"No individual made that land more valuable, society collectively did, and thus no one individual should benefit from that land, but society collectively should."
Define "society." Are you suggesting that everyone contributes equally, and so should benefit equally?
What makes land more valuable? The clustering of businesses and people around a particular place. The more businesses and people cluster around a particular location, the more valuable that land becomes.
I'll ask another one. If a capitalist builds a factory in a remote area, and builds an entire town in order to bring in employees and give them a place to live, should all benefit equally, at the same level as the capitalist?
These factory towns are not uncommon, as you have alluded to in your piece. The workers are somewhat interchangeable. If some leave, others can be brought in. But if the capitalist leaves, everything collapses. This, too, has happened. Thousands of factories have closed around the country, reopened in other countries. Is that fair? After all, it's the capitalist's factory, to do with as he (they) please. The town would never have existed, except that they created it.
Here's a short story I wrote a while back, that digs into it, although it supplies no answer.
Well that’s a rather silly way to look at things. A city’s wealth should fund a city’s wellbeing through public works—parks and libraries and police forces, but also hospitals and retirement centers and homeless shelters and daycares, etc.
Where did the wealth come from? How can more wealth be produced? What is to keep wealth from being frittered away? I have yet to see you acknowledge the basic points of a sustainable economy.
That's what this whole series has been about!!! Every city mentioned so far in this series earns a profit through commercial and residential land leases. And there are more to come on that count...
Georgism is a great idea, but San Francisco is a poor test case. If there is any city government in the country to have demonstrated total inability to turn funds into quality governance, it's SF
It's true, San Francisco has very poor governance. But I'm using it as a test case because it illustrates the need for cities to both generate wealth, and have masterplanning authority. It had the opportunity to have both and didn't take either.
I'm no economist and perhaps not entirely following your thoughts correctly, but San Francisco has taxpayer budget of $16 billion a year, the highest for a city its size in the world. Compare this with Paris, for one example, with a population about 2.5 times the size of San Francisco with a budget that is billions less. Plus they get the Metro thrown in. It seems to me that even if the city could double that, it would still be dysfunctional on the levels, the schools, street vagrants, and public transport foremost.
Well yes, I agree with you there. San Francisco's budget could be twice the size and still not improve how dysfunctionally the city is run. As I'll show in future parts of this series, land may be a good way for cities to earn revenue, but the city also has to have masterplanning authority, and a good master planner! Other cities coming up have mastered this part!
The trouble with Utopia is that, like anyplace else, it is run by people. Sooner or later, any Utopia will be run by the wrong people. And that's the end of Utopia.
You talk of "master planning authority". Every city has those. And they end up being controlled by the people who will spend the time and money to take control. That would be bankers and developers.
The land itself makes a difference, to a degree. Is it close to needed natural resources? Is the climate favorable? But in the end, it's about the people far more than it is about the land.
ASs Linus once said, "I love mankind. It's people that I can't stand."
If cities have "masterplanning authority" but end up being controlled by people who spend the time and money to take control (bankers and developers, as you say), then they don't have masterplanning authority.
You've got a closed loop going there. We all know that's politics is not how it's supposed to work. Most of us know that's how it is.
The people who want it most, and who are the most unscrupulous, win. If you want it to change, you will have to find a way to change it. Utopia does not exist. If it was possible, it would have been done by now.
I'm not being facetious. You seem to think that there are people who will make your Utopia happen. I'm saying, if you want it, YOU make it happen.
Thank you, I am really enjoying this series. And by coincidence also reading Morris’s News from Nowhere this week. I’ve never thought to compare what was happening in London at the time with Boston. This is very helpful.
"No individual made that land more valuable, society collectively did, and thus no one individual should benefit from that land, but society collectively should."
Define "society." Are you suggesting that everyone contributes equally, and so should benefit equally?
What makes land more valuable? The clustering of businesses and people around a particular place. The more businesses and people cluster around a particular location, the more valuable that land becomes.
But that doesn't address my question.
I'll ask another one. If a capitalist builds a factory in a remote area, and builds an entire town in order to bring in employees and give them a place to live, should all benefit equally, at the same level as the capitalist?
These factory towns are not uncommon, as you have alluded to in your piece. The workers are somewhat interchangeable. If some leave, others can be brought in. But if the capitalist leaves, everything collapses. This, too, has happened. Thousands of factories have closed around the country, reopened in other countries. Is that fair? After all, it's the capitalist's factory, to do with as he (they) please. The town would never have existed, except that they created it.
Here's a short story I wrote a while back, that digs into it, although it supplies no answer.
https://individualistsunite.substack.com/p/the-winds-of-change
Well that’s a rather silly way to look at things. A city’s wealth should fund a city’s wellbeing through public works—parks and libraries and police forces, but also hospitals and retirement centers and homeless shelters and daycares, etc.
Where did the wealth come from? How can more wealth be produced? What is to keep wealth from being frittered away? I have yet to see you acknowledge the basic points of a sustainable economy.
Ideology solves nothing. Never has, never will.
That's what this whole series has been about!!! Every city mentioned so far in this series earns a profit through commercial and residential land leases. And there are more to come on that count...
Then why do they need to levy income tax, sales tax, and property tax?
Georgism is a great idea, but San Francisco is a poor test case. If there is any city government in the country to have demonstrated total inability to turn funds into quality governance, it's SF
It's true, San Francisco has very poor governance. But I'm using it as a test case because it illustrates the need for cities to both generate wealth, and have masterplanning authority. It had the opportunity to have both and didn't take either.
I'm no economist and perhaps not entirely following your thoughts correctly, but San Francisco has taxpayer budget of $16 billion a year, the highest for a city its size in the world. Compare this with Paris, for one example, with a population about 2.5 times the size of San Francisco with a budget that is billions less. Plus they get the Metro thrown in. It seems to me that even if the city could double that, it would still be dysfunctional on the levels, the schools, street vagrants, and public transport foremost.
Well yes, I agree with you there. San Francisco's budget could be twice the size and still not improve how dysfunctionally the city is run. As I'll show in future parts of this series, land may be a good way for cities to earn revenue, but the city also has to have masterplanning authority, and a good master planner! Other cities coming up have mastered this part!
The trouble with Utopia is that, like anyplace else, it is run by people. Sooner or later, any Utopia will be run by the wrong people. And that's the end of Utopia.
You talk of "master planning authority". Every city has those. And they end up being controlled by the people who will spend the time and money to take control. That would be bankers and developers.
The land itself makes a difference, to a degree. Is it close to needed natural resources? Is the climate favorable? But in the end, it's about the people far more than it is about the land.
ASs Linus once said, "I love mankind. It's people that I can't stand."
If cities have "masterplanning authority" but end up being controlled by people who spend the time and money to take control (bankers and developers, as you say), then they don't have masterplanning authority.
You've got a closed loop going there. We all know that's politics is not how it's supposed to work. Most of us know that's how it is.
The people who want it most, and who are the most unscrupulous, win. If you want it to change, you will have to find a way to change it. Utopia does not exist. If it was possible, it would have been done by now.
I'm not being facetious. You seem to think that there are people who will make your Utopia happen. I'm saying, if you want it, YOU make it happen.
Thank you, I am really enjoying this series. And by coincidence also reading Morris’s News from Nowhere this week. I’ve never thought to compare what was happening in London at the time with Boston. This is very helpful.
No way! I love News from Nowhere. Kindred spirits for sure.....