Winston Churchill: Land Price as a Cause of Poverty
Correspondent:: "Quirk" Date: 17 Feb 2005 03:52:03 -0800
--------
LAND PRICE AS A CAUSE OF POVERTY
Winston Churchill's Speech in the House of Commons, 4 May 1909,
in response to Mr AJ Balfour, Leader of the Opposition
The immemorial custom of nearly every modern State, the mature
conclusions of many of the greatest thinkers, have placed the tenure,
transfer, and obligations of land in a wholly different category from
other classes of property. The mere obvious physical distinction
between land, which is a vital necessity of every human being and which
at the same time is strictly limited in extent, and other property is
in itself sufficient to justify a clear differentiation in its
treatment, and in the view taken by the State of the conditions which
should govern the tenure of land from that which should regulate
traffic in other forms of property.
Unearned Increment When the Leader of the Opposition seeks by
comparisons to show that the same reasoning which has been applied to
land ought also in logic and by every argument of symmetry to be
applied to the unearned increment derived from other processes which
are at work in our modern civilisation, he only shows by each example
he takes how different are the conditions which attach to the
possession of land and speculation in the value of land from those
which attach to other forms of business speculation.
"If," he inquires, "you tax the unearned increment on land, why don't
you tax the unearned increment from a large block of stock? I buy a
piece of land; the value rises. I buy stocks; their value rises." But
the operations are entirely dissimilar. In the first speculation the
unearned increment derived from land arises from a wholly sterile
process, from the mere withholding of a commodity which is needed by
the community. In the second case, the investor in a block of shares
does not withhold from the community what the community needs. The one
operation is in restraint of trade and in conflict with the general
interest, and the other is part of a natural and healthy process, by
which the economic plant of the world is nourished and from year to
year successfully and notably increased.
Landowner and Railway Co. Then the right hon. gentleman instanced the
case of a new railway and a country district enriched by that railway.
The railway, he explained, is built to open up a new district; and the
farmers and landowners in that district are endowed with unearned
increment in consequence of the building of the railway. But if after a
while their business aptitude and industry create a large carrying
trade, then the railway, he contends, gets its unearned increment in
its turn.
But the right hon. gentleman cannot call the increment unearned which
the railway acquires through the regular service of carrying goods,
rendering a service on each occasion in proportion to the tonnage of
goods it carries, making a profit by an active extension of the scale
of its useful business - he cannot surely compare that process with the
process of getting rich merely by sitting still? It is clear that the
analogy is not true.
The Glasgow Example I do not think the Leader of the Opposition could
have chosen a more unfortunate example than Glasgow. He said that the
demand of that great community for land was for not more than forty
acres a year. Is that the only demand of the people of Glasgow for
land? Does that really represent the complete economic and natural
demand for the amount of land a population of that size requires to
live on? I will admit that at present prices it may be all that they
can afford to purchase in the course of a year. But there are one
hundred and twenty thousand persons in Glasgow who are living in
one-room tenements; and we are told that the utmost land those people
can absorb economically and naturally is forty acres a year.
What is the explanation? Because the population is congested in the
city the price of land is high upon the suburbs, and because the price
of land is high upon the suburbs the population must remain congested
within the city. That is the position which we are complacently assured
is in accordance with the principles which have hitherto dominated
civilised society.
The "Poor Widow" Bogey But when we seek to rectify this system, to
break down this unnatural and vicious circle, to interrupt this
sequence of unsatisfactory reactions, what happens? We are not
confronted with any great argument on behalf of the owner. Something
else is put forward, and it is always put forward in these cases to
shield the actual landowner or the actual capitalist from the logic of
the argument or from the force of a Parliamentary movement.
Sometimes it is the widow. But that personality has been used to
exhaustion. It would be sweating in the cruellest sense of the word,
overtime of the grossest description, to bring the widow out again so
soon. She must have a rest for a bit; so instead of the widow we have
the market-gardener - the market-gardener liable to be disturbed on the
outskirts of great cities, if the population of those cities expands,
if the area which they require for their health and daily life should
become larger than it is at present.
What is the position disclosed by the argument? On the one hand, we
have one hundred and twenty thousand persons in Glasgow occupying
one-room tenements; on the other, the land of Scotland. Between the two
stands the market-gardener, and we are solemnly invited, for the sake
of the market-gardener, to keep that great population congested within
limits that are unnatural and restricted to an annual supply of land
which can bear no relation whatever to their physical, social, and
economic needs - and all for the sake of the market-gardener, who can
perfectly well move farther out as the city spreads and who would not
really be in the least injured.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:58:29 GMT
--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>LAND PRICE AS A CAUSE OF POVERTY
>
>Winston Churchill's Speech in the House of Commons, 4 May 1909,
> in response to Mr AJ Balfour, Leader of the Opposition
>
>The immemorial custom of nearly every modern State, the mature
>conclusions of many of the greatest thinkers, have placed the tenure,
>transfer, and obligations of land in a wholly different category from
>other classes of property. The mere obvious physical distinction
>between land, which is a vital necessity of every human being and which
>at the same time is strictly limited in extent, and other property is
>in itself sufficient to justify a clear differentiation in its
>treatment, and in the view taken by the State of the conditions which
>should govern the tenure of land from that which should regulate
>traffic in other forms of property.
