Home for All, polemic development policy

#2842

Author: Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:29

216 lines
13483 bytes

Looks like it has not been understood that this proposal includes
compensation to the previous landlords. Technically, a Pareto optimum
policy

"I HEREBY, BY THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON ME BY THE PEOPLE'S WILL, AND
IN THE INTEREST OF THE WELL BEING OF THE MAJORITY, I DECREE:
AS OF TODAY, ALL FAMILIES DWELLING IN A LEASED HOUSE OR APARTMENT
BECOME THE PROPRIETORS OF SAID HOUSE OR APARTMENT. PEOPLE DWELLING IN
A HOUSE OR APARTMENT OF THEIR OWN REMAIN THE PROPRIETORS OF SAID HOUSE
OR APARTMENT. THE GOVERNMENT WILL COMPENSATE PREVIOUS OWNERS FOR THEIR
PROPERTIES."

Economics is the dismal science, the Queen of Social Sciences. And
what a Queen! Cold, proud, unapproachable by the masses that crave for
her favors while she remains unattainable but for a few fortunate...
This popular view of economics is shared by many people who can but
compare the achievements other sciences have brought upon through the
application of technology, and yet see that most economic problems
remain unsolved. Poverty, wealth accumulation, income gap between rich
and poor countries, unemployment, are phenomena that impinge upon
individual's life and they cannot comprehend to the full why such a
state of things is 'allowed' to prevail. Not knowing the intricate
working of transmission mechanisms, the tangled web of economic
relationships in a globalized (tele-networked) world, the proverbial
man in the street, used to assimilate gross quantities of newspaper
economics, may feel at a loss trying to comprehend how a government
controls income and employment, interest rates and inflation,

It is true that the 'recipes' of academic economists seem to have
little effect on the performance of underdeveloped countries when it
comes to be measured by actual levels of welfare as experienced by the
masses, but then it is true also that Economics is still a young
science and many venues of research, though enjoying of a highly
elaborated and formal language are nothing but first pebbles in a sea
of possibilities we are learning to navigate. Important results have
been found, but there are more results and insights yet to be found,
unless we want to consider Economics not as the dismal science but as
the dismayed science. The author refuses to assume such view and
therefore attempts to bring into discussion this proposal for a very
non-standard, and perhaps extreme, welfare policy tool to help solving
one of the icons of poverty in poor economies: the lack of housing
property.

A sudden massive condemnation of leased properties favoring tenants,
leaving aside people who own the place they live in, is an optimum
wealth redistribution policy (in the Rybszinsky sense), that brings an
increase in general welfare and an instantaneous impulse to the
development of the country implementing this policy.

People living in their own houses won't be affected, only will be
affected negatively owners receiving rents from their housing
properties. People living in a rented property experiment a net
immediate benefit by not having to pay the rents they were paying.
Since previous landlords would see their rents diminished, they must
receive compensation to avoid experimenting a net loss.

This compensation is given by the government from taxes. Since most
rented property os already amortized, the compensation price not
necessarily
the open market value (inefficient market), but it can be fixed as a
recovery cost. Strictly it is necessary that the discounted cash flow
of rents equals the discounted flow of rents after investing the
compensation monies in an equivalent low risk investment, like
treasury bonds. However, the government is free to set the
compensation price according to budget considerations.

Families that were paying rent now experiment a greater disposable
income for consumption and saving. These monies might generate
inflation in the short run, but since the increase in consumption
(demand) is permanent and it can be assumed that tenants will buy non
commerciable goods mainly, firms would have an incentive to increase
their level of output, which in turn implies an increase in the demand
for labor, reducing unemployment. Since in the short run the supply of
labor is fixed, it can be expected an increase in wages once
unemployment is reduced to the full employment level and available
hands enter the labor market. This also would reduce underground
(legal) economies and underemployment.

All these effects are multiplied by the income spills from the
increased consumption levels. It can be expected an increase in
consumption particularly from families under the equilibrium income
and since the increase is permanent it can also be expected an
increase in saving from families above the equilibrium point.

On the other hand, owners who lived from their rents would have an
(forced) incentive to diversify their portfolio and channel the
compensation flows to productive investments not necessarily related
to land. Given the new income and demand levels opportunities for
investment would multiply. There would be incentives both for
established firms to increase their output levels as for new firms to
be founded, generating jobs and increasing the country's product.

