The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
That may be the case for Hong Kong, but their system is defective in many ways: it just happens to monetise (indirectly via the government as intermediary) far more land value than virtually anyone else.
Which I think is a Good Thing tax-wise.
What I am proposing is essentially a loan direct to the land, not to the owner.
The difference is that in this loan, no money is paid for the use of money, but rather, money is being paid for the use of the capital invested in a particular location, both publicly and privately.
I can demonstrate conclusively that - as should be intuitively obvious - a funding cost that does not include compound interest is lower than one which does.
Also, I think that a currency redeemable in payment for such a rental payment would be generally fungible in a location.
"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed"
Who said anything about the custodian being the sovereign?
Managing the monetary system is a sovereign function, because the sovereign is the only economic actor within its jurisdiction that is solvent by fiat rather than balance sheet.
Making a monetary system without a sovereign that's actually sovereign is - eh - not wise, as the EU has been quite instructively demonstrating for the next best thing to three years now.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by marco - Aug 24 18 comments
by car05 - Aug 27 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 17
by john_evans - Aug 18 25 comments
by Metatone - Aug 14 24 comments
by DoDo - Aug 11 91 comments
by Helen - Aug 3 32 comments
by car05 - Aug 273 comments
by marco - Aug 2418 comments
by john_evans - Aug 1825 comments
by gmoke - Aug 17
by Metatone - Aug 1424 comments
by DoDo - Aug 1191 comments
by Helen - Aug 332 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 2246 comments