Henry George School of Social Science
Henry George School of Social Science
This channel is the official KZread page of the Henry George School of Social Science.
Since 1932, tens of thousands of students have taken courses in economics and social philosophy at the Henry George School, gaining insights into the nature of society and practical solutions for our seemingly intractable social problems.
Henry George School of Social Science
149 East 38th St.
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 889-8020
Пікірлер
Great talk! I enjoy philosophy done well. I've always enjoyed philosophy and disliked philosophers. If more philosophers were like Karl, I might've continued to study philosophy in college.
I respectfully disagree with the ‘5’ given to capital gains on fairness. While that likely applies to many things, it doesn’t apply to housing. Govts inflate away the value of your money, causing the nominal value of your home to rise significantly. Govt then applies capital gains tax to the value of your home when you sell. This is theft.
How can UBI solve the housing crisis if there's no housing being built to keep up with everyone coming in? UBI will just cause inflation if you don't solve the housing shortage. How do you solve the housing shortage? Well, you need to first kill most regulation and rules that make it difficult and expensive to build housing in the first place. You need to fire the incompetant bureaucrats that keep any new people from building their own businesses like homebuilders or electricians. Right now, there is such a lack of electricians in my area because the state makes it impossible for people to start new businesses. Same with the home building business. But berkshire hathaway can start a business no problem. So you see the complexity here? And this complexity likely won't be solved by UBI. And this is coming from someone that is suffering from the problem..
Fascinating. As an electrician, there have been close to a thousand of us sitting on the books waiting for work over the last couple of years. There's no shortage of electricians in my area, only a shortage of affordable land. If building were not punished by tax and holding land out of better uses were taxed more appropriately, we would all be employed.
Until the rich lose their incredible purchasing power they will continue to buy all the assets and leave little for the rest. You have to tax away most of the uber wealthy including their assets. Ever play Monopoly? I'm not talking about the doctor who owns a few houses, I'm talking about the huge massive company chairman, or the Finance guy who made ten billion after the housing crash. You HAVE to tax away the uber wealthy, or else they will continue to buy all the assets. I mean getting rid of ninety nine percent of all assetts owned by let's say Bershire Hathaway... And with those taxes you create a housing fund, or an infrastructure project. You have to get rid of the rent seeking, raunche, class that makes money from unearned income. If you don't, UBI will just cause more inflation.
It's the process. It's always the process that is the problem.
Universal Basic Dividend is the only way this will work in any formulation. Unless you just want a slave class. Ownership of the private sector has usurped political power that resides outside of the executive. Blackrock executes all the voting rights for our mutual funds and thus owns 90% of the market’s voting rights. (practically)
lvt wins
My fave economist and my fave geopolitical journalist! I am sorry I missed this three years ago.
Tom, would you happen to know of Henry George's national campaign (1888-1895), which led to a Georgist income tax proposal in 1893, which he called "A Just and Practicable Income Tax"?
Prof. England, any research into George's national campaign, which began in Nov. 1888, and ended with the Supreme Court ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan (1895)?
I think this history you have presented has made it fairly clear that ending the oligarchy must come first. The meaningful uptake of land value taxation at levels that actually impact land rents will not occur while LVT will significantly materially harm those deciding policy. I think we need to eliminate most legislative elected offices and replace them with short-term, single-issue, citizen's assemblies in a multi-body sortition proposal like that of Terry Bouricious. Elections are the heart of the problems with money in politics and partisanship. More money can pay for more effective campaigns, so any system that relies primarily on elections will result in control by the rich, who will try to entrench their own positions rather than allow for competitive churn. The very wealthy don't rely on work for their riches. To be among the wealthiest people, you must rely on passive income streams: in other words rent seeking, among which landlording is a prominent strategy.
I know replacing elected legislative positions sounds far fetched, but while campaign contributions are a thumb on the scale of ALL legislative elections, it is just very unlikely IMHO that the Georgist movement gets the plurality needed to implement LVT and then KEEP it. That Georgist politician hit the nail on the head: the more he fought for LVT, the less likely he was to be reelected. Most of us agree that LVT is an excellent idea. Certainly the best way to tax people. Many many smart and influential people have agreed with that position and have spent a lot of time and effort trying to get LVT implemented. With elections, LVT has an invisible headwind: money in politics. I'm not saying that unless we change elections LVT has no chance, just that it has very little chance.
Germany is different than America! Germans care about other Germans! French care about other French! Americans care about no one, except their individual class, which does not include 350 million people.
This guy forgets 400 hundred years of slavery of 10 million enslaved west africans, who provided free labor to build this place called America!
What is Fred's outlook for the housing market? Will we have another 2008?
Congrats everyone. This has been a really hard journey! Anyone interested in starting a discord-server thing where we talk about stuff from the lecture?