Oh, yeah! Land tenure. Land tenure is a big deal in Guatemala,
where I think a dozen families own 80% of the land.
There are land tenure projects and a land tenure institute.
Correspondent:: polar bear Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:12:32 -0800
--------
In article
<9q1Rd.229397$w62.125997@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, König
Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:
> "Quirk" wrote:
>
> >LAND PRICE AS A CAUSE OF POVERTY
> >
> >Winston Churchill's Speech in the House of Commons, 4 May 1909,
> > in response to Mr AJ Balfour, Leader of the Opposition
> >
> >The immemorial custom of nearly every modern State, the mature
> >conclusions of many of the greatest thinkers, have placed the tenure,
> >transfer, and obligations of land in a wholly different category from
> >other classes of property. The mere obvious physical distinction
> >between land, which is a vital necessity of every human being and which
> >at the same time is strictly limited in extent, and other property is
> >in itself sufficient to justify a clear differentiation in its
> >treatment, and in the view taken by the State of the conditions which
> >should govern the tenure of land from that which should regulate
> >traffic in other forms of property.
>
> Oh, yeah! Land tenure. Land tenure is a big deal in Guatemala,
> where I think a dozen families own 80% of the land.
>
> There are land tenure projects and a land tenure institute.
>
> So, what are the big differences between Venture Communism
> and Economic Democracy?
> http://www.ied.info/
> http://www.ied.info/books/ed/
Land redistribution worked really well in Zimbabwe.
pb
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:52:41 GMT
--------
polar bear wrote:
>In article
><9q1Rd.229397$w62.125997@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, König
>Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:
>
>> "Quirk" wrote:
>>
>> >LAND PRICE AS A CAUSE OF POVERTY
>> >
>> >Winston Churchill's Speech in the House of Commons, 4 May 1909,
>> > in response to Mr AJ Balfour, Leader of the Opposition
>> >
>> >The immemorial custom of nearly every modern State, the mature
>> >conclusions of many of the greatest thinkers, have placed the tenure,
>> >transfer, and obligations of land in a wholly different category from
>> >other classes of property. The mere obvious physical distinction
>> >between land, which is a vital necessity of every human being and which
>> >at the same time is strictly limited in extent, and other property is
>> >in itself sufficient to justify a clear differentiation in its
>> >treatment, and in the view taken by the State of the conditions which
>> >should govern the tenure of land from that which should regulate
>> >traffic in other forms of property.
>>
>> Oh, yeah! Land tenure. Land tenure is a big deal in Guatemala,
>> where I think a dozen families own 80% of the land.
>>
>> There are land tenure projects and a land tenure institute.
>>
>> So, what are the big differences between Venture Communism
>> and Economic Democracy?
>> http://www.ied.info/
>> http://www.ied.info/books/ed/
>
>Land redistribution worked really well in Zimbabwe.
>
>pb
Yeah. I don't think a lot of the examples translate,
like Churchill's saying that the cities can expand and
the farmers can just keep moving. That doesn't work
with agribiz, which is also the case now in Guatemala.
Sure, it would be nice if all the Indians had a piece of
land, but they likely could not make a living, as is the
case in Zimbabwe. I think that new situations require
new solutions, Scots farmers moving farther out will
not help Glasgow much. The Glasgow Shipyard is
the biggest in the world, I think, and they can't well
move it. Zimbabwe is a horrible example of land
redistribution, I haven't been reading a lot about it,
but I would guess that their agriculture is a disaster,
and their ability to import food and necessities is
probably nil, or even less! I think that I heard that
the Zimbabwe opposition press is now publishing
in London, due to political repression. I may have
to move there myself.
Correspondent:: "Rev. Richard Skull" Date: 17 Feb 2005 15:56:09 -0800
--------
After the Faulkland War the British (finally) took a good look at the
Islands they spilled blood to get back.
Seems at the time Agrentina invaded, the Faulklands were ding. Almost
ALL the young people left to find work in England, South Africa or
Argentina.
The vast majority of the population were dirt poor tenant farmers. In
fact 95% of all the land in the Faulklands were owned by 6 people
living in Great Briton!
If the Argentines really wanted the Islands, (as opposed to invading
them to draw attnetion to the fact the dictators screwed up the whole
country) all they ahd to do was wait and within 10 to 15 years they
would have probally fallen right into their hands.
