Milton Friedman, favorite economist of many libertarian ideologues, has somewhat grudgingly admitted that a land value tax is the “least distorting” of the market place of any tax system yet proposed.  What “least distorting” means is that economic decisions are more similar to the state of anarcho capitalism than they are under alternate proposed systems of income.  On the expenditure side, Charles Murray, darling of many of the same libertarian ideologues, has stated that a citizens’ dividend—evenly dividing government revenue among all citizens—is the least distorting of “public choice”.  What he means is that a society that evenly disperses government revenue to all citizens results in social decisions closer to anarcho capitalism than they are under alternate proposed systems of government appropriation.

Both of these attempts to minimize “distortion” in the presence of government redistribution have in common a fundamental concept: “economic rent”.  I won’t go into the history of land value taxation theory and “economic rent” except to say that, contrary to Jewish economist David Ricardo’s land-based definition, “economic rent” is well summed up by the phrase “benefits to fitness” within this quote from W. D. Hamilton’s paper, “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man”:

“Often, however, the cost in fitness of such altruism and sublimated pugnacity to the individuals concerned is by no means metaphorical, and the benefits to fitness, such as they are, go to a mass of individuals whose genetic correlation with the innovator must be slight indeed. Thus civilization probably slowly reduces its altruism of all kinds, including the kinds needed for cultural creativity.”

What Hamilton is really describing is the way civilization exterminates inventive genes in its gene pool by failing to return to the inventor the fruits of his invention—instead—feeding the reproduction of competing genes.  Various attempts to remedy this situation such as “intellectual property” tend to be hijacked by Jews with their verbal IQs focused on property acquisition.

For example, men of my cohort who contributed substantially to the technical base of the Internet, the fruits of which are now being reaped by Jews and Dravidians as well as the rest of society, from the 1970s through the 1990s has reproduction less than half of the already suppressed white population.  Of my top 10 male associates who were important contributors, there are only 2 sons born of Euro females that stand any chance of reproducing.  They are now in their 50s, most broke if not bankrupted by the H-1b invasion, and will not have any more children.

Every piece of wealth, be it gold, land or a corner grocery store, in society is, to degrees varying with their “monopoly” status as property rights, made more valuable by such systemic benefits of easily reproducible innovation.  Land only seems special to economic theorists because it is the classic case of a fixed asset that everyone needs but which “they’re not making any more of”—hence containing a large degree of monopolistic value.

Of course, invention comes in many guises—not just putting together a better mechanical contraption—and those inventions, be they ways of doing business or ways of organizing communities or some scientific discovery that clarifies our relationship with nature, also increase the value of properties with which they are distantly related.  Usually attempts to account for these benefits, again, accrues to Jews via monopoly on historic records and story telling such that their social capital is maximized and the value—mainly of their males—in the reproductive marketplace increases to the point that they rape-by-fraud vast numbers of the prime women that should be bearing children of the real heroes.

One solution is to treat civilization itself as a public health hazard:  Destroy civilization before it destroys the gene pool and keep destroying, as it arises, all infrastructure that may represent the creation of civilization, before it can in effect parasitically castrate the men who built it subsequent to its take over by parasites.

Another solution, and one that sometimes seems near to being realized in various places around the world at various times in history, is to collect the portion of value that rains down upon all properties within civilization from innovators—value which I call “economic rent”—and instead of allocating it according to sophistry of politicians, lawyers, academics and storytellers, simply divide it up evenly amongst all people.  This solution does not, of course, completely eliminate W. D. Hamilton’s concern, but it does at least prevent the horrendous genocide of creation seen during the last decades where a small number of third-rate inventors are grotesquely rewarded with monopoly profits and held up as an example of how well-compensated innovators are, so that the rest, including first-rate inventors, can have their wealth, hence potential children, confiscated by parasites.

The quantification of economic rent is pretty simple—it is the “no brainer” profit stream expected from an asset.  Banks routinely estimate this when giving out loans when they assess the collateral value of the borrower’s assets.  This is generally done by taking what is called the “liquidation value” (more precisely, the “orderly liquidation value in place”) of an asset and applying the “risk free interest rate” to that value.  Liquidation value of an asset is the value that virtually anyone could get from it if they were handed title to the asset and told to go sell it in a reasonable period of time.  The “risk free interest rate” is usually the rate of return guaranteed by the government when you loan it money for short periods of time.

