🚀 go-pugleaf

"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsignore@beethoven.com> wrote in message 
news:768f7623.0410070553.346b0d71@posting.google.com...
> Latinamerican countries follow all 'recipes' of academia and yet fail
> to achieve sustained development. Could it be that people actually

Therein lies the problem.  As poster "royls" points out repeatedly on this 
list, economics (academic and otherwise) has become corrupted insofar as 
they have obscured the "Georgist" critique of taxation---to wit, in its 
broadest form, that Ricardian land rents should be mostly taxed away, and 
other taxes that are both more distortionary (less efficient) and less 
equitable should be reduced.

I haven't researched what those in favor of land value taxation have to say 
about tax structures in Latin America, but given the penury in places like 
Brazil, I can't imagine it's good.  Not to mention all that anecdotal stuff 
about huge landholdings in there.

In case you're not familiar with it, LVT proponents wouldn't necessarily 
advocate breaking up large estates and then making land grants (though Latin 
America might be so screwed up that that might be a necessary initial step). 
Rather, they advocate taxing away (at least much or most of) Ricardian land 
rents---that is, the income on land due to the land itself (its location, 
fertility, etc, as opposed to improvements on the land).  This allows a 
market solution that promotes *both* efficiency and equity.  One of the few 
win-wins in economics.  One interesting point is how modern economists have 
gone out of their way to obscure it; Georgists and their allies argue that 
it's because they're in the pockets of the wealthy, many/most of whom are 
(big) landholders.

Good links, from a "geo-" libertarian point of view (which I don't agree 
with in its entirety, but these are really well written):

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geo-faq.htm
http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

Finally, note that there's nothing "socialist" about LVT schemes.  Nor 
anything remotely Marxist---the person who did the most to push LVT (Henry 
George) had substantial disagreements with Marx.

> *behave* differently from the way people behave in countries that have
> achieved development?
>
> Man is supposed to act economically as a self interested (quasi)
> rational entity following his own satisfaction without regarding that
> of others. But waht if people actually take others into account when
> performing economic activities?
>
> My experience trying to make a living in Mexico taught me that the
> norm is precisely to take into account the welfare of others, but in a
> *negative* way. Competition is normally seen as a zero sum game, I win
> what you loose, but I've seen many times behaviour of the type "we
> both loose", even when there were known options where both of the
> parties would win. More often than not, the party choosing the
> loose-loose option would have been the party winning the least in the
> win-win option (though sometimes that wouls be true considering nit
> the actual payoffs only but total earnings after several games). This
> behaviour I call envy.
>
> So it may be that generalized envy lies at the core of the
> underdevelopment  phenomenon.In countries where wealth has
> historically been concentrated in a very few hands ans is not easily
> aquired by most, this kind of predatory competition is bound to
> happen, particularly if it is preceived that noveau riches will
> readily support the statu quo and help keep the socioeconomical
> differences. Though laws may be passed to curb down unfair
> competition, there remain many opportunities to put obstacles to the
> activities of others.
> Within firms, envy would keep costs at a higer level for a given
> technology due to employees' internal struggles. At hte industry and
> interindustry level output would be lower than optimal due to firms'
> inefficiencies and lost business opportunities. Generally,
> overachievers and efficiency would be punished while underachievement
> and slugishness would be rewarded, since that would make others
> achievements stand out. The net effect would be an economically
> depressed level of output where the economy would reach equilibrium in
> a local maximum and that equilibrium would be stable due to the
> equalizing effects of envious behaviour, in a similar manner as a
> keynesian economy stabilizes at a high unemployment level.
>
> In an envy pervaded economy governmental policies would be less
> effective than expected both by officials' missapplication ("all they
> need is money") and the reaction of economic agents ("they can be
> better than me"), so a classical governmental policy solution to
> underdevelopment is not feasible.
> What would then break the underdevelopment impasse? As many times has
> been pointed out, education is essential, but not in the sense of
> spreading technical knowledge but rather with the goal of changing
> basic social values to make individuals more cooperative and less
> sensitive to people's conditions.
>
> Underdevelopment can be considered as an economy at some
> quantity/quality of Chaos. Development would have a lower
> quantity/quality of Chaos (disorder). Borders are necessary to keep
> the differences, though in the border there should be a very
> interesting non-smooth mix of chaotic regions, ie, a more chaotic
> system, but only in the fringe (can lead to quiet static dynamic
> states). Ideally, the more developed region shoud be "moving" into the
> less developed region to absorb and "fix" the state of development
> once the differential levels start smoothing out due to economic
> interactions of free agents (may depend on institutions). At the
> border both levels of development must mix and flux; by moving the
> border at a given moment of time the new desired level of development
> would be fix and absorned into a sustainable dynamic. Here it is
> important to notice that bussiness cycles must be shallower in
> developed countries than in underdeveloped countries. Due to the
> butterfly effect, underdeveloped (more chaotic) regions must
> experiment bigger, more notorious effects for a given disturbance.
> (Mexico gets the flu when America sneezes, etc.) Definitely, even
> though we can see order in current economies and create deterministic
> models, the underlying dynamics are chaotic, the smoothness is only
> apparent at the surface as an epiphenoma, like temperature (a single
> figure) being the result of the chaotic interaction of molecules.
> Developed countries would look as a very well mixed yoghurt, while
> underdeveloped economies would look like frappe.
>
>
> These cursory analysis can be mathematized. Volunteers?
> Search "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" google groups, sort by date
> visit ghamac.org /miniface.jpg
> Danilo J Bonsignore 

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:16:42 GMT, "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsignore@beethoven.com> wrote in message 
>news:768f7623.0410070553.346b0d71@posting.google.com...
>> Latinamerican countries follow all 'recipes' of academia and yet fail
>> to achieve sustained development. Could it be that people actually
>
>Therein lies the problem.  As poster "royls" points out repeatedly on this 
>list, economics (academic and otherwise) has become corrupted insofar as 
>they have obscured the "Georgist" critique of taxation---to wit, in its 
>broadest form, that Ricardian land rents should be mostly taxed away, and 
>other taxes that are both more distortionary (less efficient) and less 
>equitable should be reduced.
>
>I haven't researched what those in favor of land value taxation have to say 
>about tax structures in Latin America, but given the penury in places like 
>Brazil, I can't imagine it's good.  Not to mention all that anecdotal stuff 
>about huge landholdings in there.

Right.  There is little or no public recovery of land rent through
taxation in most Latin American countries, and their chronic economic
stagnation and huge inequalities of wealth and income (the highest in
the world) bear that out.

>In case you're not familiar with it, LVT proponents wouldn't necessarily 
>advocate breaking up large estates and then making land grants (though Latin 
>America might be so screwed up that that might be a necessary initial step).

It's not necessary, unless the large landowners are using their wealth
and power to control the political process, have land reform advocates
assassinated, etc.

>Rather, they advocate taxing away (at least much or most of) Ricardian land 
>rents---that is, the income on land due to the land itself (its location, 
>fertility, etc, as opposed to improvements on the land).  This allows a 
>market solution that promotes *both* efficiency and equity.  One of the few 
>win-wins in economics.  One interesting point is how modern economists have 
>gone out of their way to obscure it; Georgists and their allies argue that 
>it's because they're in the pockets of the wealthy, many/most of whom are 
>(big) landholders.

Yes, Professor Mason Gaffney's 'The Corruption of Economics' details
how fundamental principles of economic science were deliberately
subverted in the late 19th and early 20th C specifically to deny
Single Tax advocates the logical tools they used to prove their case.

>Finally, note that there's nothing "socialist" about LVT schemes.  Nor 
>anything remotely Marxist---the person who did the most to push LVT (Henry 
>George) had substantial disagreements with Marx.

Indeed, George and Marx apparently detested each other.

-- Roy L

fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message news:<768f7623.0410070553.346b0d71@posting.google.com>...
> Latinamerican countries follow all 'recipes' of academia and yet fail
> to achieve sustained development. Could it be that people actually
> *behave* differently from the way people behave in countries that have
> achieved development?
> 
> Man is supposed to act economically as a self interested (quasi)
> rational entity following his own satisfaction without regarding that
> of others. But waht if people actually take others into account when
> performing economic activities?
> 
> My experience trying to make a living in Mexico taught me that the
> norm is precisely to take into account the welfare of others, but in a
> *negative* way. Competition is normally seen as a zero sum game, I win
> what you loose, but I've seen many times behaviour of the type "we
> both loose", even when there were known options where both of the
> parties would win. More often than not, the party choosing the
> loose-loose option would have been the party winning the least in the
> win-win option (though sometimes that wouls be true considering nit
> the actual payoffs only but total earnings after several games). This
> behaviour I call envy.
> 

The macroeconomic effects of envy. I see. Well, allow me to put forth
an alternative explanation for Mexico's development path (can't speak
for the rest of Latam).