So thatcher decided to do the 100% market based thing! her new
policies:
1) LAND REFORM! yes! All teh famrland (mostly sheep herding) was taken
from the landlords and GIVEN to the locals!
2) The locals were given direct payment subsidies as long as they
stayed on the Island (later stopped)
3) All taxes were stopped on income (personal and business) generated
on the Islands. (also stopped later on)
Many British businesses opened "branches" there to get the tax breaks.
Kinda like Barbados today for the USA.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:19:13 GMT
--------
"Rev. Richard Skull" wrote:
>After the Faulkland War the British (finally) took a good look at the
>Islands they spilled blood to get back.
>
>Seems at the time Agrentina invaded, the Faulklands were ding. Almost
>ALL the young people left to find work in England, South Africa or
>Argentina.
>
>The vast majority of the population were dirt poor tenant farmers. In
>fact 95% of all the land in the Faulklands were owned by 6 people
>living in Great Briton!
>
>If the Argentines really wanted the Islands, (as opposed to invading
>them to draw attnetion to the fact the dictators screwed up the whole
>country) all they ahd to do was wait and within 10 to 15 years they
>would have probally fallen right into their hands.
>
>So thatcher decided to do the 100% market based thing! her new
>policies:
>
>1) LAND REFORM! yes! All teh famrland (mostly sheep herding) was taken
>from the landlords and GIVEN to the locals!
>
>2) The locals were given direct payment subsidies as long as they
>stayed on the Island (later stopped)
>
>3) All taxes were stopped on income (personal and business) generated
>on the Islands. (also stopped later on)
>
>Many British businesses opened "branches" there to get the tax breaks.
>Kinda like Barbados today for the USA.
>
I was living in Mexico City during that time, and it was weird to me
that everyone was mostly cheering for Argentina. Latino solidarity.
There was some news that there was a lot of arms marketing then.
I remember that a couple of the British ships got whacked pretty good
with cruise missles.
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:53:01 -0700
--------
König, Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:
>
> I remember that a couple of the British ships got
> whacked pretty good with cruise missles.
That totally changed ship construction. For years,
they had been going for very light hulled vessels, but
then, all of a sudden, they took a bunch of those VERY
armored WWII-era ships out of mothballs and re-fit them
for modern warfare. It was guessed that one of those
French built Exocet missiles, that tore apart a huge
hole in a modern ship, would only punch a quarter-sized
hole in the outer hull only of a WWII-era ship.
The other zinger was the British sub that sank the
Argie hospital ship. Some junior officer on board kept
his own log of the incident (which in past has been a
hanging offense), and published it once they got back
to merry old. They involked the Official Secrets Act
on his ass and he ended up doing 5-10 at the Naval
prison.
--
"I can imagine a LOT when it comes
to unimaginable power."
-- nu-monet
Correspondent:: "Quirk" Date: 18 Feb 2005 06:15:19 -0800
--------
König wrote:
> I was living in Mexico City during that time,
I was attending a British school in Brussels at the time.
> I remember that a couple of the British ships got whacked pretty good
> with cruise missles.
That's when it stopped being a joke.
Correspondent:: polar bear Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:51:54 -0800
--------
In article <1108736119.722759.208850@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Quirk" wrote:
> König wrote:
>
> > I was living in Mexico City during that time,
>
> I was attending a British school in Brussels at the time.
>
> > I remember that a couple of the British ships got whacked pretty good
> > with cruise missles.
>
> That's when it stopped being a joke.
Actually, it stopped being a joke when the British sunk the Belgrano.
pb
Correspondent:: polar bear Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:16:01 -0800
--------
In article <1108684569.705760.169780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Rev. Richard Skull" wrote:
> After the Faulkland War the British (finally) took a good look at the
> Islands they spilled blood to get back.
>
> Seems at the time Agrentina invaded, the Faulklands were ding. Almost
> ALL the young people left to find work in England, South Africa or
> Argentina.
>
> The vast majority of the population were dirt poor tenant farmers. In
> fact 95% of all the land in the Faulklands were owned by 6 people
> living in Great Briton!
>
> If the Argentines really wanted the Islands, (as opposed to invading
> them to draw attnetion to the fact the dictators screwed up the whole
> country) all they ahd to do was wait and within 10 to 15 years they
> would have probally fallen right into their hands.
>
> So thatcher decided to do the 100% market based thing! her new
> policies:
>
> 1) LAND REFORM! yes! All teh famrland (mostly sheep herding) was taken
> from the landlords and GIVEN to the locals!
>
> 2) The locals were given direct payment subsidies as long as they
> stayed on the Island (later stopped)
>
> 3) All taxes were stopped on income (personal and business) generated
> on the Islands. (also stopped later on)
>
> Many British businesses opened "branches" there to get the tax breaks.
