The thoughts behind the Renegade Ecologist
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root....Henry David Thoreau
"In many ways, nature conservation has become just another method of rent extraction by landowners who are trying to hide the fact that modern farmers’ fields are essentially deserts, devoid of wildlife, and the taxpayer must pay ‘rent’ if we want wild animals to occupy ‘their land’."
Such a tax would not only stimulate jobs and enterprise but put a value on all of our natural resources and force us to look after them. If it was implemented for agricultural land, where the lower value of perpetually designated wilderness or natural grazing land is reflected in its land value taxation, it would be the surest way to save the wildlife of the UK and for the least cost to the taxpayer”
This would mean hard to farm areas, steep banks, riverbanks, rocky outcrops and areas landowners want to designate a nature reserves, which must be legally binding, could be set aside for wildlife and as such attract no taxation. The result of this would be that unproductive and marginal land would become wildlife havens and receive long term protection for future generation to enjoy. But it would also take away land and monopolies from our plutocrats who own wealth with no obligation to the rest of society, these plutocrats fund both the red and blue (and Yellow) faction of the vested interest or ‘line my friends pocket’ parties that control the legislature in Britain.
This blog is dedicated to teaching those who love nature that there is a simple ‘magic bullet’ that can save the rare wildlife of this country at no cost to the taxpayer. This magic bullet will actually grow our economy and create jobs and help create a better society based on rewarding those who work hard while penalising idol people who make monopolies such as bankers and landowners.
The solution if adopted worldwide would alleviate poverty and starvation and make a significant contribution to preventing war and terrorism.
Follow me on twitter: @peetasmithViews are my own and don’t reflect the views of Wildwood Trust
Monday, 17 December 2012
An old story as relevant to day as it was then:
Many years ago a company of tradesmen united themselves into a guild and each one had to relate what he could contribute to its support.
First the blacksmith came forward and said:—
"Gentlemen, I wish to become a member of your organisation."
"Well, what can you do?"
"Oh, I can make springs and axles for your carriages, shoe your horses, and make all kinds of implements."
"Very well, come in, Mr. Blacksmith."
The mason applied for admission into the society.
"What can you do, sir?"
"I can build your barns, bridges, houses, and stables."
"Very well, come in; we cannot do without you."
Along comes the shoemaker and says:—
"I wish to become a member of your society."
"Well, what can you do?"
"I can make boots and shoes for you."
"Come in, Mr. Shoemaker; we must have you."
In turn all the trades and professions applied, till at last an individual came who wanted to become a member.
"And what are you?"
"I am a landlord."
"A landlord? And what can you do?"
"I can hunt and fish and win prizes at pigeon matches."
"But what do you do for a livelihood?"
"Oh, I take toll of all of you. The labourer pays me for the right to dig, the miner to burrow in the earth, and the bricklayer to build a house."
"But what can you *do*?"
"I can make your laws, and when I have made them I can administer them. If a man snares a hare I give him six months; if he shoots a snipe I give him three. I can drive men to desperation, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. I can prevent the erection of cottages, or the building of a Methodist chapel. I can look on and take the larger share of the prosperity of the farmer, the shopkeeper, and the manufacturer; I can keep up an army of paupers."
"And what else can you do?"
"I can bring the grey hairs of the aged to the grave with sorrow; I can break the heart of the wife, and blast the prospects of men of talent and enterprise, and fill the land with more than the plagues of Egypt."
"Is that all you can do?"
"Good heavens! is not that enough?"
source: English Land Restoration League, Issue No. 3, 1889
Saturday, 15 December 2012
Friday, 9 November 2012
Only a few miles from where I am typing this the needlessly cruel practice of live animal exports has started again in Ramsgate Kent.
Understanding that a small loss of income, say from not being allowed to live export sheep, will make the sheep farmed on ‘marginal’ land not worth farming. Thus a number of livelihoods will be ruined, and so a body of people are highly motivated to campaign on an issue to protect their livelihood/privilege (the privilege being the landowners of tenanted farms in marginal areas). Thus the government is constantly pushed by people with the motivation and means to lobby for such a vile practice of causing such huge animal suffering.
My favourite saying at the moment is:
The real tragedy of private landownership is that those on the margin do all they can to farm areas; robbing them of their wildlife value when we should be letting marginal areas revert to nature. So uplands and wetlands and vast swathes of valuable ‘ecological services’ are destroyed for no real economic advantage and the detriment of the majority of the country. This is why all marginal land in the UK should be held in common so its use is best decided for us all and not the selfish needs of an individual. This is the exact opposite of what economists are taught in the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ which was merely propaganda for the enclosure acts. The truth is that the commons was a wonderful way making the best use of marginal land, giving balance to community that used it and protecting its sustainability.
