As a farner you want to own your own house and land, right? Anything else would be seen as... I don't know... communism?
Of course, everybody should own their own house and land. But should people also own other people's houses and lands? And tax their labour and invested capital? That is what rents, according to theory, do..
But there's often an immense amount of labour involved in use.
It's the different rights and obligations that together comprise the property relationship (property is not an object) that we are talking about here. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Saying that there is no labour or entrepeneurship involved is... quite an extraordinary pronouncement.
... and it's exactly what I did not say!
I said that the value of that labor and entrepreneurship is largely captured by the owner of the underlying land, who can extract rent. If the farmer and forester does own the land, then (s)he can keep that value - otherwise (s)he'll have to pay out most of the value to the landowner.
I don't even understand what you're arguing about. Capturing value has very little to do with generating value (well, it needs it to happen, but nowhere does it say that it's the same people that do both...) In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I don't even understand what you're arguing about.
the people who farm the land are often the same as those who own it
The issue is complex, though. Sharecropping
is still used in many rural poor areas today, notably in Pakistan and in India. Although there is a perception that sharecropping was exploitative, "Evidence from around the world suggests that sharecropping is often a way for differently endowed enterprises to pool resources to mutual benefit, overcoming credit restraints and helping to manage risk." [6] It can have more than a passing similarity to serfdom or indenture, and it has therefore been seen as an issue of land reform in contexts such as the Mexican Revolution. However, Nyambara states that Eurocentric historiographical devices like `feudalism' or `slavery' often qualified by weak prefixes like `semi-' or `quasi-' are not helpful in understanding the antecedents and functions of sharecropping in Africa. [7] Sharecropping agreements can however be made fairly, as a form of tenant farming or sharefarming that has a variable rental payment, paid in arrears.
Although there is a perception that sharecropping was exploitative, "Evidence from around the world suggests that sharecropping is often a way for differently endowed enterprises to pool resources to mutual benefit, overcoming credit restraints and helping to manage risk." [6]
It can have more than a passing similarity to serfdom or indenture, and it has therefore been seen as an issue of land reform in contexts such as the Mexican Revolution. However, Nyambara states that Eurocentric historiographical devices like `feudalism' or `slavery' often qualified by weak prefixes like `semi-' or `quasi-' are not helpful in understanding the antecedents and functions of sharecropping in Africa. [7]
Sharecropping agreements can however be made fairly, as a form of tenant farming or sharefarming that has a variable rental payment, paid in arrears.
Although there is a perception that sharecropping was exploitative, "Evidence from around the world suggests that sharecropping is often a way for differently endowed enterprises to pool resources to mutual benefit,
that's what help-x is like. people want to travel further, cheaper, and are willing to trade half a day's work for board and lodging in different countries, enabling them to stretch their money, and see new situations, meet new people, and learn by doing.
i have checked myself out to feel whether i feel like i'm exploiting them, because it's MY place, and i don't feel i am, because they are happy, and because i did similar things at their age, 30 years younger than i am.
seems like a win-win, the only better one being to give them a part-ownership in trade for their commitment beyond the simple relationship of manual worker.
unless we do away with ownership completely (could conceivably happen, but not much positive track record of success with this form of society, so far), then this is the next fairest solution.
it's fun too... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
My point was that the people who farm the land are often the same as those who own it. kj63 implied, or rather said straightforwardly, that these people are freeloaders.
I did not. I was talking about rents.
Returning to present day, if the farmers have loans on the property, then they do pay rent (in the form of interest) on the land. A (smaller or bigger) portion of the land value is thus captured by someone else. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
And additionally if we talk about loans, we are talking about something else than extracting rent from natural resources, we are talking about extracting rent from financial capital. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
And additionally if we talk about loans, we are talking about something else than extracting rent from natural resources, we are talking about extracting rent from financial capital.
But financial capital - as opposed to capital in the forms of machines and other means of production - is simply a relationship. As is leasing. And in both cases the person who puts in labor and real capital pays part of the produce of the land to the rentiers that allows said person to use the land.
Those rentiers would be the freeloaders in question. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