> Kinda like Barbados today for the USA.
If the Falklanders had any sense, they would have set themselves up as
an offshore banking zone, like the Channel Islands. As it stands,
most South Americans do their serious banking in Uruguay. Could have
given them a run for the money, what with the British cachet and all.
Dumbass sheep farmers. Pacific Islanders have more clues.
pb
Correspondent:: "Quirk" Date: 18 Feb 2005 06:12:42 -0800
--------
Rev. Richard Skull wrote:
> So thatcher decided to do the 100% market based thing! her new
> policies:
> 1) LAND REFORM! yes! All teh famrland (mostly sheep herding) was
taken
> from the landlords and GIVEN to the locals!
Land Value Taxation with a dividend for the locals would have
accomplished the same thing, only without appropriation.
> 2) The locals were given direct payment subsidies as long as they
> stayed on the Island (later stopped)
Thus unfairly transferring wealth to them from other British Subjects.
> 3) All taxes were stopped on income (personal and business) generated
> on the Islands. (also stopped later on)
Thus unfairly transferring wealth to them from other British Subjects.
> Many British businesses opened "branches" there to get the tax
breaks.
> Kinda like Barbados today for the USA.
Thus allowing these businesses to transfer wealth to themselves from
other British subjects.
Of course, the land value derived not only from Sheep Herding, but also
from fisheries and the prospect of Oil.
Both Britain and Argentina have plenty of land for Sheep.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:47:36 GMT
--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>Rev. Richard Skull wrote:
>
>> So thatcher decided to do the 100% market based thing! her new
>> policies:
>
>> 1) LAND REFORM! yes! All teh famrland (mostly sheep herding) was
>taken
>> from the landlords and GIVEN to the locals!
>
>Land Value Taxation with a dividend for the locals would have
>accomplished the same thing, only without appropriation.
>
>> 2) The locals were given direct payment subsidies as long as they
>> stayed on the Island (later stopped)
>
>Thus unfairly transferring wealth to them from other British Subjects.
>
>> 3) All taxes were stopped on income (personal and business) generated
>> on the Islands. (also stopped later on)
>
>Thus unfairly transferring wealth to them from other British Subjects.
>
>> Many British businesses opened "branches" there to get the tax
>breaks.
>> Kinda like Barbados today for the USA.
>
>Thus allowing these businesses to transfer wealth to themselves from
>other British subjects.
>
>Of course, the land value derived not only from Sheep Herding, but also
>from fisheries and the prospect of Oil.
>
>Both Britain and Argentina have plenty of land for Sheep.
>
Yeah, but Argentina is for BEEVES!
Ridin' herd on sheeps just ain't manly.
You gots to have a horse if you want to be
a vaquero on the pampas. And bolos for
bringing down the mighty emu. Man, you just ain't
lived until you've bolo'd an emu and bbq'd
it out on the pampas.
Lamb chops are good, but leave the sheep biz
to the Aussies, sez I.
Argentine Dried Beef, Black Beans&Rice, yum!
They call black beans and rice "Moros y Christianos"
which might be politically incorrect at this point in time.
Don't cry for me, Argentina!
Correspondent:: Peter Lawrence Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:36:08 GMT
[That should be Koenig IN Pruess, by the way - PML]
GfbAEV wrote:
> >
> >> "Quirk" wrote:.
.
.
> >> Oh, yeah! Land tenure. Land tenure is a big deal in Guatemala,
> >> where I think a dozen families own 80% of the land.
> >>
> >> There are land tenure projects and a land tenure institute.
> >>
> >> So, what are the big differences between Venture Communism
> >> and Economic Democracy?
> >> http://www.ied.info/
> >> http://www.ied.info/books/ed/
> >
> >Land redistribution worked really well in Zimbabwe.
> >
> >pb
>
> Yeah. I don't think a lot of the examples translate,
> like Churchill's saying that the cities can expand and
> the farmers can just keep moving. That doesn't work
> with agribiz, which is also the case now in Guatemala.
> Sure, it would be nice if all the Indians had a piece of
> land, but they likely could not make a living, as is the
> case in Zimbabwe.
There's something here you might not be aware of. It's the obverse of
something I've pointed out on news:sci.econ before, how third world
competition can outcompete developed economy workers by offering sustainable
wage levels BELOW a living wage.
The trick is this. As developing economies, there is generally some
subsistence land about which doesn't figure in the cash economy statistics.
It's not enough to live off (as you pointed out), but it means two things:-
- poor people with those resources only need a top up cash wage to survive
(and a lower local cost of living often makes that easier);
- there are a great many people in that boat in those countries, so the Iron
Law of Wages drives basic wages to that level - which is below a living wage.
As the whole economy is connected, other niches in the economy get comparably
low in proportion, so Indian software developers are cheaper and so on. This
is because that downward pressure actually lowers the cost of living for
those in the cash economy (not enough fully to compensate those at the
bottom, though).