Governments of any hue will not challenge privilege/landowners unless forced to. Direct action, organisation, education and excellent PR are the remedy to the animal cruelty of live exports. But a more systematic way of dealing with the problem would be creating a greater divide between the cost of meat and vegetables, whereby the externalities of meat production are contained in their cost.
These issues would be best achieved by following Caroline Lucas’s proposals for a ‘Land Value Tax’ as she is proposing in Parliament today in her private members bill. It would solve a lot of other problems as well by taking away the monopoly privilege of owning land. LVT would systematically stop so many distortions created by the Landowner lobby and not just marginal farmers seeking to cut corners on animal welfare. It would turn all of our land into ' the commons' yet retain ownership and control in the hands that can use the land most effectively for the benefit of all.
The people, Carlo Nero & Fred Harrison, who made this film, helped Caroline to forward the private members bill:
Monday, 1 October 2012
Sunday, 3 June 2012
Friday, 25 May 2012
Robert Burns and Independence.
By Dr. Duncan Pickard
Scots! Vha hae wi' Wallace bled
(Adapted from an anonymous song of the anti-enclosure movement) Straiton Farm, Balmullo. 4.3. 12
Thursday, 3 May 2012
Friday, 9 March 2012
Wildlife group’s proposal for land tax reform backed by Oscar winning actress
By Chris Murphy
BACK TO NATURE: Actress Vanessa Redgrave (left) will be appearing at a showing of the Wildwood Trust’s The Killing Fields featuring its chief executive Peter Smith (above)
A SEISMIC change in the way land around the world is taxed could save many of our threatened species, claims a wildlife organisation that has the backing of actress Vanessa Redgrave and her son who has made a film on the issue.
Oscar winner Redgrave is backing Wildwood, near Canterbury, because she wants to save the world’s natural resources before they are completely plundered for profit.
As the Unicef Goodwill Ambassador she launched the Brighton Festival with a special screening of Wildwood’s new documentary, The Killing Fields. It was shown to an audience of more than 1,000 of the biggest names in theatre and arts in the hope of stirring up more support for its aims.
Wildwood Trust’s vision is to restore Britain’s land to its natural state. This involves re leasing large wild herbivores and developing conservation grazing systems to restore natural ecological processes to help Britain team with wildlife again.
After the screening, writer and broadcaster Polly Toynbee moderated a discussion about the issues raised by the film. Wildwood Trust chief executive Peter Smith said the film struck a chord with the audience and is determined to drive his message home attending another major screening in Brighton, at the town’s Dome Theatre on May 6th
Ms Redgrave will be there, along with her director son Carlo Nero, who made the film.
It will be followed by another discussion on the land tax changes Mr Smith proposes.
Joining them will be the debate chairman Professor Sir Richard Jolly from the United Nations and Unesco, along with contributors to the film including economist Fred Harrison, environmental lawyer Polly Higgins, and farmer and land owner Dr Duncan Pickard.
The Killing Fields documentary explores the fragile relationship between wildlife, land, taxation and law in Britain and Europe.
Mr Smith said it makes a powerful case for sweeping reforms and argues the only long-term solution to our conservation crisis is to put real value on nature’s assets.
He said: Winston Churchill was a fan of the land value tax, but it was voted out by the House of Lords because they realised it was them who would suffer the most.
“A land tax would replace income tax. This means anyone who owned land would have to make the absolutely most of it to ensure they could afford it.
“Derelict buildings would be developed and my favourite part, farmers would stop trying to farm impossibly difficult land and that would be allowed to return to nature. If this happened around the world, it would save huge areas of land for nature.”
Friday, 24 February 2012
Economics and society: Barrier to a breakthrough
But Harding downplays the role of economic rent from its classical source land with no evidence, land & natural assets still accounts for about 80% of economic rent.
My favourite Keynes Qoute:
“First, let's euthanize all the rentiers”
"The failure of government to collect rent in lieu of taxes leaves a huge imputed income stream to the owners of nature, which is capitalized by market forces into a selling price (this selling price driven upward by the use of credit as leverage as fuel to an inherently speculation-driven market dynamic). Thus, the most important -- critical -- change in public policy required to stimulate a noninflationary, full employment society and elimination of the boom-to-bust cyclical nature of economic systems is to change the way government raises its revenue. The rent fund is huge and its collection could elimination the taxation (i.e., confiscation) of legitimate private property."
Our as I put it -
"we should pay no private individual for the gifts from mother nature, so one family can starve to allow another a life in opulence"
Thursday, 23 February 2012
Ecological economics provides us with insights into the relationship between economic activity and the capacity of the Earths resources to sustain us. In this video Joshua Farley one of the visionary thinkers in this discipline, provides an overview of some these critical relationships, and gives examples of how responsive policy measures can be applied in an urban setting.