I cant believe this video was 3 years ago and still we are working our 60 hrs a week and more uninformed than ever. How long can this continue?
Dr. Paul Roberts is spot-on.
How can the Classical curve (the f) be shifted? What makes this function?
See China
For what?
George never called for nationalizing land, only for nationalizing rent.
Upon a close reading of Progress and Poverty, I can see how readers would come away with the idea that George would’ve preferred nationalizing land. He repeated the concept of “making land common property” __without caveats__ much much more often than he added/mentioned the caveat - that he wanted to do so through his very specific method of taxation. It can leave the reader with the sense that LVT was his compromise between status quo and full nationalization of land (which he deemed “needless”, but didn’t appear to be adamantly against) instead of the sense that full LVT would've been the optimal solution he would’ve chosen had he not had to contend with status quo. Below are selected quotes for comparison. “The result of this investigation is to prove the preceding one, as it shows that nothing short of making land common property can permanently relieve poverty and check the tendency of wages to the starvation-point.” […] “This, then, is the remedy for the unjust and unequal distribution of wealth apparent in modern civilization, and for all the evils which flow from it: We must make land common property.” […] “And as in the nature of things unequal ownership of land is inseparable from the recognition of individual property in land, it necessarily follows that the only remedy for the unjust distribution of wealth is in making land common property.” […] “We have weighed every objection, and seen that neither on the ground of equity or expediency is there anything to deter us from making land common property by confiscating rent.” (Finally clarified.) […] “And by the time the people of any such country as England or the United States are sufficiently aroused to the injustice and disadvantages of individual ownership of land to induce them to attempt its nationalization, they will be sufficiently aroused to nationalize it in a much more direct and easy way than by purchase. They will not trouble themselves about compensating the proprietors of land.” […] “I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent. Nor to take rent for public uses is it necessary that the State should bother with the letting of lands, and assume the chances of the favoritism, collusion, and corruption this might involve. It is not necessary that any new machinery should be created. The machinery already exists. Instead of extending it, all we have to do is to simplify and reduce it. By leaving to land owners a percentage of rent which would probably be much less than the cost and loss involved in attempting to rent lands through State agency, and by making use of this existing machinery, we may, without jar or shock, assert the common right to land by taking rent for public uses.”
This is one of the most important videos on youtube!
The USSR mysteriously lost 6 of its leaders in 1980-1985, after which Gorbachev and Yeltsin came to power It's weird, isn't it?
What does this have to do with the fed and the money supply?
I definitely feel from my reading of PnP that a full LVT would drive wages up, but perhaps less than full LVT (even as a single tax) has not succeeded in driving wages up because a substantial portion of the land values were still being privatized. Just imagine, 125k signatures in favor of the single tax before WWI ... If we've done it before, we can certainly do it again.
It is very encouraging to hear that president Lula is an outstanding negotiator. The world needs him to be that.
Thank you for giving us the full hoorror of people who are no longer able to think and are now so consumed by a state of rage that all desperate measures to stop them now have to be considered.
I think Ed is right. Georgists have more to be optimistic about now than Georgists have had in a long time. I am absolutely in the camp that we should be working to develop caucuses within the major parties. Look at Bernie or Trump. They have both had massive impacts in their parties and the Overton window of what is considered possible.
Can anyone make sense of how Shaikh arrives at equation (13.42) (around 1:05:30)? I understand that we can approximate gY with ln (Yt) - ln (Yt-1). We also know from equation (13.37) that gY = fK(rn - in) + E. So, then: ln (Yt) = ln (Yt-1) + fK(rn - in) + E. But equation (13.42) says something slightly different. In place of fK(rn - in), it has f(t). But f(t) = gRn + (fK(rn - in)/Rn). Where do these other terms gRn and Rn come from? I thought maybe Shaikh meant to reference equations (13.41) and (13.36) instead of (13.37). Equation (13.41) tells us: gYn = gK + gRn = fK(rn - in) + Ek + gRn So, then: ln (Yt) = ln (Yt-1) + gK + gRn. Equation (13.36) says gK = fK(rn - in) + Ek So, then we have: ln (Yt) = ln (Yt-1) + fK(rn - in) + Ek + gRn That’s closer to equation (13.42), but it’s still not the same. In place of fK(rn - in) + gRn, it has f(t). But f(t) = gRn + (fK(rn - in)/Rn). So, still I’m left with the question of where Rn comes from? This leaves me wondering if there is a typo in Shaikh’s notes and the book. Should f(t) = sigma * Rn (rather than just sigma)?
'Promo SM'
Even though it got a bit tense, I would like to hear more of the argument between the speaker and the guy making arguments similar to Chomsky. Interesting!