A fiscal policy based on indirect (sales) taxes would see an increase
in tax collection, while income taxes would experiment an increase
given lower unemplyment levels and better wages, thus alleviating the
problem of compensating the landlords. Since this policy favors low
income households, programs for the poor and those for housing can be
rechanneled to pay the compensations, though the particular
arrangement of the budget would depend on the particular conditions pf
the country implementing this policy.

It is also to be expected that this policy would favor the country's
main commercial partners by incrementing the demand for imports, both
final and intermediate goods. It is assumed a floating exchange rate
to allow the market to adjust the external effects of this policy,
though the exchange rate would improve given the new oportunities to
investment. Strictly there shouldn't be fugues of capital since the
permanent increase in demand would make profitable previously
unprofitable investments. Also, there can be expected better social
conditions because of the better wages and diminished criminality.

Interest rates would function as adjustment variables. To palliate the
short run inflationary effects a restrictive monetary policy should be
followed moderating or even reducing the money supply growth until it
can be kept growing at a constant rate.

For this policy to be effective, financial and real estate markets
must be relatively inefficient. Access to credit should be difficult
(for the majority), and the mortgages market must be small compared to
the mass of tenants, otherwise this policy becomes unjust to those who
have commerical credits to buy or build their houses, and the
condonation of the mortgages would affect negatively banks and other
financial agents. It is equally assumed that rents are paid to
individuals and not to firms that have invested in property and base
their income on the rent of those properties. Also it is important
that only rented housing be affected so that empty properties and
temporal housing facilities be spared. Incidentally, some landlords
that rent properties in better zones than those of the properties they
rent would get an additional benefot.


Since families don't remain static and new families are formed
continuously, there would be incentives to recondition properties not
in the market and to build new housing. It can be expected that the
new rent levels will be lower that before the condemnation since most
families would have had their housing problem solved. It is also
expected that properties in bad conditions due to frozen rents would
be revamped by their new owners.

This policy besides has the effect of avoiding the defects of
dictatorial policies with respect to preferences, since people have
already chosen according to their budget. It is assumed this policy is
implemented in a democratic country where private property is
respected de facto.

If the condemnation is not sudden but it is expected, landlords may
have an incentive to convert leasing contracts into mortgage
contracts, so that tenants would become owners instead of being
condemned to pay a perpetuity or "living tax".

This proposal shouldn't be construed as being a marxist policy; its
intention is to empower governments to realize one of their reasons to
be: to palliate the defects of the market by redistributing wealth in
a free economy.


This is not meant as a permanent solution to housing or wealth
accumulation, but as a one time move to solve historic inequalities.
Taxation schemes are  inefficient in countries like Mexico, where
taxation can only be assured through *imposition* for lack of fiscal
morality, widespread corruption and underground/informal economies. It
wouldn't work in America or Europe.


Should this policy generate violence? I think not, there is no need
for it. Who would engage in violence? People who owned their homes
wouldn't go violent for they wouldn't have a reason for it. People who
were renting become owners, so they wouldn't go violent either. Rich
people? The most affected are those who don't have a well balanced
portfolio, but at any moment they would be compensated. Rich people
with a well balanced portfolio wouldn't notice a diminution in their
rents' revenue, though it would depend on the compensation scheme.
Disregarding the financing problem, if they receive governmental bonds
yielding interest and that interest equals the previous revenue from
rents, they remain the same, only with more bonds in their portfolio,
so they have no reason to generate violence, unless they attach an
emotional content to the fact of owning properties and having tenants.
If the compensation is by means of lump sums, their periodic revenue
would suffer, but their wealth would remain (approximately) the same.
Small landowners wouldn't have the power or the will to go violent.
Governement, by definition and as an abstract entity, would be
neutral, for it wouldn't be affected either (a democratic government
doesn't rent properties to individuals). The homeless remain
unaffected too, though they might see this policy as unfair. Would
they bring in generalized violence? They might be stirred by rich
people, but that would and should be considered as a crime. In the
end, there shouldn't be more than a few mobs, easily controlled, and
although I assume this policy is implemented unexpectedly, some
preparation would be needed to convince the people. I believe they
would be convinced easily.

