[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: poverty despite of progress ??
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for reply from Mr Prakash.
The url you have given is some how not working.
It sounds hypothetical though logical but just the other
mail sent by NPSingh saying food forthought, which
nerrates some facts about Singapore, where
not only land, even water is scarce.The theory
about Land, max productivity of 10 quintals, attracting
max population all sounds little bit obsessed in some
theory of George or Marx.
It defies the predicament of a farmer in amercia who tills a
Land that is most productive, sells his produce at a through away price
to corporates to sqeeze out Orange juice at a cheap
price for common man.I mention that because we seem to be
embracing same systems and we might do good in taking some
precautions.To make ends meet the Farmer either sells T Shirts, or
sends a family member to nearby hospital as nurse so that she
can buy diesel for his tractor !
This is about 'Max' productive land on earth, and the sole Owner's
( not lazy ) predicament that surprises me.The theory you proposed
would have worked when I was a teenager in 60s/70s to pull me in to
Marxism/Maoism or Communism but unfortunately seems too
much of a misfit in recent times.
Productivity of Land becomes irrelevant when economies
no more depend only on grains.That theory must have
belonged to an era where people migrated to riverbeds.
We have to see the situation from the lenses of
Singapores, Japans and Germanies.
People like me who own not a square inch earn five times more than
those old farmers whose counterparts in cities lead a retired life,
own most productive 100 acres, still come to farmers market
to sell potatoes again to 'me' at a throwaway price.
What we see in India with middle men,corruption etc is not comparable
at all to what we see here.But we seem to be trecking same path.
My concern is we seem to be championing the cause and
going towards the methods of those systems which are thoroughly
established in amercia already where we still ifnd a Farmer at
receiving end.Why? If that 5% population who work on fields also
turn towards non agricultural occupations then who will farm -- Robots?
I believe not in communisms, socialisms. Not at the same time free
markets which defy nature and natural resources.What will singapore do
if a fundametalist regime in Malasia stops sending water ? Invade malasia?
I believe more in local independance.Even if there is curfew in nearby
city life is normal in all nearby villages. I like it. And I dont want
our society to do a poor imitaion of free markets to our own peril.
You call it Gram Swaraj or any thing, self sufficiency, local development
has to be a priority.
Parameswar
> ----------
> From: prakash chandrashekar[SMTP:prakash7uc@rediffmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 5:51 AM
> To: Komaragiri, Param (Param)** CTR **; debate@indiapolicy.org
> Subject: poverty despite of progress ??
>
>
> Dear Param,
>
> the big bug has a name - "private land value".
>
> please read the book "progress and poverty" by henry george.
>
> link - http://www.henrygeoge.org/chp1.htm
>
> Let me give a proof
>
> axiom 1 - you wouldn't work for another if you could earn the same amount
> working for yourself, right ?
>
> axiom 2 - to be your own boss, you need the earth - or a chunk of it
> -land. be it a shop, garage, farm, EM spectrum, fishery, anything. and you
> can earn only as much as is possible on that land, how much ever that
> might be.
>
> axiom 3 - you arrived late on this earth. The good land is already
> "owned". so, you take on bad land (infact the worst land which is touched
> by civilization) and earn a pittance - voila !! poverty !
>
> conclusion - you worked hard, earned a pittance, no fault of yours except
> that you arrived late for the party and the punch was over.
>
> Does that make things clearer ?
>
> Private land value or "owning the earth" may be a much bigger problem than
> we think.
>
> I'll explain again
>
> consider a theoritical land which has lands of differing productivity,
> from land which can produce 10 quintals of wheat for X effort (lets
> consider X as the max effort a family can put in) upto land which produces
> only 1 quintal.
>
> people come to our theoritical land, take up the 10 quintal land and grow
> crops. Now population increases and more people are competing for the same
> land. So, the next people take up the 9 quintal land. they get only 9
> quintals of wheat, and so on until, people have colonised the 5 quintal
> land. Now a lazy fellow who owns a 10 quintal land doesn't want to put in
> X effort. He looks at those working on the 5 quintal land and tells one of
> them - come to my land, work on it, you get 5 quintals here. I'll give you
> 5.1 quintals for X effort on my land. the worker agrees and does the same.
> The landlord gets 4.9 quintals for putting in exactly ZERO efort and the
> worker is also "happy", because he gets more than what nature would have
> given. Now imagine hte situation when the population has touched the 1
> quintal land. How much will the landlord have to offer a worker -only 1.1
> quintal. His land-liness can easily pocket 8.9 quintals for putting in
> ZERO effort !
>
> the money pocketed by the landlord is RENT. Rent capitalised over time is
> the price of land.
>
> In the limit infact, the landlord has to offer only that much as natural
> opportunity affords the worker. this is known as the MARGIN OF PRODUCTION
> and is THE determinant of poverty in ANY PLACE, AT ANY TIME. Everything
> above the margin of production goes into the pocket of the landlord. There
> are reasons that we are not all poor. because all of us have a component
> of the landlord in us. We own land and in india especially, we Value land
> so much. Now i think that solves your dillema of why the most rich country
> in the world continues to have poverty.
>
> Now things would have been ok, if not for another tour-de-force of human
> greed - LAND SPECULATION. seeing opportunity in the above game many people
> decide just to buy land and hold it. we call it "investing in real estate"
> in Politically correct terms. So, we hold land avaiting a price rise. It
> happens with increase in population. The rent to landlords increases
> because idle holding of land sends the margin of production further down
> hurtling towards zero. wages keep reducing, rent keeps on increasing and
> poverty continues despite of progress ! Even in the richest country of the
> world !
>
>
> woof ! that was long !
>
> hope that interests you enough to read the book.
>
> to quote ( mark twain or leo tolstoy - one of them had said. the quote is
> true. I forget the auhtor - its one of them)
> "people don't argue with george's ideas. they simply don't know them"
>
> regards
> prakash
>
> ------------- Original Message --------------
> "Komaragiri, Param (Param)** CTR **" <param@lucent.com> wrote:
> To:debate@indiapolicy.org
> From:"Komaragiri, Param (Param)** CTR **" <param@lucent.com>
> Date:Fri, 4 May 2001 10:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject:FW: News from America's Second Harvest
>
> Just go through this site.http://www.secondharvest.org
>
> Parameswar
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> Chat with your friends as soon as they come online. Get Rediff Bol at
> http://bol.rediff.com
>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform. debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives: ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------