Anyhow, the obverse feature that is relevant for this post is this: a little
subsistence land can make all the difference, EVEN IF it is not enough for
subsistence by itself.
Although there are no comparable cases to the first stage around now,
historical evidence shows that developing countries went through roughly
three phases as regards wages:-
- Largely undeveloped, with the self sufficient natives uninterested in the
outside world. Very high wages might attract a very few into doing work in
the cash economy.
- Partly developed, with insufficient subsistence resources. This led to very
low wages, from the scenario outlined above. It often came about from
colonialists distorting things deliberately with land reform, taxes,
corvee/robotnik under another name, etc. It continues under Malthusian
constraints from increase of population enabled by the initial distortions
(which included a reduction in mortality from better hygiene and less tribal
warfare).
- More fully developed, in which people either get high wages or die (no
social security there). Wages are higher there, but that's misleading as it
doesn't factor in other relevant features.
It is only the first case and our own case (with social security as a safety
net) in which wages correlate well with well being. That's because wages show
the amount of carrot but don't show the amount of stick (i.e. arising from
the lack of real choice).
Most of the policies discussed around here provide food for thought but have
their own peculiar problems. Sustained, they would usually substitute one
evil for another, possibly after a misleading honeymoon period that
encouraged people to get in too deep. But they often draw attention to each
other's overlooked areas, so they are worth looking over all the same. PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS
I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://member.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
items on that page for some reasons why.
Correspondent:: nenslo Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:11:33 -0800
--------
If Winston Churchill is so smart why is he DEAD? The dead are losers.
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:45:50 GMT
--------
In article <42154ED5.682E4C1C@yahoox.com>, nenslo
wrote:
> If Winston Churchill is so smart why is he DEAD? The dead are losers.
Then Usenet is the biggest fucking zombie preserve since the Khmer
Rouge did the Genocide Mambo.
--
HellPope Huey
Go the the pet store and buy a box of white mice,
such as people feed their pet snakes
and drive around throwing them at people from your car.
That should clear your head a bit.
That best portion of a good man's life:
His little, nameless, unremembered acts
of kindness and of love.
- William Wordsworth
"Cool! I'm vomit!"
- Bart Simpson
Correspondent:: "Quirk" Date: 18 Feb 2005 05:59:05 -0800
--------
polar bear wrote:
> Land redistribution worked really well in Zimbabwe.
Land redistribution is still rooted in private ownership of land, and
worse, coercive apropriation.
Land Value Taxation is a much better idea if you are a liberal.
However, If you are an Anarchist, then you might prefer the model I'm
developing, Venture Communism.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:02:20 GMT
--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>polar bear wrote:
>
>> Land redistribution worked really well in Zimbabwe.
>
>Land redistribution is still rooted in private ownership of land, and
>worse, coercive apropriation.
>
>Land Value Taxation is a much better idea if you are a liberal.
>
>However, If you are an Anarchist, then you might prefer the model I'm
>developing, Venture Communism.
>
Well, just for marketability, I'd change the label;
keep the product the same, but change the label.
Economic Democracy sounds great, even though
it's terribly subversive.
Correspondent:: "Quirk" Date: 18 Feb 2005 06:21:48 -0800
--------
König wrote:
> Well, just for marketability, I'd change the label;
> keep the product the same, but change the label.
> Economic Democracy sounds great, even though
> it's terribly subversive.
Of course König, but right now I am not marketing the idea, I am
defending the idea from criticicm, sort of a poor man's peer review.
For this purpose, the most provocative name possible is what is
required.
Venture Communism is a perfect name, it has the juxtaposition with
Venture Capitalism going for it, plus it manages to piss off the right
wing loons and the marxists equally. This is exactly what I need to
hone my defenses.
When I put the idea into practice, each enterprise will use whatever
names markets them best.
Since I am syndicalist, I do not need the idea to be generally popular,
just effective.
I'll leave the subversion of the liberals up to the Georgists.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:01:48 GMT
--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>König wrote:
>
>> Well, just for marketability, I'd change the label;
>> keep the product the same, but change the label.
>
>> Economic Democracy sounds great, even though
>> it's terribly subversive.
>
>Of course König, but right now I am not marketing the idea, I am
>defending the idea from criticicm, sort of a poor man's peer review.
>
>For this purpose, the most provocative name possible is what is
>required.
>
>Venture Communism is a perfect name, it has the juxtaposition with
>Venture Capitalism going for it, plus it manages to piss off the right
>wing loons and the marxists equally. This is exactly what I need to
>hone my defenses.
>
>When I put the idea into practice, each enterprise will use whatever
>names markets them best.
>
>Since I am syndicalist, I do not need the idea to be generally popular,
>just effective.
