As one who often writes comments and short articles about money and macroeconomics, I too have difficulty in finding the best word that is clear and easy to understand about a particular matter. It might seem from this article that what we need is an extended language for technical matters of each kind, but I feel this is asking for a bit too much! Instead, and it is actually what I mostly achieve, is to search and determine the best expression for the matter from what words are already available. English has a great many similar words compared to some other languages, so with perseverance this task should not be as difficult as it first appears.
I became frustrated with our country's way of government many years ago, but it was more recently that I realized that the root of it was due to how political parties put emphasis on their success in getting into power and becoming the ones in charge of the managing and policies, and that these parties take less concern about the right policies to take, regardless of what party is presenting them. We take an intuitive attitude to politics whereas we should be taking a more logical and technical approach to what is good government.
I find that there are at least two attitudes to this situation. The most basic one is through making a proper study so as to better understand how our social system of macroeconomics really works. In one of my other articles on this website, I have tried to show that this past difficult and confusing subject can be much better understood through the use of making better and more exact definitions and then logically applying their relationships in a model of the'Big Picture" to really determine how it all works. (see my "making macroeconomics a true science").
The second attitude is a lot more difficult to describe because it appears to be political although it was and is actually meant to be non-political, and it provides some important ideas about what is wrong with our existing ways for the provision of equal opportunities. It necessarily describes how to properly share the benefits that arries from them. Unlike Socialism, it is not the produce that is suggested as being more uniformally shared but the opportunities to produce that should be the target.
This problem becomes political because some of these opportunities are monopolized and to introduce a change to the way such monopolies are limited by law is a particularly big deal! What we need is to replace the taxation of our labour and purchasing opportunities (and other taxes too like capital gains), with a revenue being collected for access rights to ll of our natural resources. This may seem to be relatively mild when we think of farming, but when most of the gain from the privitization and holding of these rights is in places where the population density (a natural phenomena) has resulted in the urbal productive power of the land being several hundreds of times more than that of the rural sites, which are of much greater size.
This proposal was first formally describer by Henry George, an US economist, in his classic book "Progress and Poverty" in 1879. This book is still in print after having sold more than 3 million copies. George proposed the introduction of a Single Tax on land values.
As should be obvious there would be great opposion to this ethical policy by the land-owners hemselves, who regarded their sites as if they were investments in urable capital goods. George and later writers show that the natural resources including useful sites of land are not capital but he results of both nature and our natural tendency to grow small settlements into mighty cities. This effect on the production power is also the result of our natural tendency to create societies and communities.
He claimed that ethically their products should be fairly shared between the workers (as wages), the providers of durable good (as interest on investments) and as the return for access rights to sites of land (as the ground rent). It was this last item that he proposed to be the so called Single Tax on Land.
As one who often writes comments and short articles about money and macroeconomics, I too have difficulty in finding the best word that is clear and easy to understand about a particular matter. It might seem from this article that what we need is an extended language for technical matters of each kind, but I feel this is asking for a bit too much! Instead, and it is actually what I mostly achieve, is to search and determine the best expression for the matter from what words are already available. English has a great many similar words compared to some other languages, so with perseverance this task should not be as difficult as it first appears.
I became frustrated with our country's way of government many years ago, but it was more recently that I realized that the root of it was due to how political parties put emphasis on their success in getting into power and becoming the ones in charge of the managing and policies, and that these parties take less concern about the right policies to take, regardless of what party is presenting them. We take an intuitive attitude to politics whereas we should be taking a more logical and technical approach to what is good government.
I find that there are at least two attitudes to this situation. The most basic one is through making a proper study so as to better understand how our social system of macroeconomics really works. In one of my other articles on this website, I have tried to show that this past difficult and confusing subject can be much better understood through the use of making better and more exact definitions and then logically applying their relationships in a model of the'Big Picture" to really determine how it all works. (see my "making macroeconomics a true science").
The second attitude is a lot more difficult to describe because it appears to be political although it was and is actually meant to be non-political, and it provides some important ideas about what is wrong with our existing ways for the provision of equal opportunities. It necessarily describes how to properly share the benefits that arries from them. Unlike Socialism, it is not the produce that is suggested as being more uniformally shared but the opportunities to produce that should be the target.
This problem becomes political because some of these opportunities are monopolized and to introduce a change to the way such monopolies are limited by law is a particularly big deal! What we need is to replace the taxation of our labour and purchasing opportunities (and other taxes too like capital gains), with a revenue being collected for access rights to ll of our natural resources. This may seem to be relatively mild when we think of farming, but when most of the gain from the privitization and holding of these rights is in places where the population density (a natural phenomena) has resulted in the urbal productive power of the land being several hundreds of times more than that of the rural sites, which are of much greater size.
This proposal was first formally describer by Henry George, an US economist, in his classic book "Progress and Poverty" in 1879. This book is still in print after having sold more than 3 million copies. George proposed the introduction of a Single Tax on land values.
As should be obvious there would be great opposion to this ethical policy by the land-owners hemselves, who regarded their sites as if they were investments in urable capital goods. George and later writers show that the natural resources including useful sites of land are not capital but he results of both nature and our natural tendency to grow small settlements into mighty cities. This effect on the production power is also the result of our natural tendency to create societies and communities.
He claimed that ethically their products should be fairly shared between the workers (as wages), the providers of durable good (as interest on investments) and as the return for access rights to sites of land (as the ground rent). It was this last item that he proposed to be the so called Single Tax on Land.