9 Comments
Apr 8Liked by Josh Sidman

Very clever on land ownership ....The same should be true of land. The true owner of land is whoever created it — God or nature or the universe. And unless someone can provide proof of lawful transfer from that original owner, any subsequent claims to ownership of land are illegitimate.

Josh do you have a paper on your proposal or model for implementing Gesell's mechanism?

I have been enjoying your HGSSS series

Joe Polito

Expand full comment
author

Hi Joe! Thanks for your comment. You can find an old version of my proposal in an article here on Substack entitled "A Concrete Plan of Action" from January of 2022. The idea has evolved quite a bit since writing that, and I haven't yet had time to write an updated article. I hope to do so soon. My focus for the past several months has been on preparing for the Henry George School course. That has been a wonderful opportunity, but it has also monopolized my time & energy, so I'm looking forward to it being over so I can get back to some other things that have been put on the back burner.

Expand full comment
Feb 19·edited Feb 19Liked by Josh Sidman

"Designation of use rights" does not have to be, nor should it be, "land ownership," which is what George and Gesell were both talking about. Of course none of this can work without a public monopoly on money creation because it is private money creation monopoly that keeps public policy out of the hands of the public so no chance of changing anything until that is fixed. Indeed, capitalism and the free-market system are often and wrongly conflated. Capitalism = (capital = money) + (ism = system) = money system. The central feature and source of awesome power for the capitalists is their debt based private global monetary system issuing all money as interest-bearing debt, a form of slavery. Capitalism assures there can be no free market, it is a parasite on the back of free enterprise, the two are often and wrongly conflated. Every household, business and government in this world is in debt to and dependent on the private commercial banking system. It is the driver of destructive economic growth and wars. It needs to be reversed. monetaryalliance.org

Expand full comment
author

Exactly! The conflation of "capitalism" with the "free-market system" is a source of much confusion. Gesell proposes a definition of capitalism that I think makes the distinction clear. He defines capitalism as "an economic condition in which the demand for loan-money and real capital exceeds the supply and therefore gives rise to interest." I think that succinctly and accurately encapsulates the issue. The artificial and irrational monopoly of money creation is the cause of the scarcity of money, which in turn causes the process of capital formation to stop before it has reached an optimal level to employ all of society's labor. This is the true cause of what Marx described as "surplus value", and this also shows why the correct solution is not nationalization or socialization of ownership of the means of production but rather creating a neutral form of money that allows the formation of capital to continue until, as Gesell said, "the means of production will lose their capitalistic character."

Expand full comment

Yes, and isn't that "economic condition" the privately controlled debt-based monetary system that requires constant monetary expansion to pay the interest on the debts or it crashes? When loan payments (money destroyed) exceeds new loans being made (money created) the system is in recession. A goofy system. Global debt is $305 trillion while there is only $82.5 trillion in the entire world's money supply.

Expand full comment
author

Yes, exactly. Debt-based money creation sets in motion a process which can only end in eventual collapse. It is a mathematical certainty that couldn't be clearer.

Expand full comment

Write on, lets change the system!

Expand full comment

Oh yes you can! Private land ownership as designation of use rights is altogether different than the private appropriation of the land rent which is unearned income / surplus value created by the community as a whole. I thought Giselle had a better understanding of Georgist economics but apparently not! I am for non-profit land tenure and non-profit banking and I thought Geselle had a handle on both so I am disappointed with this article.

Expand full comment
author

I would say that this apparent disagreement boils down to semantics. In my view, "ownership" and "designation of use rights" are two very different things, whereas it seems you are using them interchangeably. Consider, for example, Proudhon's distinction between possession and property. His famous formulation is "Possession exists in fact, property exists in law." So clearly in his mind, possession and property are not the same thing. Gesell generally follows in the footsteps of Proudhon, so I would assume that he would agree with this distinction. Gesell's proposed system would allow for exclusive land use rights (i.e. possession) but not ownership rights (property). This, to me, is a rational distinction that provides for the obvious necessity for exclusive land use, without leading to the negative consequences of land ownership.

Expand full comment