>
>I'll leave the subversion of the liberals up to the Georgists.
>
"what's in a name? a rose by any other name would smell as sweet!"
Not so! For example, if you called the Republicans
"The Fuck the Working Man Party"
I don't think that they could get elected for dog catcher,
even with massive voter fraud.
If you are trying to generate a contagious meme,
make it catchy.
If you get too esoteric in your structuralist analysis,
you risk becoming so obscure that people will walk
away.
It's like Nenslo's version of slack.
It's so obscure and chauvanistic that most people
think he's cool because he basically doesn't know
what the fuck he's talking about most of the time.
But he's self-indulgent and artsy, so it looks good
from the outside. You know the slogan, "You'd pay
to know what you think!" Sheeeeyit! I'd pay to watch
Nenslo get hit in the head 10x with a ball-peen hammer!
Correspondent:: "Quirk" Date: 18 Feb 2005 08:05:50 -0800
--------
König wrote:
> most people think he's cool
false premise.
Correspondent:: polar bear Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:55:50 -0800
--------
In article <1108742750.760965.44800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Quirk" wrote:
> König wrote:
>
> > most people think he's cool
>
> false premise.
Oh no, he's definitely cool. You'd need ten whacks with a ballpeen
just to knock the ice off him.
pb
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:35:22 GMT
--------
In article
,
König Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:
> You know the slogan, "You'd pay
> to know what you think!" Sheeeeyit! I'd pay to watch
> Nenslo get hit in the head 10x with a ball-peen hammer!
Its amazing how many never got past that childhood phase where they
smashed a few frogs with a brick, just to see what would happen. I am
confident that this explains the general nature of the Church of the
SubGenius and virtually all political events.
Besides, if you'd stop at 1 or 2 whacks, Nenslo might become more
entertaining and somewhat less Nensletic, but too much hammer-whackage
isn't always better than not enough. Who is going to clean up that goo?
10 whacks is for Presidents and conservative MPs; 4 or 5 work for
Jesus, 3 is plenty for Eris and 2 will usually do for curmudgeonly
gadflies and old ladies trying to make you eat a sample of chemical glop
passing as cheese when you go to the grocery store on a Saturday.
--
HellPope Huey
I'm replacing Conan O'Brien in November.
Tune in, won't you?
Just as every conviction begins as a whim
so does every emancipator
serve his apprenticeship as a crank.
~Heywood Broun
"I'm going to go into rap music;
I'm going to call myself 'Muff Daddy.'"
- Eric Idle
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:11:55 GMT
--------
Hell Poop wrote:
>In article
>,
> König Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:
>
>> You know the slogan, "You'd pay
>> to know what you think!" Sheeeeyit! I'd pay to watch
>> Nenslo get hit in the head 10x with a ball-peen hammer!
>
> Its amazing how many never got past that childhood phase where they
>smashed a few frogs with a brick, just to see what would happen. I am
>confident that this explains the general nature of the Church of the
>SubGenius and virtually all political events.
But, no! Not a frog!
I beat a kid to DEATH with a croquet mallet
when I was four years old.
Billy the Kid killed first when he was 8
And I'm not talking about frogs now,
I think it would be waaaay kewl to watch
someone knock the Nenslo in the cranny
10x's with a 32oz ball peen hammer!
Whattya say kids?
I grew up in a nuclear missile family,
and I ain't gonna hide it no more.
I am ready to kill millions of people,
and no one asshole stands in the way
of progress. Not even ME!
"One monkey don't stop the show!"
Not even Stang.
or "BoB"
Some of us never got over wanting to whomp
somebody with a dead cat. What the fuck were
you saying about cats? I dunno, don't much care.
Come on out in the woods, Hooey!
an' we'll go coon huntin'!
Little bit o' poon tang fer breakfast,
if you catch my meaning, if you get my drift...
Correspondent:: royls@telus.net
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:30:45 GMT
--------
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:12:32 -0800, polar bear wrote:
>Land redistribution worked really well in Zimbabwe.
It did? And here I thought Mugabe had simply replaced privileged but
at least experienced and competent white private landowners with
privileged but inexperienced and incompetent black ones. With the
predictable disastrous results. You have some different information?
-- Roy L
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:20:31 GMT
--------
royls wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:12:32 -0800, polar bear wrote:
>
>>Land redistribution worked really well in Zimbabwe.
>
>It did? And here I thought Mugabe had simply replaced privileged but
>at least experienced and competent white private landowners with
>privileged but inexperienced and incompetent black ones. With the
>predictable disastrous results. You have some different information?
>
>-- Roy L
So, black dumb bastards are way better than white dumb bastards?
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel, (2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
I am not your bitch anymore, nigger!
You are on your bastard ass AIDS riddled own!