First, some facts. Mexico is the 13th largest economy in the world. It
has a PPP adjusted GDP per capita of about $9000 USD/year, which puts
it in the middle income range of nations. In general terms, Mexico
cannot be considered a truly poor country, even though there ARE
millions of poor people.
Mexico became industrialized in the XXth century. It went from a
predominantly agricultural economy to an industrialized one.
After the 1910-1917 Revolution against Porifio Diaz the dictator (who
nevertheless brought Mexico from the XIXth to the XXth century
economically speaking), a party dictatorship was installed: the PRI.
The PRI was not democratic, but DID manage to initially get the
economy right. From 1940 to 1960 it went through an accelerated growth
period, called the Mexican Miracle:

"Between 1940 and 1960 production increased 320%, and between 1960 and
1980, 270%.
This meant that the Mexican economy had grown an average of 6% per
year between 1940 and 1980. It also meant that the economy had
produced 870% more goods and services in 1980 than it had in 1940.
Population at the same time had only grown 370% between 1940 and 1980.
The structure of the economy also had changed. In 1940 agriculture
represented around 10% of the national production, but by 1970 this
number had dropped to 5%. Manufacturing, on the other hand, increased
from 19% to 23%. The population also increased from 19.6 million in
1940, to 67 million in 1977, to more than 70 million in 1980.
In 1940 only 20 percent of the population lived in cities. By 1977
almost 50% lived in urban areas. And in the 1980's 60-70% lived in
cities. Thus, together with the industrialization process, the country
experienced in forty years spectacular change in rates of urbanization
and demographic growth."
http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/mex9.html

So everything was good and fine. I still remember my grandparents
talking about those golden years. Mexico's problems started in the
1970s: Yom Kippur War, Arab Oil embargo, oil goes through the roof.
Stupidly, the PRI presidents of that period, Echeverria and specially
Lopez Portillo, think that the oil price is going to be high for ever,
and decide to go into debt, with the idea of paying the debt with oil
sales. At first things are great: the government is swimming in money,
and they indulge un huge public spending and all sorts of social
programs. But then the oil price collapses, and Mexico is stuck with a
HUGE foreign debt. The government starts to print money and move up
and down interest rates and all sorts of stupid macroeconomic
maneuvering, only sinking the country even further. Inflation is
enormous, interest rates soar, there is little investment, and high
unemployment. A true crisis. During the 80s the malaise continues. The
government continues its "import sustitution" policy to "protect"
national manufacturers and allow them to "grow". The only thing this
caused was few product variety at high prices, furthering the pain and
poverty.
Finally, in 1986 we started to see light at the end of the tunnel:
Mexico enteres GATT. We lowered our tariffs, and imports started to
flow in. Competition started to destroy inefficient Mexican companies,
and those who survived became competitive. Now we had plenty of good
products at good prices. GDP growth gave a moderate jump. Not huge,
but anything was good at that time.
The next big event was president Salinas. Salinas was able to control
the out of control macroeconomic variables; it reduced inflation and
interest rates to almost normal levels, and negotiated NAFTA, of
course. In 1994, NAFTA came into effect. GDP growth accelerated.
Things looked pretty good: macroeconomics under control,
microeconomics picking up thanks to international trade. But then came
the Zapatista uprising, and the assasination of presidential candidate
Colossio and also Ruiz Massieu. This and a series of other events
caused a run on the peso and the well known 1995 peso crisis. This
crisis was VERY sharp; when you check the statistics you can see GDP
go down drastically, and unemployment shoot up fast. But we quickly
recovered.
In 2000, Vicente Fox became the first democratically elected leader
EVER. Fox's term has been hard, and the economy has remained stagnant
mainly because of the US recession. We are now starting to recover as
the US recovers; 2005 growth is projected to be 4%. Mexico is going
right now through the "creative destruction" phase that free markets
cause. Productivity is increasing, but it is not a painless process.

The big question always is: why is there so many poor people in
Mexico? After all, 40 million people live below the poverty line.
What happens is that we truly have two Mexicos: the modern, urbanized
Mexico, and the poor, peasant Mexico. After the 1917 revolution, the
Mexican government distributed land to all the peasants in an act of
social justice. The intention was good, but the economic effects where
bad. Instead of having arable land of economic size, we found
ourselves with millions of tiny parcels owned by communities, not by
individuals. First, being so small, it was anti-economical to use
modern farm equipment on them. Second, they suffered the "tragedy of
the commons" phenomenon: since everbody and nobody was the owner,
nobody wanted to work and maintain the land. The only thing the
Reforma Agraria brought was a perpetuation of poverty through lack of
agricultural productivity. Amazingly, the Reforma Agraria was
officially ended only about a dozen years ago. So the end result is
that you still have millions of people owning tiny plots of land,
trying to make a living out of them. Mexico has something like 100,000
villages with population of 1000 or less. They have no access to
government services, nor job markets, not even PRODUCT markets. They
have no schooling either. So poverty perpetuates itself in those tiny
villages.
And this takes us to illegal immigration. Most of the people who
migrate to the US come from this agricultural medium. A Mexican
peasant has the following options
a) Stay in the village
b) Move to the Big City and get a job
c) Move to the US with the help of friends and relatives who live
there already

Option "a" would suck. Option "b" is selected by a certain percentage.
You CAN find a job in the city; there's plenty of jobs. But if you
have no education, you won't make much. Option "c" is the best one.
They can cross the border easily, live with friends and family, make
10 times more. And that's basically what is happening.
Americans see millions of poor Mexicans migrating to the US, so they
come to the conclusion that Mexico has severe economic problems. This
conclusion is wrong. Mexico's economy is more or less ok. But when a
more-or-less-ok economy is glued to HUGE economy, you will logically
see the less productive people migrate to the HUGE economy. As simple
as that.

One final commentary. In the big scheme of things, the story of
capitalism and democracy has just begun. The US got a head start, so
it doing better than the rest. But the fact is, we are in the first
innings of the game. You must remember that in the XVIIIth century,
the US was just this backward British colony, and the UK reigned
supreme. Things change fast in a few centuries.

I can only hope my theory of the development of Mexico can compete
with your Envy Macroeconomics Theory :)


Cada quien habla de la feria de acuerdo a como le fue, mi querido
Fabrizio. Parece que a ti no te fue muy bien en Mexico. Pero pues que
raro, porque a mi me va muy bien :)

"sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<edc9d.9061$x65.7649@trnddc06>...
> "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsignore@beethoven.com> wrote in message 
> news:768f7623.0410070553.346b0d71@posting.google.com...
> > Latinamerican countries follow all 'recipes' of academia and yet fail
> > to achieve sustained development. Could it be that people actually
> 
> Therein lies the problem.  As poster "royls" points out repeatedly on this 
> list, economics (academic and otherwise) has become corrupted insofar as 
> they have obscured the "Georgist" critique of taxation---to wit, in its 
> broadest form, that Ricardian land rents should be mostly taxed away, and 
> other taxes that are both more distortionary (less efficient) and less 
> equitable should be reduced.
>
> I haven't researched what those in favor of land value taxation have to say 
> about tax structures in Latin America, but given the penury in places like 
> Brazil, I can't imagine it's good.  Not to mention all that anecdotal stuff 
> about huge landholdings in there.
> 
But I don`t think a particular tax structure would solve
underdevelopent.

> In case you're not familiar with it, LVT proponents wouldn't necessarily 
> advocate breaking up large estates and then making land grants (though Latin 
> America might be so screwed up that that might be a necessary initial step). 
> Rather, they advocate taxing away (at least much or most of) Ricardian land 
> rents---that is, the income on land due to the land itself (its location, 
> fertility, etc, as opposed to improvements on the land).  This allows a 
> market solution that promotes *both* efficiency and equity.  One of the few 
> win-wins in economics.  One interesting point is how modern economists have 
> gone out of their way to obscure it; Georgists and their allies argue that 
> it's because they're in the pockets of the wealthy, many/most of whom are 
> (big) landholders.
> 

Even if taxation were able to absorb Ricardian rent, we would then
have the problem to distribute that G income. The budget is subject to
a political process and there are no guarantees that the assignment
will be spent in such a way that it will promote development, even if
it is totally absorbed by public works (infrastructure) or bureaucracy
(labor), which most certainly won`t be the case. It is not a pure
market solution. There is no easy way to solve underdevelopment.

I proposed a policy to handle land ownership with the purpose of
evening out wealth distribution, on the assumption that for families
owning a place to live is better than renting.