The implemetation of this policy shouldn't generate violence. Yet
there are cases where non generalized violence can surface: when
governments and political power depend on the ownership of land, like
the cacicazgos in Mexico. In that case it may be possible to expect
State terrorism against the promoters of this policy. To a State wit h
apopulation in the millions, it is easy to supress even a few
thousands, say, all the people that know a certain person, without
most of the population or other countries noticing. Like the night of
the Hugenots. This is particularly true when human rights issues are
still pending. Given centuries of experience in secret service
operations and the availability of advanced technologies, this kind of
State-against-individual war can be easily concealed and would only be
noticed by someone knowing the affair and comparing against actuarial
tables. In this sense Home for All is a dangerous policy even to read
or know about. Yet, under the right conditions, it is certain that it
will bring excedents to the country implementing it. It depends on the
amount of rented property and the price at which properties are taken.
When real state markets are inefficient, prices won't reflect true
values and there is certain leeway to fix prices in order to balance
the financing of this policy. Each country or region would be
responsible of calculating the appropriate figures.


This is a link to the original paper  proposal I submitted to the JPE
in july 2003.

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

#2843

Author: Uncle Al
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:32

31 lines
2527 bytes

"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote:
> 
> Looks like it has not been understood that this proposal includes
> compensation to the previous landlords. Technically, a Pareto optimum
> policy
> 
> "I HEREBY, BY THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON ME BY THE PEOPLE'S WILL, AND
> IN THE INTEREST OF THE WELL BEING OF THE MAJORITY, I DECREE:
> AS OF TODAY, ALL FAMILIES DWELLING IN A LEASED HOUSE OR APARTMENT
> BECOME THE PROPRIETORS OF SAID HOUSE OR APARTMENT. PEOPLE DWELLING IN
> A HOUSE OR APARTMENT OF THEIR OWN REMAIN THE PROPRIETORS OF SAID HOUSE
> OR APARTMENT. THE GOVERNMENT WILL COMPENSATE PREVIOUS OWNERS FOR THEIR
> PROPERTIES."

[snip 200 lines of crap]

Hey stooopid, government doesn't have any money.  Government produces
nothing.  The only money government has is stolen from your.  A
Liberal feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he pays off
with your money.  Republicans steal from what you have, Democrats
steal from what you might have.  The difference is hunger vs. famine.

Uncel Al says, "The money I make belongs to me and my family, not to a
government stooge who takes a cut and dumps the rest on slum bunnies
for squirting out babies."

-- 
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

#2844

Author: hanson
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:22

43 lines
3546 bytes

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:414F4C87.28EF2972@hate.spam.net...
> "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote:
> > Looks like it has not been understood that this proposal includes
> > compensation to the previous landlords. Technically, a Pareto optimum
> > policy
> >
> > "I HEREBY, BY THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON ME BY THE PEOPLE'S WILL, AND
> > IN THE INTEREST OF THE WELL BEING OF THE MAJORITY, I DECREE:
> > AS OF TODAY, ALL FAMILIES DWELLING IN A LEASED HOUSE OR APARTMENT
> > BECOME THE PROPRIETORS OF SAID HOUSE OR APARTMENT. PEOPLE DWELLING IN
> > A HOUSE OR APARTMENT OF THEIR OWN REMAIN THE PROPRIETORS OF SAID HOUSE
> > OR APARTMENT. THE GOVERNMENT WILL COMPENSATE PREVIOUS OWNERS FOR THEIR
> > PROPERTIES."
>
> [snip 200 lines of crap]
>
[Al]
> Hey stooopid, government doesn't have any money.  Government produces
> nothing.  The only money government has is stolen from your.  A
> Liberal feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he pays off
> with your money.  Republicans steal from what you have, Democrats
> steal from what you might have.  The difference is hunger vs. famine.
>
> Uncel Al says, "The money I make belongs to me and my family, not to a
> government stooge who takes a cut and dumps the rest on slum bunnies
> for squirting out babies."
> Uncle Al
>
[hanson]
True, true and true. But have you never noticed that the slum bunnies,
anywhere, have been/are and will be squirting out babies whether there's
hunger or famine?.........They are perennial like the grass....they sprout
like just it.... come rain or shine......despite Liberals, Dems or Reps.
They are part of the social landscape and they don't care what you
think or do...........You want to kill them all too, like the wogs?.....

Go back and check in your own family tree, when and which one of
your own direct ancestors was a slum bunny too, in some slum ghetto
Stettl in Eastern Europe. Or were all you Jews born to Royalty with
wet nurses and with a Silver spoon in the mouth?  Oye weh!
The bigger picture does matter, Al.
ahahahahaha........ahahahahanson

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

#2845

Author: robert j. kolker
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:59

14 lines
1642 bytes

Uncle Al wrote:

> Uncel Al says, "The money I make belongs to me and my family, not to a
> government stooge who takes a cut and dumps the rest on slum bunnies
> for squirting out babies."