Sunday, 19 February 2012
Cap and trade is something I have blogged about for a few years as a travesty of an economic policy designed to enrich the rich and impoverish the poor while not helping reduce carbon emissions. This great YouTube video has been produced by Annie Leonard and explains the problem to non-economists.
The only issue with the video is that Annie does not fully understand just how the Cap & Trade system would enslave humanity. This is because we would create new energy monopolists (a bit like today's landowners) that would own nearly all of production in perpetuity, owning the right to pollute and renting it out to humanity who would have to pay them for the privilege of economic activity and prevent a free market in energy and manufacturing. Today's large polluting companies (or to be more precise their shareholders) would at a stroke become hereditary barons, milking humanity for the rest of time of their productive labour.
The real solution is to tax carbon at source and redistribute this money amongst all of the worlds people equally (thus eliminating global poverty, hunger and taking away the main reason for international war) or just introduce a Land Value Tax which would achieve a similar result.
A witty economist said this of it:
"If you want to keep a donkey healthy you don't regulate what comes out of it, you regulate what goes in"
Monday, 6 February 2012
Sunday, 22 January 2012
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a landlord taking all of humanity's surplus income - forever"
Biofules are an environmental and human nightmare where the starving children of the third world are left landless and our most precious wildlife habitats are destroyed to allow fat Americans to drive their SUV's. They are hugely environmentally damaging, much more so than fossil fuels and are only economically viable through huge state subsidies, which all end up in the pockets of landowners and increase the price of land.
Land Rent Capture by an 'ad velorem' Land Value Tax will funnel land to the most productive and ensure the maximum productivity of the land by rewarding the most productive farmers. Marginal land will be protected and left as wildlife habitat. Every citizen can enjoy equally the fruits of the land and thus be lifted from poverty and their efforts to do productive work will go un-taxed by a rapacious Government's need for revenue.
The monopolists robbing the land of the poor can do this as the British/American legal and tax system has now been imposed on most of the world. The relative stability of the post cold war environment means the speculators can safely bet that economic rent can be extracted from any country and hidden in tax havens without any local population stopping them.
The Barons of one thousand years ago who originally took land by violence learned it was much easier to create laws and a tax system to enshrine their advantage than fighting the peasants and face rebellions. Now the new mechanisms of empire, with a stabilising system of international law based on the USA/UK system are using the same laws to allow themselves and their future offspring to monopolise all the fruits of the land for themselves though perpetual freehold ownership. The people of the third world will never afford to buy it back, its value will increase and the populations incomes will not keep pace. Tax havens and blind trusts will ensure their future generations can hold on to this advantage without any form of redistribution.
To paraphrase George Orwell:
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a landlord taking all of humanity's surplus income - forever"
"What shall we call the financial crisis? We've had the Great Depression, the Credit Crunch and Black Monday. How will history remember the last five years of economic calamity?"
My thoughts to him where if we had The Great War & the Great Depression so the Great War became World War One, so the Great Depression becomes World Depression One and our current situation is World Depression Two.
You can make your own response too on this link:
My old friend has yet to discover the wisdom of Henry George, Minsky, Stiglitz or the many other economists who understand the role of economic rents. As well as my suggestion I told him that I thought Churchill's famous quote sums up our present economic situation very well:
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
My greatest fear is that 'World War Three' will follow 'The Great Depression Two' Just as surely as World War Two followed the Great depression (World Depression One)
Of course Churchill was a huge supporter of Henry George & Land Value Tax and would of understood the present predicament well. His speeches on Land Value Tax are probably the best ever written and can be read here:
Winston Churchill made this speech in 1909. We can't put the case better ourselves. A century on, it remains clear, concise and to the point. We would commend it to David Cameron and his team.
LAND MONOPOLY is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies -- it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. Unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit, but they are the principal form of unearned increment, and they are derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but positively detrimental to the general public.
Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position -- land, I say, differs from all other forms of property, and the immemorial customs of nearly every modern state have placed the tenure, transfer, and obligations of land in a wholly different category from other classes of property.
Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of land monopolists to claim that other forms of property and increment are similar in all respects to land and the unearned increment on land.They talk of the increased profits of a doctor or lawyer from the growth of population in the town in which they live. They talk of the profits of a railway, from the growing wealth and activity in the districts through which it runs. They talk of the profits from a rise in stocks and even the profits derived from the sale of works of art.
But see how misleading and false all those analogies are. The windfalls from the sale of a picture -- a Van Dyke or a Holbein -- may be very considerable. But pictures do not get in anybody's way. They do not lay a toll on anybody's labor; they do not touch enterprise and production; they do not affect the creative processes on which the material well-being of millions depends.
If a rise in stocks confers profits on the fortunate holders far beyond what they expected or indeed deserved, nevertheless that profit was not reaped by withholding from the community the land which it needs; on the contrary, it was reaped by supplying industry with the capital without which it could not be carried on.