> Good links, from a "geo-" libertarian point of view (which I don't agree 
> with in its entirety, but these are really well written):
> 
> http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geo-faq.htm
> http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
> 
> Finally, note that there's nothing "socialist" about LVT schemes.  Nor 
> anything remotely Marxist---the person who did the most to push LVT (Henry 
> George) had substantial disagreements with Marx.
>

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4165afff.17748290@news.telus.net...
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:16:42 GMT, "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsignore@beethoven.com> wrote in message
>>news:768f7623.0410070553.346b0d71@posting.google.com...
>>> Latinamerican countries follow all 'recipes' of academia and yet fail
>>> to achieve sustained development. Could it be that people actually
>>
>>Therein lies the problem.  As poster "royls" points out repeatedly on this
>>list, economics (academic and otherwise) has become corrupted insofar as
>>they have obscured the "Georgist" critique of taxation---to wit, in its
>>broadest form, that Ricardian land rents should be mostly taxed away, and
>>other taxes that are both more distortionary (less efficient) and less
>>equitable should be reduced.
>>
>>I haven't researched what those in favor of land value taxation have to 
>>say
>>about tax structures in Latin America, but given the penury in places like
>>Brazil, I can't imagine it's good.  Not to mention all that anecdotal 
>>stuff
>>about huge landholdings in there.
>
> Right.  There is little or no public recovery of land rent through
> taxation in most Latin American countries, and their chronic economic
> stagnation and huge inequalities of wealth and income (the highest in
> the world) bear that out.
>
>>In case you're not familiar with it, LVT proponents wouldn't necessarily
>>advocate breaking up large estates and then making land grants (though 
>>Latin
>>America might be so screwed up that that might be a necessary initial 
>>step).
>
> It's not necessary, unless the large landowners are using their wealth
> and power to control the political process, have land reform advocates
> assassinated, etc.

Right.

My impression is that at least in Brazil they *are* controlling the 
political process, unfortunately.  IIRC Chico Mendez had something to do 
with confronting the landholding class, and he was murdered.  And (IIRC) no 
one was really charged.

>>Rather, they advocate taxing away (at least much or most of) Ricardian 
>>land
>>rents---that is, the income on land due to the land itself (its location,
>>fertility, etc, as opposed to improvements on the land).  This allows a
>>market solution that promotes *both* efficiency and equity.  One of the 
>>few
>>win-wins in economics.  One interesting point is how modern economists 
>>have
>>gone out of their way to obscure it; Georgists and their allies argue that
>>it's because they're in the pockets of the wealthy, many/most of whom are
>>(big) landholders.
>
> Yes, Professor Mason Gaffney's 'The Corruption of Economics' details
> how fundamental principles of economic science were deliberately
> subverted in the late 19th and early 20th C specifically to deny
> Single Tax advocates the logical tools they used to prove their case.
>
>>Finally, note that there's nothing "socialist" about LVT schemes.  Nor
>>anything remotely Marxist---the person who did the most to push LVT (Henry
>>George) had substantial disagreements with Marx.
>
> Indeed, George and Marx apparently detested each other.

You know a URL with their letters to each other that people make reference 
to?

>
> -- Roy L 

"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsignore@beethoven.com> wrote in message 
news:768f7623.0410071613.2d3da9aa@posting.google.com...
> "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:<edc9d.9061$x65.7649@trnddc06>...
>> "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsignore@beethoven.com> wrote in message
>> news:768f7623.0410070553.346b0d71@posting.google.com...
>> > Latinamerican countries follow all 'recipes' of academia and yet fail
>> > to achieve sustained development. Could it be that people actually
>>
>> Therein lies the problem.  As poster "royls" points out repeatedly on 
>> this
>> list, economics (academic and otherwise) has become corrupted insofar as
>> they have obscured the "Georgist" critique of taxation---to wit, in its
>> broadest form, that Ricardian land rents should be mostly taxed away, and
>> other taxes that are both more distortionary (less efficient) and less
>> equitable should be reduced.
>>
>> I haven't researched what those in favor of land value taxation have to 
>> say
>> about tax structures in Latin America, but given the penury in places 
>> like
>> Brazil, I can't imagine it's good.  Not to mention all that anecdotal 
>> stuff
>> about huge landholdings in there.
>>
> But I don`t think a particular tax structure would solve
> underdevelopent.

You're wrong.  Of course, you're right insofar as to have a "good" tax 
structure, one must have a strong state, so you can't have a good tax 
structure without other things, and clearly the state structures must come 
before the tax structures.  Here, "strong" is meant in the best possible 
fashion---able to enforce state power, and also able to know where not to 
apply state power.  (Paradoxically, states that are nominally stronger, like 
the USSR, are in fact weaker because their overextension of state power was 
actually limiting---as seen by the crumbling of the USSR.)

Underdevelopment is *partly* an economic condition (as opposed to 
social/cultural, if one can meaningfully draw distinctions).  Economics is 
largely about resource allocation.  Land is a fundamental 
resource---classical economists properly realized that it was one of the 
three factors of production (land, labor, capital).

If land is undertaxed, it is likely to not be used efficiently.  That has 
implications not only for agriculture, but for labor (because you need a 
place to work, even if you're not an ag worker) and, I presume, (less 
directly) for capital.

If I recall correctly, places like South Korea and Taiwan experienced 
soaring development *after land reform*.  A land value tax would accomplish 
the same thing, even more efficiently.

>> In case you're not familiar with it, LVT proponents wouldn't necessarily
>> advocate breaking up large estates and then making land grants (though 
>> Latin
>> America might be so screwed up that that might be a necessary initial 
>> step).
>> Rather, they advocate taxing away (at least much or most of) Ricardian 
>> land
>> rents---that is, the income on land due to the land itself (its location,
>> fertility, etc, as opposed to improvements on the land).  This allows a
>> market solution that promotes *both* efficiency and equity.  One of the 
>> few
>> win-wins in economics.  One interesting point is how modern economists 
>> have
>> gone out of their way to obscure it; Georgists and their allies argue 
>> that
>> it's because they're in the pockets of the wealthy, many/most of whom are
>> (big) landholders.
>>
>
> Even if taxation were able to absorb Ricardian rent, we would then
> have the problem to distribute that G income. The budget is subject to
> a political process and there are no guarantees that the assignment
> will be spent in such a way that it will promote development, even if
> it is totally absorbed by public works (infrastructure) or bureaucracy
> (labor), which most certainly won`t be the case. It is not a pure
> market solution. There is no easy way to solve underdevelopment.

That's true.  That's why you need a reasonably strong, (relatively) 
non-corrupt state.  If you don't have that, you're stuck.

I would argue that with land value taxation and the subsequent freeing of 
labor, the "pressure" for people in the middle or lower ends of the wealth 
distribution to try to seek financial guarantees from the state (e.g., cushy 
civil service job, etc) would lessen, because there would be an attractive 
alternative as growth took off and land tax mechanisms created better 
opportunities for both labor and capital.

> I proposed a policy to handle land ownership with the purpose of
> evening out wealth distribution, on the assumption that for families
> owning a place to live is better than renting.

Right.  But a better way to do it is with land value taxation.

Here in the US, there is a huge policy apparatus with the purpose of 
encouraging single family housing (tax breaks, zoning rules, etc).  Perhaps 
it benefits people in the middle of the wealth spectrum, but it certainly 
doesn't benefit those at the bottom, and it leads to really inefficient use 
of land (further hurting those on the bottom, who have to pay more in rent, 
or live further from their jobs, or in the worse case have nowhere to live 
at all).

>> Good links, from a "geo-" libertarian point of view (which I don't agree
>> with in its entirety, but these are really well written):
>>
>> http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geo-faq.htm
>> http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
>>
>> Finally, note that there's nothing "socialist" about LVT schemes.  Nor
>> anything remotely Marxist---the person who did the most to push LVT 
>> (Henry
>> George) had substantial disagreements with Marx.
>> 

In sci.econ sinister <sinister@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> <royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4165afff.17748290@news.telus.net...

>> Indeed, George and Marx apparently detested each other.

> You know a URL with their letters to each other that people make reference 
> to?

Marx makes a comment in:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_06_20.htm

Where he says:
"On the other hand George's book, like the sensation it has made with
you, is significant because it is a first, if unsuccessful, attempt at
emancipation from the orthodox political economy.

H. George does not seem, for the rest, to know anything about the
history of the early American anti-renters,** who were rather practical
men than theoretical. Otherwise he is a talented writer (with a talent
for Yankee advertisement too) as his article on California in the
Atlantic proves, for instance. He also has the repulsive presumption and
arrogance which is displayed by all panacea-mongers without exception."

-- 
   Ron

On 7 Oct 2004 17:13:33 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
Bonsignore) wrote:
 
>But I don`t think a particular tax structure would solve
>underdevelopent.

Certainly it is not a sufficient condition, all by itself.  If a
country is torn by civil war, or saddled with a massively corrupt
government, or overwhelmed by pandemic malaria, AIDS, etc., land rent
recovery alone will not turn it into a tiger economy.  But most
underdeveloped countries in Latin America do not have those problems
(though corruption is pretty bad in some of them).  

>Even if taxation were able to absorb Ricardian rent, we would then
>have the problem to distribute that G income.

There is no shortage of worthwhile things to spend the money on, from
crime prevention to primary education to transportation infrastructure
to control of infectious diseases and pests.