In all fairness, the biggest welfare bums by dollar amount are large 
corporations recieving subsidies and special considerations under the 
law. It is a corrupt system. By rights there should not only be a 
separation of Church and State, but also a sepration of Business and State.

Bob Kolker

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

#2846

Author: jimp
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:38

24 lines
1882 bytes

In sci.physics robert j. kolker <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:


> Uncle Al wrote:

> > Uncel Al says, "The money I make belongs to me and my family, not to a
> > government stooge who takes a cut and dumps the rest on slum bunnies
> > for squirting out babies."

> In all fairness, the biggest welfare bums by dollar amount are large 
> corporations recieving subsidies and special considerations under the 
> law. It is a corrupt system. By rights there should not only be a 
> separation of Church and State, but also a sepration of Business and State.

> Bob Kolker

References?

Numbers from the Federal budget?

-- 
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

#2847

Author: jimp
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:55

45 lines
2761 bytes

In sci.physics Fabrizio J. Bonsignore <fbonsignore@beethoven.com> wrote:
> Looks like it has not been understood that this proposal includes
> compensation to the previous landlords. Technically, a Pareto optimum
> policy

> "I HEREBY, BY THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON ME BY THE PEOPLE'S WILL, AND
> IN THE INTEREST OF THE WELL BEING OF THE MAJORITY, I DECREE:
> AS OF TODAY, ALL FAMILIES DWELLING IN A LEASED HOUSE OR APARTMENT
> BECOME THE PROPRIETORS OF SAID HOUSE OR APARTMENT. PEOPLE DWELLING IN
> A HOUSE OR APARTMENT OF THEIR OWN REMAIN THE PROPRIETORS OF SAID HOUSE
> OR APARTMENT. THE GOVERNMENT WILL COMPENSATE PREVIOUS OWNERS FOR THEIR
> PROPERTIES."

<snip massive dreck>

Among the many things I did to pay the bills while going to school was
helping a guy make his rentals habitable again after renters had been
evicted. It was the most disgusting job I have ever held.

Among the more choice renters were:

The guy who would lie in bed and shoot at flies on the ceiling with his
9mm Browning (he was proud of his accuracy and his shooter; the cops were
not so impressed).

The sunlight streaming through all the bullet holes in the ceiling and
roof made for interesting effects.

The family that kept a rather large dog in one bedroom at all times.

Step 1: Carry out about 300lb of dog crap.

Step 2: Replace the whole floor.

I replaced lots of pissed on floors that were totally rotted out from
all the piss. I guess the IQ of the average renter is below that required
to hit the toilet.

Tell me how wonderful renters are.

-- 
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

#2848

Author: robert j. kolker
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:13

20 lines
1670 bytes

jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
> 
>>Bob Kolker
> 
> 
> References?
> 
> Numbers from the Federal budget?

Every defense contract to a private corporation is a subsidy. The 
Government should tax us and make its won weapons. The defense budget 
far outstrips the welfare budget.

There was a time when weapons were turned out in government owned and 
operated armories. No more. Now they give over priced contracts to their 
buddies.

Bob Kolker

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

#2849

Author: robert j. kolker
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:15

19 lines
1626 bytes

jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:

> 
> 
> References?
> 
> Numbers from the Federal budget?

In addition to defense contracts there are also the agricultural 
subsidies. The government has no constitutional authority whatsover to 
subsidies either family farmers or corporate form conglomerates like 
Archer Daniel Midland, Supermarket and Welfare Bum to the World. Check 
those out too.

Bob Kolker

>

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

#2850

Author: jimp
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:37

39 lines
2233 bytes

In sci.physics robert j. kolker <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:

> jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
> > 
> >>Bob Kolker
> > 
> > 
> > References?
> > 
> > Numbers from the Federal budget?

> Every defense contract to a private corporation is a subsidy. The 
> Government should tax us and make its won weapons. The defense budget 
> far outstrips the welfare budget.

Numbers?

According to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ Medicare and Social Security
get 35% of the budget and defense gets 16%

> There was a time when weapons were turned out in government owned and 
> operated armories. No more. Now they give over priced contracts to their 
> buddies.

When was this?

Numbers, citations?

The government has always bought weapons from private contractors.

Some facilities and equipment may be (and still are) owned by the 
government, but the work was always done by private contractors.

-- 
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

#2851

Author: jimp
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:39

27 lines
1896 bytes

In sci.physics robert j. kolker <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:


> jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:

> > 
> > 
> > References?
> > 
> > Numbers from the Federal budget?