These mechanisms operate in the “civil” environment—an environment characterized by governments—an environment capable of supporting high value assets we typically associate with “cities” (which shares its linguistic root with “civil”).  However, if we are to be rational about the interests of the individuals entering into an agreement to establish and maintain “civilization” it must be admitted that they would not wish to turn over to it that which they, themselves, possess by virtue of existing as human animals—the ability to defend their homes, families, tools and small-holding of land, fishing rights or other natural resource with which they can support their reproduction.  If they were to turn over such individual sovereignty they would become in essence slaves to civilization.  Hence in a free society, it makes sense to leave in the hands of individuals that portion of economic rent accruing to them by virtue of their subsistence properties—again, for emphasis (since this seems to be the point where I lose the most people’s reading comprehension) we are talking about some amount of assets sufficient to be equivalent to the ownership of a small family farm and all of its equipment.

15 years ago I wrote a white paper on this general topic to which a leading economist at a leading economic think tank in Washington D.C. responded: “Jim, you’re doing a great public service by researching this but there is no way we can continue to receive funding if we study proposals like this.”  At that time, using figures from a 1983 Joint Economic Committee of Congress and a relatively low “subsistence exemption”, it appeared possible to completely replace all government taxation with such a use fee on property rights other than subsistence property rights (what one might think of as “natural property rights” within a Lockean philosophy of libertarianism).  At present, using a much higher “subsistence exemption” of about $500,000 (mid2007 USD) per household, the most recent study of wealth distribution in the United States conducted by the Federal Reserve based on 2004 data can reasonably be extrapolated to 2007 conditions and provide $2 trillion in revenue.  This doesn’t get rid of the deficit but with a much stronger Yeoman class supported by a $500,000 per household exemption (which means US Treasury instruments yielding the risk free interest rate rapidly shift to the portfolio of the rapidly expanding Yeoman class), it is reasonable to move to a Swiss style military defense—proven effective for 500 years during which the Swiss have held strong to their territory.  Moreover, as public choice rent-seeking is reduced to 0 by moving government revenue to an evenly distributed citizens’ dividend (approximately $10,000 per adult citizen or $20,000 per married household), the efficiency of domestic social functions will increase, as extensively described by Charles Murray in his recent book on such a citizens’ dividend: In Our Hands.  Something Murray doesn’t mention is the fact that a citizens’ dividend clarifies the dilution of social capital represented by immigration—just as does the reckless issuance of stock in any corporate entity dilute the share value for all current share holders.

Ultimately, the libertarian principle of freedom of association can work together with a use fee for property rights to support assortative migration of populations into deeply libertarian human ecologies by making territorial boundaries themselves more liquid.

The New York Times reports that:

If his campaign had taken place in the pre-Internet era, it might have gone the way of his 1988 Libertarian campaign for president, as a footnote to history. But because of the Internet’s low-cost ability to connect grass-roots supporters with one another — in this case, largely iconoclastic white men — Mr. Paul’s once-solo quest has taken on a life of its own. It is evolving from a figment of cyberspace into a traditional campaign, with yard signs, direct mail and old-fashioned rallies, like one here on Saturday attended by a few thousand people under cold, gray skies. Mr. Paul said it was his biggest rally so far. He said it proved his campaign was more than “a few spammers” and called it a “gigantic opportunity” to establish credibility.

Thanks to Marge O’Brien for bringing to our attention this video of Ron Paul being interviewed by the editorial board of the Nashua Telegraph.  If you see no other Ron Paul video you must see this!

A little over a year ago, I wrote:

There is reason to believe the start of the hyperinflationary collapse of Western Civilization is imminent—as in within the next year.

To which the [insert sarcastic honorific here] John Jay Ray replied:

What a lot of rubbish!
Inflation has never been so well controlled as it is now

JR
Posted by john ray on Sunday, July 16, 2006 at 07:26 PM

To which I then replied

There is a minor distinction between “now” and “starting within a year from now” that JJR seems unable to comprehend.