>The budget is subject to
>a political process and there are no guarantees that the assignment
>will be spent in such a way that it will promote development, even if
>it is totally absorbed by public works (infrastructure) or bureaucracy
>(labor), which most certainly won`t be the case. It is not a pure
>market solution. There is no easy way to solve underdevelopment.

Usually, there is: leave people free to produce, and let them keep the
added value their productive efforts yield.  But that means minimizing
what is given to those who contribute nothing, like landowners.

>I proposed a policy to handle land ownership with the purpose of
>evening out wealth distribution, on the assumption that for families
>owning a place to live is better than renting.

The problem is, your solution does not socialize land rent.  It
socializes improvements.  It punishes and robs those who have
contributed to the wealth of the community by constructing
improvements where others live, while leaving the vast non-residential
landholdings of the idle rich untouched.  It is a Band-Aid solution
that would undoubtedly make the problem worse in the long run, not
least by providing a convenient example of "failed land reform."

-- Roy L

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:26:40 GMT, "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4165afff.17748290@news.telus.net...
>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:16:42 GMT, "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In case you're not familiar with it, LVT proponents wouldn't necessarily
>>>advocate breaking up large estates and then making land grants (though 
>>>Latin
>>>America might be so screwed up that that might be a necessary initial 
>>>step).
>>
>> It's not necessary, unless the large landowners are using their wealth
>> and power to control the political process, have land reform advocates
>> assassinated, etc.
>
>Right.
>
>My impression is that at least in Brazil they *are* controlling the 
>political process, unfortunately.  IIRC Chico Mendez had something to do 
>with confronting the landholding class, and he was murdered.  And (IIRC) no 
>one was really charged.

Yes.  It's not unusual for large landowners to do away with land
reform advocates, one way or another.  The big landowners of France's
ancien regime sealed their own fate when they forced out Jacques
Turgot by fomenting phony food riots and lobbying the queen to get him
dismissed.  The trumped up impeachment of (and bizarre physical attack
in parliament on) South Korean president Roh was probably orchestrated
by large landowning interests to scotch any attempt to use land rent
recovery as a source of government revenue, which Roh had apparently
been considering.

-- Roy L

gchand4059@aol.com (Lantern) wrote in message news:<20041007154647.08561.00000098@mb-m22.aol.com>...
> fbonsignore wrotein part:
> 
> >>As many times has
> been pointed out, education is essential, but not in the sense of
> spreading technical knowledge but rather with the goal of changing
> basic social values to make individuals more cooperative and less
> sensitive to people's conditions.>>
> 
> To change basic social values is not education..it is "indoctrination" or
> "orientation" (or "brainwashing" ?). Maybe that is what is needed. In my
> opinion a country-by-country approach is needed because each country is
> different. The IMF is a good source of information on each country. They try to
> productively lend countries money.

Not necessarily indoctrination, but education. In a way you accomplish
this through advertisement and mass communications. Though Say`s Law
is in effect, people do tend to copy fads and engage in conspicuous
consumption. Think of the effects of smoking in TV, moovies and
advertisement, vs. the effects of promoting exericising and jogging.
Tell the people how good is exercising, show people exercising
everywhere and soon people will start spending more money in
exercising gadgets than in cigarrettes. But more important, tell
people to ccoperate and help advance those that can reach higher
instead of blocking them and you`ll experience development, on the
assumption that higher reaching people through their achievements
(assumedly brought about by a natural ability, productivity that
exceeds that of others), will create opportunities for the people who
helped them, more opportunities than would be available if people with
lower capacity or creativity block people with better skills due to
envy. A general model would show that equilibrium in the absence of
envy is reached at a higher level of output than in the presence of
envy.

Mind that this doesn`t retract from the invisible hand mechanism or
autoorganizative properties of the market. On the contrary, by
teaching people to reduce envy the invisible hand acts better. Envy is
a contamination of the mechanism because you don`t act only following
your egoistic desires but you also take into account the utility of
others. The IH works as an autoorganizative mechanism precisely
because *you only take into account your own experience*. You don`t
need, shouldn`t need to take into account others to make decisions,
and the *global* result is achieved by itself without the need to have
a central authority. This property of the IH to generate an (optimum)
global equilibrium is broken by the introduction of envy, and it is to
be expected that the global level of equilibrium is achieved at a
(much) lower level. In a dynamic model it would lead after some
iterations to a level of output much lower than an equivalent model
without envy would achieve given similar initial conditions.

Thus, by teaching people, not indoctrinating, moral values that
diminish envy, eventually bigger levels of output will be generated.

What would happen if instead of envy there is cooperation?

royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4165afff.17748290@news.telus.net>...
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:16:42 GMT, "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
> >"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsignore@beethoven.com> wrote in message 
> >news:768f7623.0410070553.346b0d71@posting.google.com...
> >> Latinamerican countries follow all 'recipes' of academia and yet fail
> >> to achieve sustained development. Could it be that people actually
> >
> >Therein lies the problem.  As poster "royls" points out repeatedly on this 
> >list, economics (academic and otherwise) has become corrupted insofar as 
> >they have obscured the "Georgist" critique of taxation---to wit, in its 
> >broadest form, that Ricardian land rents should be mostly taxed away, and 
> >other taxes that are both more distortionary (less efficient) and less 
> >equitable should be reduced.
> >
(snip)
> 
> Yes, Professor Mason Gaffney's 'The Corruption of Economics' details
> how fundamental principles of economic science were deliberately
> subverted in the late 19th and early 20th C specifically to deny
> Single Tax advocates the logical tools they used to prove their case.
>
As I said in the main article of the thread, people wanting to uphold
the status quo will engage in predatory competition (`all they need is
money`) as a way to control the masses. They are bound to `interpret`
economic principles and policies in such a way that they keep the
statu quo, slowing development. It looks like America was from the
beginning a rich country (population against available land) and so
its initial conditions were such that even under the existence of
predatory competition the momentum of development promoted either pure
self-interested behavior or cooperative competition, reinforcing
development, even without taxing away Ricardian rent. So either the
tax schemes used were adequate for development or there was o
relationship between tax scheme and developmet. And if the tax schemes
used were not ricardian, ten the argument to discuss is whether
ricardian taxes would bring (much) more development. In any case
America`s development was independent of the applicatio of ricardian
taxes. It is known that it had much more to do with basic moral
aspects as exhibited by groups like the mormons and quakers or the
protestant ethic of the particularly American brand of christianity.

As for Europe`s development it was a _steady_ affair since the
breaking down of the Roman Empire, though it accelerated from the time
of the Renaissance through to the world wars. May be that under more
rational taxation schemes or the ricardian tax you advocate
development would have been faster, though in this case sane
competition was promoted within nations by the predatory competition
among nations... Paradoxic. Again development was rather independent
from the tax schemes used and more dependent on the non predatory
sharing of ideas and technologies.

Japan and the Eastern (developed) countries also exhibit cooperative
comptition and their develompent was more sudden and fast. [It must be
taken into account that after WWII the USA helped ith huge financing
both world zones.]
 
> >Finally, note that there's nothing "socialist" about LVT schemes.  Nor 
> >anything remotely Marxist---the person who did the most to push LVT (Henry 
> >George) had substantial disagreements with Marx.
> 
> Indeed, George and Marx apparently detested each other.
> 
> -- Roy L

Apparently whatever benefits people other than the rich is called
socialism.

On 9 Oct 2004 19:20:20 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
Bonsignore) wrote:

>It looks like America was from the
>beginning a rich country (population against available land)

Population per land area is almost irrelevant to development or
prosperity, as the contrasting situations in Singapore, HK, etc.
compared to Brazil, Mozambique, Sudan, etc. prove.  What matters is
freedom to produce, and to keep the value one's productive efforts
yield.

>and so
>its initial conditions were such that even under the existence of
>predatory competition the momentum of development promoted either pure
>self-interested behavior or cooperative competition, reinforcing
>development, even without taxing away Ricardian rent.

Wrong.  Until WW I, most government revenue in the USA was from land.

>So either the
>tax schemes used were adequate for development or there was o
>relationship between tax scheme and developmet. And if the tax schemes
>used were not ricardian, ten the argument to discuss is whether
>ricardian taxes would bring (much) more development.

They always have.

>In any case
>America`s development was independent of the applicatio of ricardian
>taxes.

That claim is false, as proved above.

>It is known that it had much more to do with basic moral
>aspects as exhibited by groups like the mormons and quakers or the
>protestant ethic of the particularly American brand of christianity.

Then how do you explain the prosperity of non-Christian societies like
Singapore, HK, Taiwan, and Japan?  How explain the poverty of
Christian Poland under socialism?

>As for Europe`s development it was a _steady_ affair since the
>breaking down of the Roman Empire,

False.

>Again development was rather independent
>from the tax schemes used and more dependent on the non predatory
>sharing of ideas and technologies.

Nope.  France taxed capital and trade in the 17-18th C and stayed
poor, England taxed land and grew prosperous.

>Japan and the Eastern (developed) countries also exhibit cooperative
>comptition and their develompent was more sudden and fast. [It must be
>taken into account that after WWII the USA helped ith huge financing
>both world zones.]