OH! I am sending you this letter because I was the
King of OOgaboogaland, but now the treassury weighs
heavily upon my head. So, if you could please send me
your Spambot # please and some clams, I would do
the same for you maybe someday, if you let me fuck
your daughters in the behind!
Theenkyew, beerymush, I yam a stoopoid nigger!
Send money now, or I risk exstincktion by masss
stoopid too ddumb to find food unless the White Man
send many many Mac Dougal burgers, many French
Fries, and some BBQ Chicken Wangs.
Correspondent:: polar bear Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 03:03:37 -0800
--------
In article <421626cc.6430583@news.telus.net>, royls@telus.net wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:12:32 -0800, polar bear wrote:
>
> >Land redistribution worked really well in Zimbabwe.
>
> It did? And here I thought Mugabe had simply replaced privileged but
> at least experienced and competent white private landowners with
> privileged but inexperienced and incompetent black ones. With the
> predictable disastrous results. You have some different information?
>
> -- Roy L
Sorry, I had the sarcasm font switched off.
pb
Correspondent:: "sinister" Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:40:39 GMT
--------
"polar bear" wrote in message
news:190220050303375822%bear@pole.com...
> In article <421626cc.6430583@news.telus.net>, royls@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:12:32 -0800, polar bear wrote:
>>
>> >Land redistribution worked really well in Zimbabwe.
>>
>> It did? And here I thought Mugabe had simply replaced privileged but
>> at least experienced and competent white private landowners with
>> privileged but inexperienced and incompetent black ones. With the
>> predictable disastrous results. You have some different information?
>>
>> -- Roy L
>
> Sorry, I had the sarcasm font switched off.
LOL!
Yes, of course royls understood that you intended to be sarcastic.
Which makes your last comment hilarious---since you didn't understand *his*
sarcasm. Which you wouldn't, because his point is far subtler.
>
> pb
Correspondent:: polar bear Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:04:40 -0800
--------
In article , "sinister"
wrote:
> "polar bear" wrote in message
> news:190220050303375822%bear@pole.com...
> > In article <421626cc.6430583@news.telus.net>, royls@telus.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:12:32 -0800, polar bear wrote:
> >>
> >> >Land redistribution worked really well in Zimbabwe.
> >>
> >> It did? And here I thought Mugabe had simply replaced privileged but
> >> at least experienced and competent white private landowners with
> >> privileged but inexperienced and incompetent black ones. With the
> >> predictable disastrous results. You have some different information?
> >>
> >> -- Roy L
> >
> > Sorry, I had the sarcasm font switched off.
>
> LOL!
>
> Yes, of course royls understood that you intended to be sarcastic.
>
> Which makes your last comment hilarious---since you didn't understand *his*
> sarcasm. Which you wouldn't, because his point is far subtler.
>
On the contrary, mine was the deeper troll. Notice how it led YOU to
believe that *I* didn't recognize HIS sarcasm? Besides, his point
wasn't all that subtle to begin with. There's lots of people trying to
be clever on usenet, but very few that actually are.
pb
Correspondent:: royls@telus.net
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:43:40 GMT
--------
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:04:40 -0800, polar bear wrote:
>In article , "sinister"
> wrote:
>
>> "polar bear" wrote in message
>> news:190220050303375822%bear@pole.com...
>> > In article <421626cc.6430583@news.telus.net>, royls@telus.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:12:32 -0800, polar bear wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Land redistribution worked really well in Zimbabwe.
>> >>
>> >> It did? And here I thought Mugabe had simply replaced privileged but
>> >> at least experienced and competent white private landowners with
>> >> privileged but inexperienced and incompetent black ones. With the
>> >> predictable disastrous results. You have some different information? L
>> >
>> > Sorry, I had the sarcasm font switched off.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Yes, of course royls understood that you intended to be sarcastic.
>>
>> Which makes your last comment hilarious---since you didn't understand *his*
>> sarcasm. Which you wouldn't, because his point is far subtler.
>>
>On the contrary, mine was the deeper troll. Notice how it led YOU to
>believe that *I* didn't recognize HIS sarcasm?
Your post makes it obvious that you didn't.
>Besides, his point
>wasn't all that subtle to begin with.
I didn't think so either, which is why it surprised me when you didn't
get it.
>There's lots of people trying to
>be clever on usenet, but very few that actually are.
And the nominees for best unconscious self-reference in a Usenet post
are....
-- Roy L
Correspondent:: "Quirk" Date: 18 Feb 2005 06:01:05 -0800
--------
König wrote:
> So, what are the big differences between Venture Communism
> and Economic Democracy?
The primary difference is that Venture Communism is not based on the
State, but rather uses a syndicalist model.
Correspondent:: "Michael Price" Date: 27 Feb 2005 18:42:20 -0800
--------
Considering that Winston Churchills efforts with the vastly
overpriced Sterling went a long way to causing the great depression
that's pretty rich.