To be more precise, now we have just enough inflationary pressure to cause a slight rise in interest rates—which is par for the course. This is likely to remain the status quo until the adjustable rate mortgages held by the landlords start driving large numbers of people out of their homes and/or landlords to default.  This hasn’t happened yet—but rents are creeping up.  The disparity between rents and new mortgage payments are high— rents remaining low mainly due to the inertia of all the children of boomers that weren’t born so landlords could have a few more dollars of real estate equity for their retirement.

I really wouldn’t want to be a landlord who relied heavily on real estate value for his retirement.  He might not have much left after his part in the collective genocide produces the much delayed reaction—not even his head.
Posted by James Bowery on Sunday, July 16, 2006 at 08:21 PM

The [insert yet another sarcastic honorific here] John Jay Ray then queried:

James
How much economics have you done?
Nil by the sound of it.

Tax receipts are booming in The USA and Australia so that is about as strong an indication of ANTI-inflationary pressure as you can get.  Even Britain is doing relatively well economically.

There would have to be a HUGE boost in govt spending to generate inflationary pressure and that is politically not on
Posted by jonjayray on Monday, July 17, 2006 at 03:13 AM

There is more but I don’t think it is even necessary for me to provide links to current economic conditions, is there?

What I should link to is an article describing the moral character of land barons—such as John Jay Ray—titled “Land Barons Committed Genocide Against Whites During the Peak of Boomer Fertility”.

Tonight, as the Environment Agency warns of a three-metre storm surge hitting the east coast, another unwelcome ingress is to be debated on a simultaneous BBC TV and radio broadcast.  The Big Immigration Debate, a Newsnight/Radio 5 Live production, is to begin at 22.30 hrs GMT.

Which is NOW, more or less!

Mainstream politicos and the inevitable panel of “experts”, including the steadfast Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch, will answer ... all the wrong questions.

The first question is: Is immigration threatening British identity?  A non-issue, since British identity does not exist.  But a Newsnight poll reported 62% saying yes.

The principal issues to be discussed in the Debate are: the government’s handling of immigration; the economic benefits; the impact on public services, and on social cohesion.

The incorrigible John Standing sent Newsnight an e-mail asking “What will be the condition of the English people at the start of the 22nd Century?”

You can hear the show live until midnight.

Along the road to the reclamation of homeland lies the reclamation of free-thinking and free speech.  A few days ago The Times put up a discussion topic titled, Do migrants make us or break us?  Despite the fact that this is, in mainstream terms, precisely the gateway question - the beginning of understanding - there have only been 24 comments at the time of posting this entry.  Compare that to the 205 that The Guardian musters for a piece titled The toxic Powell legacy, written by a sub-con named Sunder Katwala.

OK, the very fact that immigration is now dominating all the serious rags is a great advance on the conspiracy of silence of five years ago.  But really ... 24 comments on what is, after all, the choice between a prosperity predicated, supposedly, on racial egalitarianism and the Darwinian meaning of life itself!  When the circulation of The Times is 700,000 and The Guardian 375,000!

Well, I decided to conduct a (necessarily very small) experiment on The Times’ thread.  Since the headline question is the precurser to a proper political understanding of race and modernity, I’ve stretched it a little by submitting to The Times’ moderator a few rather more cogent questions.  Here they are:-

Questions to sleepers.

1) Is good business a good enough reason for English children to lose their birthright to England?

2) Is it fair or moral of the self-hating left and self-interested racial minorities to scream “racist” at those who seek the actual survival of the English people?

3) Do you believe that the English have a moral right to survive?

4) Do you understand that territory is the guarantor of genetic continuity?  Do you believe that the English have a moral right to assert their ownership of England?

5) If, in fact, the demographic trajectory for us is already one of continuing local displacement, national dispossession and genetic deracination, do you think it is better to repatriate immigrants wholesale or to acquiesce in an inevitable if long and slow extinction?

6) Will the hyper-moral return of tolerance mean anything if we do not survive?

7) If you are English, do you love your people?  Is there anything outside of your immediate family which you love more?

Now, these are the sort of questions that have twice got me banned at The Guardian, once as Guessedworker, once just the other day as this guy John Standing.  Will they survive the cut at The Times?  Has freedom of expression recovered to that point, or is it only permissable for mainstreamers to ask the questions?

And, of course, if the comment is published, will any readers answer?  Will they be Englishmen or opportunistic cryptos?

