Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 06/17/04 

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:35:17 GMT

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:47:57 GMT, Les Cargill
<lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:13:12 GMT, Les Cargill
>> <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In fact, the phrase "wag the dog" is precisely *the*
>>>hallmark for a conversation leaving reason and heading
>>>for The Land Of All Things Konspiratorial.
>>
>> The Truth is, Julius Caesar was assassinated by a conspiracy of
>> high-ranking officials and nobles.
>>
>> The Truth is, the Paris food riots of 1773 were organized by major
>> landowners and grain monopolists to discredit Jacques Turgot, the
>> finance minister, because he had begun to remove their privileges.
>>
>> The Truth is, the Nazis started the Reichstag fire.
>>
>> The Truth is, the Kuwaiti royal family paid a major PR firm to get the
>> Kuwati ambassador's daughter on national TV, where she _lied_ that she
>> was a nurse from a hospital in Kuwait, and witnessed atrocities
>> committed there by Iraqi soldiers. _Total_fabrication_, complete with
>> choked-back tears, the whole schmeer.
>>
>> And still we have the morons who bray about black helicopters, blah,
>> blah, any time anyone suggests that there may be more to a story than
>> the pablum fed to the credulous.
>
>The list of actual documented events is considerably
>longer than that. With the single exception of Turgot's
>story, none of the examples are of rentiers "wagging
>the dog" to maintain privelege.

??? The Roman nobles were indeed rentiers (though Julius didn't pose
a direct threat to their rents, he did pose a threat to their
stranglehold on power), and the Kuwaiti royal family is _nothing_but_
rentiers.
 
>>>>>Bush43 and his father were neither all that wealthy.
>>>>
>>>>I agree. But they are servants of the really wealthy.
>>>
>>>To the extent that campaigns need to be finianced. No
>>>further. We're talking about the size of a middling
>>>IPO. And the donors generally don't get much more'n
>>>a photo op .
>>
>> It is often astonishing how cheaply massively valuable political
>> favors can be bought. AFAICT, the normal return on a political
>> donation in excess of $1000 is about 100,000%.
>
>Yeah, I've heard the figure, and it sounds ridiculous. It
>is as if a roadbuilding contractor contriburted, then the
>contributions were attributed for his next four years'
>top line.

I can give you any number of Canadian examples. The Bronfman family
gave the Liberal Party of Canada 3/4 of a million over the course of a
decade, and then a Liberal government _waived_ $700M in capital gains
taxes when the Bronfmans moved ownership of their company offshore.
Bomabardier gave $175K to the Liberals one year, and then got an
interest-free loan of $180M the next. Li Ka-Shing arranged a small
land deal through offshore buyers that shoveled a couple million bucks
into the _personal_ pockets of government leaders, then got hundreds
of acres of land in downtown Vancouver for a song, making hundreds of
millions of dollars in land rent profits when the land was rezoned.

>Of course this happens. I just don't think it's the
>*dominant* mode. Ironically, every time we try to
>crack down on it, this gets worse.

I've never seen anyone try to crack down on it.
 
>>>It's the political equivalent of winning a backstage
>>>pass to the Stones concert, and nothing more.
>>
>> ??? Open your eyes.
>
>Open yours. Musical artifacts gor for $millions
>at auction . We live in a celebrity culture.
>
>How can the average Congrefscritter dispense as much
>in favors as his campaign costs? Not a committe chair,
>but the average guy?

The small contributors typically don't get such favors. Only the big
ones. And the average Congressman does it by selling his vote. Quid
pro quo.
  
>>>>>>>They are extraordinarily good at what they
>>>>>>>do. They are also very fiscally conservative.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>AND THEY DO WHAT THE CUSTOMERS WANT THEM TO DO!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And they are the recipients of tens of billions of dollars worth of
>>>>>>publicly created land rent.
>>>>>
>>>>>But they run trillions ( I don't even know how much )
>>>>>in merchandise yearly.
>>>>
>>>>It's not that much, and anyway it's rrelevant. Trading and retail
>>>>companies do big volume because that's what they do.
>>>
>>>Point being: it overwhelms all real estate owned.
>>
>> Nope. Not even close.
>
>Their top line is 258 *billion* per annum ( I was
>off by a factor of four ).
>( I had read annual figures as quarterly before ).

But they can't get that money unless they have the locations that let
them get customers.

>Balance *** shows 58 billion in property, plant
>and equpiment. Total assets are 104B - about
>four years top line.

Their land is grossly undervalued. That's entirely normal. But in
any case you are comparing flows with funds, apples and oranges.

>This is not some feudal culture where people belong
>to the land. Production outstrips assets values or
>you get cut up for scrap. Period.

Complete garbage. You don't have to produce _anything_ when you're
pocketing land rent.

-- Roy L