Quirk wrote:
> LAND PRICE AS A CAUSE OF POVERTY
>
> Winston Churchill's Speech in the House of Commons, 4 May 1909,
> in response to Mr AJ Balfour, Leader of the Opposition
>
> The immemorial custom of nearly every modern State, the mature
> conclusions of many of the greatest thinkers, have placed the tenure,
> transfer, and obligations of land in a wholly different category from
> other classes of property. The mere obvious physical distinction
> between land, which is a vital necessity of every human being and
which
> at the same time is strictly limited in extent, and other property is
> in itself sufficient to justify a clear differentiation in its
> treatment, and in the view taken by the State of the conditions which
> should govern the tenure of land from that which should regulate
> traffic in other forms of property.
>
> Unearned Increment When the Leader of the Opposition seeks by
> comparisons to show that the same reasoning which has been applied to
> land ought also in logic and by every argument of symmetry to be
> applied to the unearned increment derived from other processes which
> are at work in our modern civilisation, he only shows by each example
> he takes how different are the conditions which attach to the
> possession of land and speculation in the value of land from those
> which attach to other forms of business speculation.
>
> "If," he inquires, "you tax the unearned increment on land, why don't
> you tax the unearned increment from a large block of stock? I buy a
> piece of land; the value rises. I buy stocks; their value rises." But
> the operations are entirely dissimilar. In the first speculation the
> unearned increment derived from land arises from a wholly sterile
> process, from the mere withholding of a commodity which is needed by
> the community. In the second case, the investor in a block of shares
> does not withhold from the community what the community needs. The
one
> operation is in restraint of trade and in conflict with the general
> interest, and the other is part of a natural and healthy process, by
> which the economic plant of the world is nourished and from year to
> year successfully and notably increased.
>
> Landowner and Railway Co. Then the right hon. gentleman instanced the
> case of a new railway and a country district enriched by that
railway.
> The railway, he explained, is built to open up a new district; and
the
> farmers and landowners in that district are endowed with unearned
> increment in consequence of the building of the railway. But if after
a
> while their business aptitude and industry create a large carrying
> trade, then the railway, he contends, gets its unearned increment in
> its turn.
>
> But the right hon. gentleman cannot call the increment unearned which
> the railway acquires through the regular service of carrying goods,
> rendering a service on each occasion in proportion to the tonnage of
> goods it carries, making a profit by an active extension of the scale
> of its useful business - he cannot surely compare that process with
the
> process of getting rich merely by sitting still? It is clear that the
> analogy is not true.
>
> The Glasgow Example I do not think the Leader of the Opposition could
> have chosen a more unfortunate example than Glasgow. He said that the
> demand of that great community for land was for not more than forty
> acres a year. Is that the only demand of the people of Glasgow for
> land? Does that really represent the complete economic and natural
> demand for the amount of land a population of that size requires to
> live on? I will admit that at present prices it may be all that they
> can afford to purchase in the course of a year. But there are one
> hundred and twenty thousand persons in Glasgow who are living in
> one-room tenements; and we are told that the utmost land those people
> can absorb economically and naturally is forty acres a year.
>
> What is the explanation? Because the population is congested in the
> city the price of land is high upon the suburbs, and because the
price
> of land is high upon the suburbs the population must remain congested
> within the city. That is the position which we are complacently
assured
> is in accordance with the principles which have hitherto dominated
> civilised society.
>
> The "Poor Widow" Bogey But when we seek to rectify this system, to
> break down this unnatural and vicious circle, to interrupt this
> sequence of unsatisfactory reactions, what happens? We are not
> confronted with any great argument on behalf of the owner. Something
> else is put forward, and it is always put forward in these cases to
> shield the actual landowner or the actual capitalist from the logic
of
> the argument or from the force of a Parliamentary movement.
>
> Sometimes it is the widow. But that personality has been used to
> exhaustion. It would be sweating in the cruellest sense of the word,
> overtime of the grossest description, to bring the widow out again so
> soon. She must have a rest for a bit; so instead of the widow we have
> the market-gardener - the market-gardener liable to be disturbed on
the
> outskirts of great cities, if the population of those cities expands,
> if the area which they require for their health and daily life should
> become larger than it is at present.
>
> What is the position disclosed by the argument? On the one hand, we
> have one hundred and twenty thousand persons in Glasgow occupying
> one-room tenements; on the other, the land of Scotland. Between the
two
> stands the market-gardener, and we are solemnly invited, for the sake
> of the market-gardener, to keep that great population congested
within
> limits that are unnatural and restricted to an annual supply of land
> which can bear no relation whatever to their physical, social, and
> economic needs - and all for the sake of the market-gardener, who can
> perfectly well move farther out as the city spreads and who would not
> really be in the least injured.