We shall, as the blind man said, see.

Five years ago Sepp Blatter, president of Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) ...

... proposed limiting the number of foreign players at the top level of club football in Europe.

No, he wasn’t trying to finesse his way into the Madrid starting line-up.  He was, in his patrician way, concerned that Europe’s national teams did not have a sufficient pool of top-flight talent from which to draw.  Clubs had no incentive to gamble on identifying and nurturing home-grown talent when Africa and South America can and do produce the finished article in ample quantity and at low cost.  The result has been that some clubs such as Chelsea and Arsenal regularly field sides with only one or two players eligible to play for England - and it’s the same all across the European game, particularly in Spain.  England and Spain, it’s well understood, are serial low-achievers in the two big international competitions.

Blatter lost the argument.  He was out of step with the cool, cool image of the beautiful, anti-national game.  So cosmopolitan, so wildly popular with the white working-class male, it was just the ticket for a progressive, anti-racist political leader ...

... in search of street cred.

Besides, EU employment law was clear.  Blatter could not legally limit the clubs to a quota of non-EU players.

But that was then, and this is now.  Blatter claims to have won over the EU to his position:-

FIFA president Sepp Blatter is working with the European Union on plans to reduce the number of overseas players dominating teams in leagues across Europe.  Speaking to reporters in the Malaysian capital, where he is attending a regional award ceremony, Blatter said it was time for a change in Europe.

“The European Union does not cover this issue in its constitution at the moment but sport will be mentioned for the first time when they change their laws in December,” Blatter said.  “There are a number of processes coming together to stop the overwhelming presence of non-national players in club leagues.”

Blatter added that FIFA would like to set a limit of five foreigners in any starting line-up with the other six berths comprising players eligible to be selected for the national team of the country where the league was based.

Regarding the former difficulty of the free movement of professional footballers, he now says:-

The European Union has implemented the free circulation of workers, but football players are not employees in the conventional sense of the term. You need 11 of them on the pitch, and it is not at all the same thing as being an employee in a given company.

READ MORE...

The polls upon which editors rely are unscientific hence unethical in the sense of the press having an ethical responsibility to serve the public:

The Old Media is relying on name recognition in polls like Gallup and Harris, etc. to determine their priority in who they cover—but name recognition is driven in large measure by Old Media coverage.

The ethical thing for Old Media editors to do is demand polls from Gallup, Harris, etc. that, instead of, in effect, asking for name recognition, ask for position matching. Obvious questions should be asked, such as:

If a candidate had opposed the entry of the US into Iraq, would you tend to support or oppose him?

etc…

But since Old Media editors are not ethical, we get very angry reactions from very informed people of integrity—like military vets who set foot in Iraq.

These are not men you want very angry with you.

Now, this may well be one of those cases where “One should never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.” but there comes a point where the distinction is irrelevant.

Now to the question of bias:

There are scientifically validated ways of constructing optimal questionnaires.

To construct such scientific questionnaires you start with an unscientific, but large, set of questions—large enough that you can reasonably expect it to touch on all of the critical dimensions of opinion. You then pick tolerably-small subsets of those questions to present to actual subjects. As you do so you start to construct a sparse matrix of questions vs answers—with many missing values—and run imputation algorithms such as Expectation Maximization or one of the many algorithms being developed to detect missing data in competitions like the Netflix Prize, which will tell you which questions provide you with the most predictive power over other questions. You then progressively bias the random selection of your questions toward those questions that you have evidence provide you with maximum information, continually retesting your model until you have a high degree of confidence you have a good subset. As a further refinement you can pursue conditional probability models involving Bayesian statistics so that you can dynamically customize the set of questions you ask of your subjects to extract the maximum predictive power from the set of questions you present to them.

None of this is particularly innovative and the methods are well established within statistics.

UPDATE:  USA Today’s Candidate Match Game shows that this concept isn’t foreign to Old Media.  Unfortunately, it does not appear to have affected their reporting priorities—probably in part due to the fact that it wasn’t conducted by Gallup or Harris in a scientific fashion.  It reflects poorly on USA Today that they recognize such a “Matching Game” would be a reader draw and yet not recognize that the reason it might be appealing is that it is more valid than the polls from Gallup and Harris upon which their editorial/marketing decisions erroneously rely.