Wrong again.  Japan has experienced two eras of rapid growth: the
Meiji period and the post WW II period.  In both cases, that rapid
growth resulted from taxation of land rents; when the burden of
taxation was shifted off land rents and onto production, growth slowed
or stopped.

>Apparently whatever benefits people other than the rich is called
>socialism.

It is important to identify such lies, and the liars who tell them.

-- Roy L

royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4169a3b7.20177640@news.telus.net>...
> On 9 Oct 2004 19:20:20 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
> Bonsignore) wrote:
> 
> >It looks like America was from the
> >beginning a rich country (population against available land)
> 
> Population per land area is almost irrelevant to development or
> prosperity, as the contrasting situations in Singapore, HK, etc.
> compared to Brazil, Mozambique, Sudan, etc. prove.  What matters is
> freedom to produce, and to keep the value one's productive efforts
> yield.
> 
There was plenty of fertile land available and then gold. Singapore,
HK, etc are industrial economies. I am referring to a mostly rural
economy as the US was at the beginning. I don`t think countries like
Brazil or Sudan have much adequate land available; Brazil has to fight
the jungle and Sudan the desert.

> >and so
> >its initial conditions were such that even under the existence of
> >predatory competition the momentum of development promoted either pure
> >self-interested behavior or cooperative competition, reinforcing
> >development, even without taxing away Ricardian rent.
> 
> Wrong.  Until WW I, most government revenue in the USA was from land.
> 
Now that you say so it must have been so, there was not yet all the
infrastructure to control income tax revenues. Yet there were other
conditions that helped development, like the new rairoad
infrastructure, income derramas after slaves were liberated,
increasing industrialization, oil fever, etc. Too many factors to
distinguish the effect of the tax scheme, though maybe somebody can
gather the data and perform amore thorough analysis.

> >So either the
> >tax schemes used were adequate for development or there was o
> >relationship between tax scheme and developmet. And if the tax schemes
> >used were not ricardian, ten the argument to discuss is whether
> >ricardian taxes would bring (much) more development.
> 
> They always have.
> 
A model?

> >In any case
> >America`s development was independent of the applicatio of ricardian
> >taxes.
> 
> That claim is false, as proved above.
> 
Was not proved, was stated, though the tax scheme might have helped.

> >It is known that it had much more to do with basic moral
> >aspects as exhibited by groups like the mormons and quakers or the
> >protestant ethic of the particularly American brand of christianity.
> 
> Then how do you explain the prosperity of non-Christian societies like
> Singapore, HK, Taiwan, and Japan?  How explain the poverty of
> Christian Poland under socialism?
> 
The tigers have different ideologies that seem to favor cooperation
and joint effort. Wasn`t that the Z theory or something similar? And
of course ideology is not production, but Poland was already a
populated state when the US was being born; plenty of constraints
already in place, and socialism is known to generate local and nt
global maxima.

> >As for Europe`s development it was a _steady_ affair since the
> >breaking down of the Roman Empire,
> 
> False.
>
Nothing changed much for 1000 years, only after the Renaissance things
started moving and there were no more back steps, only some
stagnations due to wars.
 
> >Again development was rather independent
> >from the tax schemes used and more dependent on the non predatory
> >sharing of ideas and technologies.
> 
> Nope.  France taxed capital and trade in the 17-18th C and stayed
> poor, England taxed land and grew prosperous.
> 
During that period England was preparing/experimenting the Industrial
Revolution... How many times has England been invaded?

> >Japan and the Eastern (developed) countries also exhibit cooperative
> >comptition and their develompent was more sudden and fast. [It must be
> >taken into account that after WWII the USA helped ith huge financing
> >both world zones.]
> 
> Wrong again.  Japan has experienced two eras of rapid growth: the
> Meiji period and the post WW II period.  In both cases, that rapid
> growth resulted from taxation of land rents; when the burden of
> taxation was shifted off land rents and onto production, growth slowed
> or stopped.
> 
Was that the only factor?

> >Apparently whatever benefits people other than the rich is called
> >socialism.
> 
> It is important to identify such lies, and the liars who tell them.
> 
You mean socialism as a lie? I guess it`s been proven it is not the
best option to achieve development.

On 11 Oct 2004 16:48:24 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
Bonsignore) wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4169a3b7.20177640@news.telus.net>...
>> On 9 Oct 2004 19:20:20 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>> Bonsignore) wrote:
>> 
>> >It looks like America was from the
>> >beginning a rich country (population against available land)
>> 
>> Population per land area is almost irrelevant to development or
>> prosperity, as the contrasting situations in Singapore, HK, etc.
>> compared to Brazil, Mozambique, Sudan, etc. prove.  What matters is
>> freedom to produce, and to keep the value one's productive efforts
>> yield.
>> 
>There was plenty of fertile land available and then gold.

The fact that you think the amount of gold was even relevant proves
you understand nothing of the matter.

>Singapore,
>HK, etc are industrial economies.

<sigh>  They weren't always.  That's kinda the point.

>I am referring to a mostly rural
>economy as the US was at the beginning.

Couldn't matter less.

>I don`t think countries like
>Brazil or Sudan have much adequate land available;

I know you don't.  But you are wrong.

>Brazil has to fight
>the jungle and Sudan the desert.

But mostly, they have to fight their own corrupt and incompetent
governments.

>> >and so
>> >its initial conditions were such that even under the existence of
>> >predatory competition the momentum of development promoted either pure
>> >self-interested behavior or cooperative competition, reinforcing
>> >development, even without taxing away Ricardian rent.
>> 
>> Wrong.  Until WW I, most government revenue in the USA was from land.
>> 
>Now that you say so it must have been so, there was not yet all the
>infrastructure to control income tax revenues.

It was a matter of policy, not infrastructure.  Other countries --
countries that stayed poor, like Mexico -- taxed production instead of
land.

>Yet there were other
>conditions that helped development, like the new rairoad
>infrastructure,

???  Do you think it fell from the sky?

>income derramas after slaves were liberated,

The war that liberated them was one of the costliest in history up to
that time.

>increasing industrialization,

You confuse cause and effect.

>oil fever, etc. Too many factors to
>distinguish the effect of the tax scheme,

Not if you understand some economics.

>though maybe somebody can
>gather the data and perform amore thorough analysis.

<sigh>  Whenever you're proved wrong, it's always more data and more
analysis that are needed.

Maybe what's needed is for you to realize that you are just _wrong_
and I am just _right_.

>> >So either the
>> >tax schemes used were adequate for development or there was o
>> >relationship between tax scheme and developmet. And if the tax schemes
>> >used were not ricardian, ten the argument to discuss is whether
>> >ricardian taxes would bring (much) more development.
>> 
>> They always have.
>> 
>A model?

When the unamimous verdict of historical fact won't convince you, what
use would a model be?

>> >In any case
>> >America`s development was independent of the applicatio of ricardian
>> >taxes.
>> 
>> That claim is false, as proved above.
>> 
>Was not proved, was stated, though the tax scheme might have helped.

No, actually I proved that you were wrong.  You will never learn
anything as long as you insist that you are never wrong, because then
the facts that prove you wrong cannot get into your brain.

>> >It is known that it had much more to do with basic moral
>> >aspects as exhibited by groups like the mormons and quakers or the
>> >protestant ethic of the particularly American brand of christianity.
>> 
>> Then how do you explain the prosperity of non-Christian societies like
>> Singapore, HK, Taiwan, and Japan?  How explain the poverty of
>> Christian Poland under socialism?
>> 
>The tigers have different ideologies that seem to favor cooperation
>and joint effort.

<sigh>  So did the PRC, and it stayed poor until it began allowing
markets to function, and private interests to own capital.

<heavier sigh>  Japan was poor and backward in 1870, despite its
long-standing ideology of cooperation and joint effort.  Then its
_tax_ system was changed to obtain almost all government revenue from
_land_rents_, and in _one_generation_ it caught up to Europe
economically and militarily.

_One_generation_.

Taiwan had its "ideology of cooperation and joint effort" for
centuries, but it only became rich when it started taxing land after
WW II.

Why do you refuse to know the facts?

>Wasn`t that the Z theory or something similar? And
>of course ideology is not production, but Poland was already a
>populated state when the US was being born;

So was Japan.  But once it started taxing land, it became rich.

>plenty of constraints
>already in place,

???  ROTFL!!  You think the "constraints" in Poland could even _begin_
to compare to the constraints in Singapore and HK??

>and socialism is known to generate local and nt
>global maxima.

More garbage.  Socialism is not "known" to "generate" any "maxima" at
all.

>> >As for Europe`s development it was a _steady_ affair since the
>> >breaking down of the Roman Empire,
>> 
>> False.
>>
>Nothing changed much for 1000 years,

Wrong.  The end of Roman power in the West created the anarchist
utopia otherwise known as feudalism.  This system gradually evolved
over the centuries into the monarchical nation-states of the early
modern era.

