I think we talk about different things. I talk about what has initiated the industrial revolution in the second half of the 18th century and you talk about land speculation. Of the increase in productivity in the last 250 years for sure everybody who participates in the society has profited.
That's all well and fine, but unless you can show a causal relationship between individual ownership of land and industrialisation, you still haven't made the case that everybody benefits from individual land ownership.
Otherwise, the wealth created by the industrial production economy is really beside the point.
Or somebody donates [e.g. via a land reform] it to you
Which has not happened in any Western(TM) society since the 19th century, AFAIK. And back then, land was "reformed" from the poor to the rich, by the way.
or there is a rule, that somebody who urbanises a piece of land can own up to certain amount [USA, 18th century or so]
That involves chasing the existing occupant out of said land.
or it is anyhow 'your' land in the sense, that your family has a subsistence farm on the land for centuries, and now you get legal codification.
Again, this does not apply to mature industrial economies.
Or you have worked in the past and saved enough to acquire a piece.
And how many land purchases were cleared in cash in the Bundesrepublik last year?
Why the hell do you want land in cities, if not for the other people there? How is the increased value of a piece of land in a city NOT made by humans?
It is made by humans, but that is beside the point. It's not made by the owner of the land. It's made by society as a whole - in other words, the owner of the land cashes in on value that has virtually nothing to do with his own endeavours. I call that either a speculative gain or a rent.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
The link is, that propertisation has allowed to make a lot more credit. Independent of any possible gold standard, the commercial banks collaterise(d) there loans with the land. That is not to say, that it is impossible to invent different models for collaterisation. But it is a very good one, because land value is so stable. Mohammed Yunus with his Grameen bank takes good will and shame as collateral. This is already quite sophisticated. Still he demands 20-30% interest rate on loans, and the loans have a very low volume.
Yes, that was a collection of measures that happened in the past. We can invent new measures, but this is a measure that happened really in the past.
It has once applied to economies that are today industrial. It has initiated capitalism. To undo it, would undo capitalism (unless you have a smart replacement).
Most purchases of blank land that happend. Not many overall, as we are in a rather stable situation. But even in the remaining cases it is a portion of every deal. The rest you borrow by collaterising what you just bought. But then over time the debt is repaid. Land ownership isn't something to which only 0.1% of the population have access to and it isn't entirely by heritage. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
To undo it, would undo capitalism (unless you have a smart replacement).
Exactly.
The land is held by a Custodian, so it is never sold again. Co-owner Occupiers may change and Co-owner Investors may change but the land is never sold again.
For as long as he has use of the land (ie an indefinite term) the Occupier pays a rental for the use of the location (to the community) and to Investors (for the use of the capital invested in the location).
Anything an Occupier pays more than the rental due buys him Units. And if he maintains the property himself he gets Sweat Equity.
No borrowing. Just Units created within a partnership framework redeemable in rental value.
There we go. Reinvented Capitalism. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