If a railway makes greater profits it is usually because it carries more goods and more passengers.
If a doctor or a lawyer enjoys a better practice, it is because the doctor attends more patients and more exacting patients, and because the lawyer pleads more suits in the courts and more important suits.
At every stage the doctor or the lawyer is giving service in return for his fees.
Fancy comparing these healthy processes with the enrichment which comes to the landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts of a great city, who watches the busy population around him making the city larger, richer, more convenient, more famous every day, and all the while sits still and does nothing.
Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains -- and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labor and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived.
While the land is what is called "ripening" for the unearned in-crement of its owner, the merchant going to his office and the artisan going to his work must detour or pay a fare to avoid it. The people lose their chance of using the land, the city and state lose the taxes which would have accrued if the natural development had taken place, and all the while the land monopolist only has to sit still and watch complacently his property multiplying in value, sometimes many fold, without either effort or contribution on his part!
But let us follow this process a little further. The population of the city grows and grows, the congestion in the poorer quarters becomes acute, rents rise and thousands of families are crowded into tenements. At last the land becomes ripe for sale -- that means that the price is too tempting to be resisted any longer. And then, and not until then, it is sold by the yard or by the inch at 10 times, or 20 times, or even 50 times its agricultural value.
The greater the population around the land, the greater the injury the public has sustained by its protracted denial. And, the more inconvenience caused to everybody; the more serious the loss in eco-nomic strength and activity -- the larger will be the profit of the landlord when the sale is finally accomplished. In fact, you may say that the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done. It is monopoly which is the keynote, and where monopoly prevails, the greater the injury to society the greater the reward to the monopolist. This evil process strikes at every form of industrial activity. The municipality, wishing for broader streets, better houses, more healthy, decent, scientifically planned towns, is made to pay more to get them in proportion as is has exerted itself to make past improve-ments. The more it has improved the town, the more it will have to pay for any land it may now wish to acquire for further improvements.
The manufacturer proposing to start a new industry, proposing to erect a great factory offering employment to thousands of hands, is made to pay such a price for his land that the purchase price hangs around the neck of his whole business, hampering his competitive power in every market, clogging him far more than any foreign tariff in his export competition, and the land price strikes down through the profits of the manufacturer on to the wages of the worker.
No matter where you look or what examples you select, you will see every form of enterprise, every step in material progress, is only undertaken after the land monopolist has skimmed the cream for himself, and everywhere today the man or the public body that wishes to put land to its highest use is forced to pay a preliminary fine in land values to the man who is putting it to an inferior one, and in some cases to no use at all. All comes back to land value, and its owner is able to levy toll upon all other forms of wealth and every form of industry. A portion, in some cases the whole, of every benefit which is laboriously acquired by the community increases the land value and finds its way automatically into the landlord's pocket. If there is a rise in wages, rents are able to move forward, because the workers can afford to pay a little more. If the opening of a new railway or new tramway, or the institution of improved services of a lowering of fares, or of a new invention, or any other public conven-ience affords a benefit to workers in any particular district, it be-comes easier for them to live, and therefore the ground landlord is able to charge them more for the privilege of living there.
Some years ago in London there was a toll bar on a bridge across the Thames, and all the working people who lived on the south side of the river had to pay a daily toll of one penny for going and returning from their work. The spectacle of these poor people thus mulcted of so large a proportion of their earnings offended the public con-science, and agitation was set on foot, municipal authorities were roused, and at the cost of the taxpayers, the bridge was freed and the toll removed. All those people who used the bridge were saved sixpence a week, but within a very short time rents on the south side of the river were found to have risen about sixpence a week, or the amount of the toll which had been remitted!
And a friend of mine was telling me the other day that, in the parish of Southwark, about 350 pounds a year was given away in doles of bread by charitable people in connection with one of the churches. As a consequence of this charity, the competition for small houses and single-room tenements is so great that rents are considerably higher in the parish!
All goes back to the land, and the land owner is able to absorb to himself a share of almost every public and every private benefit, however important or however pitiful those benefits may be.
I hope you will understand that, when I speak of the land monopolist, I am dealing more with the process than with the individual land owner who, in most cases, is a worthy person utterly unconscious of the character of the methods by which he is enriched. I have no wish to hold any class up to public disapprobation. I do not think that the man who makes money by unearned increment in land is morally worse than anyone else who gathers his profit where he finds it in this hard world under the law and according to common usage. It is not the individual I attack; it is the system. It is not the man who is bad; it is the law which is bad. It is not the man who is blameworthy for doing what the law allows and what other men do; it is the State which would be blameworthy if it were not to endeavour to reform the law and correct the practice.
We do not want to punish the landlord.
We want to alter the law.
Download copy of speech here
Update From Fred Harrison - on When did World War 3 Begin?
Saturday, 21 January 2012
Published by Geophilos