>only after the Renaissance things
>started moving and there were no more back steps, only some
>stagnations due to wars.

Also wrong.  The stagnations were often due to destructive tax and
regulatory policies.
 
>> >Again development was rather independent
>> >from the tax schemes used and more dependent on the non predatory
>> >sharing of ideas and technologies.
>> 
>> Nope.  France taxed capital and trade in the 17-18th C and stayed
>> poor, England taxed land and grew prosperous.
>> 
>During that period England was preparing/experimenting the Industrial
>Revolution...

Right.  France could have, too, but its tax system was too destructive
of production, trade and capital.

>How many times has England been invaded?

<sigh>  There's always some sort of reason for you to ignore the
facts, isn't there?

>> >Japan and the Eastern (developed) countries also exhibit cooperative
>> >comptition and their develompent was more sudden and fast. [It must be
>> >taken into account that after WWII the USA helped ith huge financing
>> >both world zones.]
>> 
>> Wrong again.  Japan has experienced two eras of rapid growth: the
>> Meiji period and the post WW II period.  In both cases, that rapid
>> growth resulted from taxation of land rents; when the burden of
>> taxation was shifted off land rents and onto production, growth slowed
>> or stopped.
>> 
>Was that the only factor?

It was the _decisive_ factor, the one that _changed_.

>> >Apparently whatever benefits people other than the rich is called
>> >socialism.
>> 
>> It is important to identify such lies, and the liars who tell them.
>> 
>You mean socialism as a lie?

The claim that whatever benefits people other than the rich is
socialism is a lie, in two ways.  Socialism doesn't benefit anyone but
a handful of the politically powerful, and arrangements other than
socialism can benefit people other than the rich.

-- Roy L

royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<416b7826.4909901@news.telus.net>...
> On 11 Oct 2004 16:48:24 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
> Bonsignore) wrote:
> 
> >royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4169a3b7.20177640@news.telus.net>...
> >> On 9 Oct 2004 19:20:20 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
> >> Bonsignore) wrote:
> >> 
> >> >It looks like America was from the
> >> >beginning a rich country (population against available land)
> >> 
> >> Population per land area is almost irrelevant to development or
> >> prosperity, as the contrasting situations in Singapore, HK, etc.
> >> compared to Brazil, Mozambique, Sudan, etc. prove.  What matters is
> >> freedom to produce, and to keep the value one's productive efforts
> >> yield.
> >> 
> >There was plenty of fertile land available and then gold.
> 
> The fact that you think the amount of gold was even relevant proves
> you understand nothing of the matter.
> 
The fact that you understood Imeant the amount of gold proves you
understand nothing of what I meant. The gold rush meant a *LOT* of
development, from settling down to the services and producrs that
generated.
> >Singapore,
> >HK, etc are industrial economies.
> 
> <sigh>  They weren't always.  That's kinda the point.
> 
They become, and not because of land taxes, but because they
assimilated a mode of production, the industrialization and commerce,
and had the necessary social support.

> >I am referring to a mostly rural
> >economy as the US was at the beginning.
> 
> Couldn't matter less.
>
Whatever. 
> >I don`t think countries like
> >Brazil or Sudan have much adequate land available;
> 
> I know you don't.  But you are wrong.
>
Why?
 
> >Brazil has to fight
> >the jungle and Sudan the desert.
> 
> But mostly, they have to fight their own corrupt and incompetent
> governments.
>
Besides the point.
 
> >> >and so
> >> >its initial conditions were such that even under the existence of
> >> >predatory competition the momentum of development promoted either pure
> >> >self-interested behavior or cooperative competition, reinforcing
> >> >development, even without taxing away Ricardian rent.
> >> 
> >> Wrong.  Until WW I, most government revenue in the USA was from land.
> >> 
> >Now that you say so it must have been so, there was not yet all the
> >infrastructure to control income tax revenues.
> 
> It was a matter of policy, not infrastructure.  Other countries --
> countries that stayed poor, like Mexico -- taxed production instead of
> land.
>
Mexico is an atavic country where people is predatory (jealous), from
the cacique to the gossiping comadres.

> >Yet there were other
> >conditions that helped development, like the new rairoad
> >infrastructure,
> 
> ???  Do you think it fell from the sky?
> 
If it did, Mexico was spared the rain. It was a result of the gold
rush...

> >income derramas after slaves were liberated,
> 
> The war that liberated them was one of the costliest in history up to
> that time.
> 
And sealed the future of America as a country based on industry rather
than agriculture with cheap labor.

> >increasing industrialization,
> 
> You confuse cause and effect.
> 
Effects turn into causes. It is a cycle.

> >oil fever, etc. Too many factors to
> >distinguish the effect of the tax scheme,
> 
> Not if you understand some economics.
>
Do we have comprehensive models and data? Can you point to them?
 
> >though maybe somebody can
> >gather the data and perform amore thorough analysis.
> 
> <sigh>  Whenever you're proved wrong, it's always more data and more
> analysis that are needed.
> 
Whenever I am not sure, indeed, more research is needed. 

> Maybe what's needed is for you to realize that you are just _wrong_
> and I am just _right_.
>
Phallacy. The world is flat I am _right_, you are _wrong_. 8)
 
> >> >So either the
> >> >tax schemes used were adequate for development or there was o
> >> >relationship between tax scheme and developmet. And if the tax schemes
> >> >used were not ricardian, ten the argument to discuss is whether
> >> >ricardian taxes would bring (much) more development.
> >> 
> >> They always have.
> >> 
> >A model?
> 
> When the unamimous verdict of historical fact won't convince you, what
> use would a model be?
> 
History is pliable.

> >> >In any case
> >> >America`s development was independent of the applicatio of ricardian
> >> >taxes.
> >> 
> >> That claim is false, as proved above.
> >> 
> >Was not proved, was stated, though the tax scheme might have helped.
> 
> No, actually I proved that you were wrong.  You will never learn
> anything as long as you insist that you are never wrong, because then
> the facts that prove you wrong cannot get into your brain.
> 
If A then B? What where your arguments? You proved nothing. I gave
evodence to the contrary.

> >> >It is known that it had much more to do with basic moral
> >> >aspects as exhibited by groups like the mormons and quakers or the
> >> >protestant ethic of the particularly American brand of christianity.
> >> 
> >> Then how do you explain the prosperity of non-Christian societies like
> >> Singapore, HK, Taiwan, and Japan?  How explain the poverty of
> >> Christian Poland under socialism?
> >> 
> >The tigers have different ideologies that seem to favor cooperation
> >and joint effort.
> 
> <sigh>  So did the PRC, and it stayed poor until it began allowing
> markets to function, and private interests to own capital.
>
PRC? No idea.But without markets any solution is non optimum.

> <heavier sigh>  Japan was poor and backward in 1870, despite its
> long-standing ideology of cooperation and joint effort.  Then its
> _tax_ system was changed to obtain almost all government revenue from
> _land_rents_, and in _one_generation_ it caught up to Europe
> economically and militarily.
> 
> _One_generation_.
> 
If it were that easy, most countries would have had noticed and
developed explosively. The fact there are inefficient policies IS
another aspect of jealous behaviour, as I commented in the original
post.

> Taiwan had its "ideology of cooperation and joint effort" for
> centuries, but it only became rich when it started taxing land after
> WW II.
> 
> Why do you refuse to know the facts?
> 
State them. All.

> >Wasn`t that the Z theory or something similar? And
> >of course ideology is not production, but Poland was already a
> >populated state when the US was being born;
> 
> So was Japan.  But once it started taxing land, it became rich.
> 
Which it Japan or Poland? Poland just recently left socialism and is
trying to enter a full modern market economy.

> >plenty of constraints
> >already in place,
> 
> ???  ROTFL!!  You think the "constraints" in Poland could even _begin_
> to compare to the constraints in Singapore and HK??
> 
Who cares about the comparison? Poland has always been in the middle.

> >and socialism is known to generate local and nt
> >global maxima.
> 
> More garbage.  Socialism is not "known" to "generate" any "maxima" at
> all.
> 
Really? No welfare teory here?

> >> >As for Europe`s development it was a _steady_ affair since the
> >> >breaking down of the Roman Empire,
> >> 
> >> False.
> >>
> >Nothing changed much for 1000 years,
> 
> Wrong.  The end of Roman power in the West created the anarchist
> utopia otherwise known as feudalism.  This system gradually evolved
> over the centuries into the monarchical nation-states of the early
> modern era.
>
Gradually. What I said.