> In addition to defense contracts there are also the agricultural 
> subsidies. The government has no constitutional authority whatsover to 
> subsidies either family farmers or corporate form conglomerates like 
> Archer Daniel Midland, Supermarket and Welfare Bum to the World. Check 
> those out too.

> Bob Kolker

And what percentage of the budget are agricultural subsidies?

Citations?

-- 
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

#2852

Author: hanson
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:14

26 lines
2728 bytes

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message 
news:2r9974F1707l4U3@uni-berlin.de...
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Uncel Al says, "The money I make belongs to me and my family, not to a
> > government stooge who takes a cut and dumps the rest on slum bunnies
> > for squirting out babies."
> 
> Bob Kolker
> In all fairness, the biggest welfare bums by dollar amount are large 
> corporations (1) recieving subsidies and special considerations under 
> the law. It is a corrupt system (2). By rights there should not only be  
> a separation (3) of Church and State, but also a sepration (3) of 
> Business and State.
> 
[hanson]
(1) True Bob, but look at it as a tax rebate for its employees.
A corp. itself is just a few sheets of paper. It's the workers and
the stockholders (= workers who bought/invested in shares 
and risk their own savings) who benefit from that "welfare".
(2) "corrupt"?.... That term is always and only used by the ones 
who have paid. But to the recipients it's knows as "bonus" pay.
(2 & 3) Not so loud with your advocacy, Bob. Clean your own
temple/synagogue first:
google for = Kosher Tax = : 66,000 hits, the pros & the cons,....
....a con by the pros........ahahahaha.......AHAHAHAHA...
ahahaha.......ahahahanson

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

#2840

Author: Ted Morris
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:58

16 lines
1873 bytes

[snip]

Jeez you ought to stick to physics. The government prints most of the
money (the banks do the rest electronically). And if you think the
government has no "product" why don't you move to Iraq where their
"product" is somewhat lacking.

> Hey stooopid, government doesn't have any money.  Government produces
> nothing.  The only money government has is stolen from your.  A
> Liberal feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he pays off
> with your money.  Republicans steal from what you have, Democrats
> steal from what you might have.  The difference is hunger vs. famine.
> 
> Uncel Al says, "The money I make belongs to me and my family, not to a
> government stooge who takes a cut and dumps the rest on slum bunnies
> for squirting out babies."

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

#2841

Author: The Trucker
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:57

67 lines
3743 bytes

Ted Morris wrote:

> [snip]
> 
> Jeez you ought to stick to physics. The government prints most of the
> money (the banks do the rest electronically). And if you think the
> government has no "product" why don't you move to Iraq where their
> "product" is somewhat lacking.

>> Hey stooopid, government doesn't have any money.

Actually, government has _ALL_ the money.  Money is created when
government spends it into existence.  You may possess gold or wheat
or whale's teeth.  But money is what the guy with the sword says it
is.  And government _IS_ the guy with the sword.

>>  Government produces
>> nothing. 

Government is in the enforcement business.  They produce security
and property rights protections since they have all the guns and swords
and since they supposedly act in regard to the will of the people.

>> The only money government has is stolen from your. 

Government may well steal your labors, and it does so by printing
money.  But there is no need for government to steal what it can
create at will.

>> A
>> Liberal feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he pays off
>> with your money.

Most "liberals" are concerned with _justice_.  And yes, they understand
egoists/conservatives are only interested in force and power of the
aristocracy and the nobility.

>> Republicans steal from what you have, Democrats
>> steal from what you might have.

This claim is, at best, inappropriate in that Republicans deficit spend
so as to take what you might have in the future.  Democrats of late
seem to get their financial support from letting the economy bloom
instead of making war on every two bit nation on the planet. 

>>  The difference is hunger vs. famine.

The difference is that Republicans are authoritarian ass kissers and
Democrats aren't.

>> 
>> Uncel Al says, "The money I make belongs to me and my family, not to a
>> government stooge who takes a cut and dumps the rest on slum bunnies
>> for squirting out babies."

Uncle Al would do well to understand that welfare in all its guises
(other than corporate welfare) is less than 6% of the discretionary
budget, while "defense" is more than 70%.  So to claim that government
steals from the rich so as to fund welfare illustrates abject stupidity
or a very real talent at ignoring facts and/or lying.

-- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but
the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough
to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy
is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson.  http://GreaterVoice.org

🚀 go-pugleaf

Thread View: sci.econ

Home for All, polemic development policy

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

Re: Home for All, polemic development policy

Thread Navigation