship.

Now I ask you; why should the central government manage rural land far away from its center?

I do not think they should, moroever, I believe that control of that land should be in the hands of the people living there. This is an economic extension of Laren Esposito's "Integrative Conservation". It is also how the United States developed. The major difference is that the US established rules to the game early and yes we did have land rushes but that was becuase we also had rules by which we could assign property rights. Now compare that to LA where there are still very sketchy property rights. The difference...The US developed successfully while Latin America did not.

Today there are conditions in LA that must be adressed. Among those conditions is the fact that Central Governments own and control too much land and too many basic services. (power, water, Telephone... etc). These resources, and the responsibility to manage them should be placed in the hands of the local government. These local governments will have to deal with a few land holders who own huge tracks of land (A typical land holding could equal the size of Rhode Island or Connecticut!). These people are not using the land, and in many cases if we go back to the colonial record they themselves are squaters who musterd military muster to defend their own private little colony. While this is happening there are hundreds of thousands of landless poor squat on small chunks of this land owers property until an armed malitia kicks them off. Sometimes their is resistence and conflict somtimes there is not. I say define the property rights and let the people living on and using the land use it. This will increase efficiency and employment reducing dependence on the Central Government while also reducing crime, homlessness, and a litney of other social problems that are produced by displacement.

 

[elephant]

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO REDISTRIBUTE THE LAND???!!!??!?!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?

Then we can move on to the next part of your idea.

 

[Said1]

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO REDISTRIBUTE THE LAND???!!!??!?!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?

Then we can move on to the next part of your idea.

What she said. No more Encyclopedia Brown explainations PLEASE!!!!!!

 

[Huckleburry]

You asked for the definition (look at your earlier posts).
Land distribution is done by the government.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You asked for the definition (look at your earlier posts).
Land distribution is done by the government.

Oh yeah! Tyranny baby! Give me some of that!

"The government, silly!", he giggled

"Freedom is a cover for corpocracy, man!"

He skipped away, dreaming of the coming May Day celebration, and his new red pantaloons.