> >only after the Renaissance things
> >started moving and there were no more back steps, only some
> >stagnations due to wars.
> 
> Also wrong.  The stagnations were often due to destructive tax and
> regulatory policies.
>  
> >> >Again development was rather independent
> >> >from the tax schemes used and more dependent on the non predatory
> >> >sharing of ideas and technologies.
> >> 
> >> Nope.  France taxed capital and trade in the 17-18th C and stayed
> >> poor, England taxed land and grew prosperous.
> >> 
> >During that period England was preparing/experimenting the Industrial
> >Revolution...
> 
> Right.  France could have, too, but its tax system was too destructive
> of production, trade and capital.
> 
> >How many times has England been invaded?
> 
> <sigh>  There's always some sort of reason for you to ignore the
> facts, isn't there?
> 
> >> >Japan and the Eastern (developed) countries also exhibit cooperative
> >> >comptition and their develompent was more sudden and fast. [It must be
> >> >taken into account that after WWII the USA helped ith huge financing
> >> >both world zones.]
> >> 
> >> Wrong again.  Japan has experienced two eras of rapid growth: the
> >> Meiji period and the post WW II period.  In both cases, that rapid
> >> growth resulted from taxation of land rents; when the burden of
> >> taxation was shifted off land rents and onto production, growth slowed
> >> or stopped.
> >> 
> >Was that the only factor?
> 
> It was the _decisive_ factor, the one that _changed_.
> 
> >> >Apparently whatever benefits people other than the rich is called
> >> >socialism.
> >> 
> >> It is important to identify such lies, and the liars who tell them.
> >> 
> >You mean socialism as a lie?
> 
> The claim that whatever benefits people other than the rich is
> socialism is a lie, in two ways.  Socialism doesn't benefit anyone but
> a handful of the politically powerful, and arrangements other than
> socialism can benefit people other than the rich.
> 
> -- Roy L

Jealousy is a basic human attitude that pervades everything and
manifests in many destructive ways. You want to explain lots of things
with a tax scheme! That`s what I call tunneled fanaticism.

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:416b7826.4909901@news.telus.net...
> On 11 Oct 2004 16:48:24 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
> Bonsignore) wrote:
>
>>royls@telus.net wrote in message 
>>news:<4169a3b7.20177640@news.telus.net>...
>>> On 9 Oct 2004 19:20:20 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>>> Bonsignore) wrote:

<snip>

>>> >As for Europe`s development it was a _steady_ affair since the
>>> >breaking down of the Roman Empire,
>>>
>>> False.
>>>
>>Nothing changed much for 1000 years,
>
> Wrong.  The end of Roman power in the West created the anarchist
> utopia otherwise known as feudalism.  This system gradually evolved
> over the centuries into the monarchical nation-states of the early
> modern era.

In what precise way was feudalism anarchistic?  Or are you making a dig in 
the opposite direction, that many modern so-called libertarians are really 
adherents of feudalism in disguise?

<snip>

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:02:52 GMT, "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:416b7826.4909901@news.telus.net...
>> On 11 Oct 2004 16:48:24 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>> Bonsignore) wrote:
>>
>>>royls@telus.net wrote in message 
>>>news:<4169a3b7.20177640@news.telus.net>...
>>>> On 9 Oct 2004 19:20:20 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>>>> Bonsignore) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>> >As for Europe`s development it was a _steady_ affair since the
>>>> >breaking down of the Roman Empire,
>>>>
>>>> False.
>>>>
>>>Nothing changed much for 1000 years,
>>
>> Wrong.  The end of Roman power in the West created the anarchist
>> utopia otherwise known as feudalism.  This system gradually evolved
>> over the centuries into the monarchical nation-states of the early
>> modern era.
>
>In what precise way was feudalism anarchistic?

When Roman power vanished from the Western Empire in the 5th C, there
was no government.  It was literal anarchy.  Wealthy landholders with
private armies stepped into the vacuum, and feudalism began.
Feudalism was precisely the kind of government-free, contract-based
societal system modern anarcho-dreamers like David Friedman, Murray
Rothbard et al advocate.

-- Roy L

sinister wrote:
> <royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:416b7826.4909901@news.telus.net...
> 
>>On 11 Oct 2004 16:48:24 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>>Bonsignore) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>royls@telus.net wrote in message 
>>>news:<4169a3b7.20177640@news.telus.net>...
>>>
>>>>On 9 Oct 2004 19:20:20 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>>>>Bonsignore) wrote:
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>>>As for Europe`s development it was a _steady_ affair since the
>>>>>breaking down of the Roman Empire,
>>>>
>>>>False.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nothing changed much for 1000 years,
>>
>>Wrong.  The end of Roman power in the West created the anarchist
>>utopia otherwise known as feudalism.  This system gradually evolved
>>over the centuries into the monarchical nation-states of the early
>>modern era.
> 
> 
> In what precise way was feudalism anarchistic?  Or are you making a dig in 
> the opposite direction, that many modern so-called libertarians are really 
> adherents of feudalism in disguise?

Since they're mostly a pack of wolves agitating for the repeal of laws 
prohibiting the eating of sheep, I'd say "yes, that is what he meant," 
and I would agree.


-- 
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
                   --Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:416c4ec6.22356438@news.telus.net...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:02:52 GMT, "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:416b7826.4909901@news.telus.net...
>>> On 11 Oct 2004 16:48:24 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>>> Bonsignore) wrote:
>>>
>>>>royls@telus.net wrote in message
>>>>news:<4169a3b7.20177640@news.telus.net>...
>>>>> On 9 Oct 2004 19:20:20 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>>>>> Bonsignore) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>> >As for Europe`s development it was a _steady_ affair since the
>>>>> >breaking down of the Roman Empire,
>>>>>
>>>>> False.
>>>>>
>>>>Nothing changed much for 1000 years,
>>>
>>> Wrong.  The end of Roman power in the West created the anarchist
>>> utopia otherwise known as feudalism.  This system gradually evolved
>>> over the centuries into the monarchical nation-states of the early
>>> modern era.
>>
>>In what precise way was feudalism anarchistic?
>
> When Roman power vanished from the Western Empire in the 5th C, there
> was no government.  It was literal anarchy.  Wealthy landholders with
> private armies stepped into the vacuum, and feudalism began.
> Feudalism was precisely the kind of government-free, contract-based
> societal system modern anarcho-dreamers like David Friedman, Murray
> Rothbard et al advocate.

Correct...

I suppose you know this link?

http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

It'd be nice if someone regularly posted to the main libertarian newsgroups 
with a subject line "Libertarians are feudalists."

Mike Huben's "Critiques Of Libertarianism" mentions somewhere the Georgist 
critique of Libertarianism (meaning, the non-geo, right-libertarianism that 
we encounter so often).  I think it deserves first mention, because it's the 
one thing that shows libertarianism, as commonly construed, to be morally 
incoherent.

>
> -- Roy L 

royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4166fb9c.13892742@news.telus.net>...
> On 7 Oct 2004 17:13:33 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
> Bonsignore) wrote:
>  
> >But I don`t think a particular tax structure would solve
> >underdevelopent.
> 
> Certainly it is not a sufficient condition, all by itself.  If a
> country is torn by civil war, or saddled with a massively corrupt
> government, or overwhelmed by pandemic malaria, AIDS, etc., land rent
> recovery alone will not turn it into a tiger economy.  But most
> underdeveloped countries in Latin America do not have those problems
> (though corruption is pretty bad in some of them).  
> 
> >Even if taxation were able to absorb Ricardian rent, we would then
> >have the problem to distribute that G income.
> 
> There is no shortage of worthwhile things to spend the money on, from
> crime prevention to primary education to transportation infrastructure
> to control of infectious diseases and pests.
> 
> >The budget is subject to
> >a political process and there are no guarantees that the assignment
> >will be spent in such a way that it will promote development, even if
> >it is totally absorbed by public works (infrastructure) or bureaucracy
> >(labor), which most certainly won`t be the case. It is not a pure
> >market solution. There is no easy way to solve underdevelopment.
> 
> Usually, there is: leave people free to produce, and let them keep the
> added value their productive efforts yield.  But that means minimizing
> what is given to those who contribute nothing, like landowners.
> 
> >I proposed a policy to handle land ownership with the purpose of
> >evening out wealth distribution, on the assumption that for families
> >owning a place to live is better than renting.
> 
> The problem is, your solution does not socialize land rent.  It
> socializes improvements.  It punishes and robs those who have
> contributed to the wealth of the community by constructing
> improvements where others live, while leaving the vast non-residential
> landholdings of the idle rich untouched.  It is a Band-Aid solution
> that would undoubtedly make the problem worse in the long run, not
> least by providing a convenient example of "failed land reform."
> 
Except that most rented housing had been depreciated and is own by
financially stable, rich people who didn`t pay the construction but
only bought the property to have an easy income, while paying very
small land taxes. Tell the last to the families that suddenly would
have life stability plus additional disposable income to cover those
expenses they have been avoiding for lack of sufficient income. Simply
better leisure time quality makes a difference. And old owners receive
a compensation, in some cases lump sums, in other an income stream.
The band aid makes a big difference.