Ok, guys. I read the book half. I am an electrical engineer from Germany and just started to investigate economy. One year I have spend watching Anwars lectures and a lot of post-keynsian books I read. This is the second time I watch this lecture series on YT, and now I actually understand what Anwar is saying. This content is so unbelievably profound, I recommend everybody conentrating on his work. I am currently preparing my own YT channel to bring those topics to a broader public, so we understand what is happening around us. Lets hope we get to a new place, where things are better.
Excellent! Just wait for a indigenous efficiency development!
Maybe the Fed should never had control of the money supply in the first place...
Do the people @ HGSSS ever sit down and listen to these before they are put out ?
Why is it?
When people produce man-made things, they deserve to own what they produce, because they are adding to the world. When you own land, you are subtracting from the world because everyone else has less land. It makes much more sense to tax subtractions to society than additions to society.
Okay, so when anomalous outcomes are discovered, the researcher puts them into a new category. This wouldn't do much to inform us what that new category is, only that it is novel. Thus, the anomalous outcomes are partitioned off from existing theory instead of refuting the theory. But this does seem like a better idea than putting anomalous outcomes into the wrong category.
Shall attend
What are editors and why they edit
NYT doesn't tell me who I am 🤬
This is what I said at 20
Backed by gold then Nixon failed to explain change as commodities like original of commodities and services. National Bank .
Should have been taught to 12 yr old in 🇺🇸 because I had to learn my own. Economic 101 & 102 with Finance, Accounting and EDP Auditing '82
(0:00) lecture agenda (3:45) lecture 13 recap: expectations of orthodox trade theory (5:25) lecture 13 recap: the neo-classical assumption of full employment (6:50) lecture 13 recap: the neo-liberal consensus (10:00) lecture 13 recap: Ricardo’s derivation of the principle of comparative cost (10:20) international trade is done by firms, not countries; and it’s regulated by real competition (11:10) trade is never balanced (14:00) real competition and regulating capitals (15:15) Ricardo's story (16:45) brief statement of first difficulty (17:25) brief statement of second difficulty (18:50) Ricardo’s starting point (21:00) tangent: Sraffian framework (26:30) initial price of production structure under no trade (27:30) the effect of international competition: common prices (28:30) introducing an international currency (32:30) equation (11.3) and Ricardo’s mistake (40:20) implausibility of appealing to sticky wages to avoid this conclusion (44:00) the low road to development: depress real wages to decrease absolute cost structure (47:30) rejecting the principle of comparative cost advantage (49:30) extending the classical/Sraffian analysis to nontradable goods (52:20) purchasing power parity (PPP) and linked price levels (55:00) elaborating with algebra (1:02:10) the usual (empirically inadequate) way of securing PPP (1:03:00) non-tradable goods as the alleged culprit (1:08:30) the real culprit (1:09:30) how to get a handle on the composition: measure the cost structure (1:11:15) another way to look at the story: the perspective of Smith’s decomposition (1:19:00) the upshot: real exchange rates are driven by real regulating costs and the ratio of tradable to non-tradable goods (1:22:10) anti-Ricardian implications (1:24:45) rejecting the quantity theory of money; liquidity and interest rates (1:29:00) summing up the results of real competition (1:30:30) empirical evidence on the PPP hypothesis (1:32:00) empirical evidence on inflation and nominal exchange rates (1:34:45) empirical evidence on real exchange rates and real factors regulating them (1:40:20) empirical evidence on real exchange rates and the balance of trade
The first half of this interview was an irrelevant disparaging of Piketty. In the second half they identified the problem of inequality being officially acknowledged in economic theory when it had never been done before in the new-claassical model. The problem is what to do next - process implementation. So what is their solution? If they don't have one, this analysis is as worthless as they claim Piketty's book to be. Which then raises the question: what was the objective of this interview? Certainly not knowledge transfer.....
Feel grateful to be living in a time in which I can get all this wisdom FOR FREE. Thanks, guys!
Much confusion in the multiplier discussion. delta debt = delta investm., right? If you want to avoid all that suppose that investing firms sell bonds or other forms of wealth. Why should the savings rate adjust? Nonsense. So many mistakes. If investment is permanently higher than of course output is permanently higher. What he so often attributes to Marx is mostly wrong and wishful thinking. The capital util. problem is totally confusing. That production takes time has absolutely nothing to do with sales expectations.
The Walrasian model is a model of the stock exchange, unrealistic, yes. Thats not reality, agreed. But, does the stock exchange work? How far away from the stock exchange are real markets?
As if utility maximization, profit maximization and „passive, all knowing, perfect agents“( passive?) does rule out all the conflicts he is talking about. Conflicts are ubiquitious, parents and children, dog owner and dog, the old and the young, men and women etc, etc. So what? Is he dreaming of a world without any conflicts? Ridiculous.
No, not 3-5 years, 6-9 months. There is no eternal, „turbulent“ disequilibrium. Look around you.
„Gender, race and inequality“. Of course inequality, what else? But he will never understand.