"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote in message 
news:416C7C89.20309@earthops.net...
> sinister wrote:
>> <royls@telus.net> wrote in message 
>> news:416b7826.4909901@news.telus.net...
>>
>>>On 11 Oct 2004 16:48:24 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>>>Bonsignore) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>royls@telus.net wrote in message 
>>>>news:<4169a3b7.20177640@news.telus.net>...
>>>>
>>>>>On 9 Oct 2004 19:20:20 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>>>>>Bonsignore) wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>>As for Europe`s development it was a _steady_ affair since the
>>>>>>breaking down of the Roman Empire,
>>>>>
>>>>>False.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nothing changed much for 1000 years,
>>>
>>>Wrong.  The end of Roman power in the West created the anarchist
>>>utopia otherwise known as feudalism.  This system gradually evolved
>>>over the centuries into the monarchical nation-states of the early
>>>modern era.
>>
>>
>> In what precise way was feudalism anarchistic?  Or are you making a dig 
>> in the opposite direction, that many modern so-called libertarians are 
>> really adherents of feudalism in disguise?
>
> Since they're mostly a pack of wolves agitating for the repeal of laws 
> prohibiting the eating of sheep, I'd say "yes, that is what he meant," and 
> I would agree.

His critique is more subtle (and more damning).  See his response.

>
>
> -- 
> The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
> often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
> of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
>                   --Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
> 

On 12 Oct 2004 23:41:46 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
Bonsignore) wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4166fb9c.13892742@news.telus.net>...
>> On 7 Oct 2004 17:13:33 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>> Bonsignore) wrote:
>>   
>> >I proposed a policy to handle land ownership with the purpose of
>> >evening out wealth distribution, on the assumption that for families
>> >owning a place to live is better than renting.
>> 
>> The problem is, your solution does not socialize land rent.  It
>> socializes improvements.  It punishes and robs those who have
>> contributed to the wealth of the community by constructing
>> improvements where others live, while leaving the vast non-residential
>> landholdings of the idle rich untouched.  It is a Band-Aid solution
>> that would undoubtedly make the problem worse in the long run, not
>> least by providing a convenient example of "failed land reform."
>> 
>Except that most rented housing had been depreciated and is own by
>financially stable, rich people who didn`t pay the construction but
>only bought the property to have an easy income, while paying very
>small land taxes.

But taxing away the land rent rather than confiscating the
improvements would give them an incentive to invest more in
improvements, rather than punishing whatever investment in
improvements they had already made.

>Tell the last to the families that suddenly would
>have life stability plus additional disposable income to cover those
>expenses they have been avoiding for lack of sufficient income.

They'd have more disposable income and better accommodation as well as
life stability if the land rent were taxed.

>Simply
>better leisure time quality makes a difference. And old owners receive
>a compensation, in some cases lump sums, in other an income stream.

Compensation paid for by whom?

>The band aid makes a big difference.

It covers the sore, allowing it to fester out of view.

-- Roy L

royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<416d8317.13482821@news.telus.net>...
> On 12 Oct 2004 23:41:46 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
> Bonsignore) wrote:
> 
> >royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4166fb9c.13892742@news.telus.net>...
> >> On 7 Oct 2004 17:13:33 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
> >> Bonsignore) wrote:
> >>   
> >> >I proposed a policy to handle land ownership with the purpose of
> >> >evening out wealth distribution, on the assumption that for families
> >> >owning a place to live is better than renting.
> >> 
> >> The problem is, your solution does not socialize land rent.  It
> >> socializes improvements.  It punishes and robs those who have
> >> contributed to the wealth of the community by constructing
> >> improvements where others live, while leaving the vast non-residential
> >> landholdings of the idle rich untouched.  It is a Band-Aid solution
> >> that would undoubtedly make the problem worse in the long run, not
> >> least by providing a convenient example of "failed land reform."
> >> 
> >Except that most rented housing had been depreciated and is own by
> >financially stable, rich people who didn`t pay the construction but
> >only bought the property to have an easy income, while paying very
> >small land taxes.
> 
> But taxing away the land rent rather than confiscating the
> improvements would give them an incentive to invest more in
> improvements, rather than punishing whatever investment in
> improvements they had already made.
> 
The improvements were very likely amortized long ago. I am talking an
underdeveloped economy where construction drags along as most of the
economy...

> >Tell the last to the families that suddenly would
> >have life stability plus additional disposable income to cover those
> >expenses they have been avoiding for lack of sufficient income.
> 
> They'd have more disposable income and better accommodation as well as
> life stability if the land rent were taxed.
> 
Instead of income? Might be... but you assume that income is related
to the value of the property's land.

> >Simply
> >better leisure time quality makes a difference. And old owners receive
> >a compensation, in some cases lump sums, in other an income stream.
> 
> Compensation paid for by whom?
By the government. DId you read the document Home for All?
> 
> >The band aid makes a big difference.
> 
> It covers the sore, allowing it to fester out of view.
> 
> -- Roy L

Read Home for all and leprechauns!.

A game theory model can be tested computationally by simulating lots
of two person games where envious, neutral and cooperative solutions
occur in a fixed proportion (or a variable proportion based on
previous values, total values, etc). It can be controlled with the
same pay matrixes simulated for pure strategies, envious, neutral and
jealous, and the values compared. There are several variations that
can be tried on the same basic idea.

royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4172a67f.1778613@news.telus.net>...
> On 16 Oct 2004 14:48:19 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
> Bonsignore) wrote:
> 
> >royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<416d8317.13482821@news.telus.net>...
> >> On 12 Oct 2004 23:41:46 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
> >> Bonsignore) wrote:
> >> 
> >> >royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4166fb9c.13892742@news.telus.net>...
> >> >> On 7 Oct 2004 17:13:33 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
> >> >> Bonsignore) wrote:
> >> >>   
> >> >> >I proposed a policy to handle land ownership with the purpose of
> >> >> >evening out wealth distribution, on the assumption that for families
> >> >> >owning a place to live is better than renting.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The problem is, your solution does not socialize land rent.  It
> >> >> socializes improvements.  It punishes and robs those who have
> >> >> contributed to the wealth of the community by constructing
> >> >> improvements where others live, while leaving the vast non-residential
> >> >> landholdings of the idle rich untouched.  It is a Band-Aid solution
> >> >> that would undoubtedly make the problem worse in the long run, not
> >> >> least by providing a convenient example of "failed land reform."
> >> >> 
> >> >Except that most rented housing had been depreciated and is own by
> >> >financially stable, rich people who didn`t pay the construction but
> >> >only bought the property to have an easy income, while paying very
> >> >small land taxes.
> >> 
> >> But taxing away the land rent rather than confiscating the
> >> improvements would give them an incentive to invest more in
> >> improvements, rather than punishing whatever investment in
> >> improvements they had already made.
> >> 
> >The improvements were very likely amortized long ago.
> 
> Some were, some weren't.  You propose to confiscate all.
> 
> >I am talking an
> >underdeveloped economy where construction drags along as most of the
> >economy...
> 
> How much will it drag when you start confiscating improvements?
> 
> >> >Tell the last to the families that suddenly would
> >> >have life stability plus additional disposable income to cover those
> >> >expenses they have been avoiding for lack of sufficient income.
> >> 
> >> They'd have more disposable income and better accommodation as well as
> >> life stability if the land rent were taxed.
> >> 
> >Instead of income? Might be... but you assume that income is related
> >to the value of the property's land.
> 
> No, I do not.
> 
> -- Roy L

How do you tax a vertical condominium based on land?

fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message news:<768f7623.0410161351.7a61a1ef@posting.google.com>...
> A game theory model can be tested computationally by simulating lots
> of two person games where envious, neutral and cooperative solutions
> occur in a fixed proportion (or a variable proportion based on
> previous values, total values, etc). It can be controlled with the
> same pay matrixes simulated for pure strategies, envious, neutral and
> jealous, and the values compared. There are several variations that
> can be tried on the same basic idea.

QED.

For instance: games may be added to the simulation according to global
gains (sum off all game results, GNP); neutral or cooperative
strategies may be used for small gains (both gain), but envious
strategies when gains are too big or disproportionate. Of course, a
"national strategy" would be the probability distribution of
individual strategies of players. And this model can be "filled" by
actual figures (kind of econometrics), for instance, by making
interviews or monitoring current behaviours...

fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message news:<768f7623.0410161351.7a61a1ef@posting.google.com>...
> A game theory model can be tested computationally by simulating lots
> of two person games where envious, neutral and cooperative solutions
> occur in a fixed proportion (or a variable proportion based on
> previous values, total values, etc). It can be controlled with the
> same pay matrixes simulated for pure strategies, envious, neutral and
> jealous, and the values compared. There are several variations that
> can be tried on the same basic idea.

QED.

For instance: games may be added to the simulation according to global
gains (sum off all game results, GNP); neutral or cooperative
strategies may be used for small gains (both gain), but envious
strategies when gains are too big or disproportionate. Of course, a
"national strategy" would be the probability distribution of
individual strategies of players. And this model can be "filled" by
actual figures (kind of econometrics), for instance, by making
interviews or monitoring current behaviours...