Contact Us | Jobs And Opportunities | Register/Log-in |

The Global Land Tool Network (GLTN) contributes to the
implementation of pro poor land policies to achieve
secure land rights for all. Read more...

Home arrow Forum

May 17th, 2012

Forum
Login
If you do not have an account, please click here to register
Stay Connected
           
   
Facts
Forum  


 User post
 Moderator post or edited by moderator
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>
Q1: - 2009/04/15 10:29 GMT Can land tenure reforms eliminate the neo-Malthusian poverty-environment trap?
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Q1: - 2009/04/23 21:48 GMT What a beautiful question! Neo-Malthusians are bubbling up everywhere and need a reality check. It's called cause and effect.

High population growth rates only occur where health and education is poor. This in turn results from a poor revenue raising system.

Ethiopian farmers only have 8 kids because they know only a few will survive. When resource rents are recycled amongst the people rather than into the deepest pockets, health and education are possible.

To think that the 'resource curse' is discussed as the problem rather than a decent tax system. It's the lack of resource rentals/ LVT. Transparency internatinal can help too. East Timor is proving that oil wealth can be invested wisely. check - http://www.earthsharing.org.au/2009/04/23/east-timor-the-steven-bradbury-of-swfs/

LVT sees urban density rather than sprawl. Cheaper land leads to higher employment and wages. LVT ushers GFC inspiring land speculators out of the market and into productive work. The boom-bust nature of modern economics is downgraded. Stability is enhanced.

I like the slow food movement (the opposite to fast food, where you get to sit down with your family at the table and savour tasty organic food)._. Perhaps someone in time will see our movement as the economics equivalent.

Cheaper land & higher wages could restore our connection with family and community. Women would be better educated, having a drastic effect on population growth.

Importantly, this system of LVT smoothes out the imbalance of rural to city, curtailing the urban drift phenomena. With less slums and more homegrown employment even ne-malthusian watermelons (green on the outside, red socialists on the inside) could and must wake up.

Ahh thank you for that stress relief, now only if someone could list all the key reports we need to quote to shoot these people down ;)
Listen to the Renegade Economists podcast I co-host, covering land rent issues weekly - http://www.earthsharing.org.au/2008/05/26/renegade-economists-now-podcasting/
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Q1: - 2009/04/24 13:20 GMT Karl Fitzgerald wrote:
[quote]
High population growth rates ONLY occur where health and education is poor. This in turn results from a poor revenue raising system.
____________________________________________________

What scientific or empirical evidence is there to show that "High population growth rates ONLY occur where health and education is poor"?

Did you mean to say "High birth rate" rather than "High population growth rates"? Within the circumstances of this discussion, high population growth rates may not ONLY occur where health and education is poor.

Still thinking about this statement!

Post edited by: echigbu, at: 2009/04/24 13:24 GMT
It is all about land!
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Stein Holden

 
Click here to see the profile of this user
Re:Q1: - 2009/04/24 17:07 GMT Perhaps you could explain your abbreviation LVT and GFC. They are not obvious to me and may be not to others either.
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Q1: - 2009/04/27 18:14 GMT 'Limit to use' is inherent in the concept of sustainable development. Malthian theory was based on an assumption that human consumption rate cannot decrease as time goes on, and productivity cannot increase beyond a limit in the future.

However, later when productivity could be increased tremendously due to the advancements in agricultural sciences, Malthusian theory got failed.

Neo-Malthusians believe 'Environment contradictions are now limiting the productivity' and the society is again moving towards catastrophes. However, if humans learn to successfully deal with all environment degradations and discard the consumerist style, and adopt a simple lifestyle, the Neo-Malthusian concepts would not become a reality. But this is not an easy task.

Humans need to think seriously that the aim of all developments is ultimately to make them more happier than in the past; but in the absence of a true criteria for real happiness, true developments will never be achieved!

Provision of better life conditions such as better shelter, clothing, food, medicines and recreations are all measures to make people more happier than in the past. But in reality, what do we see in the present world is that these consumerist efforts are bringing happiness to people only temporarily. Consumerism cannot bring out sustainable happiness to humans.

Real happiness or sustainable happiness does not depend on the uncontrolled individual freedom to consume the maximum; but it depends on the social efforts to keep a steady and balanced interactions of individuals in a society. In otherwords, sustinable happiness lies in a just, peaceful and harmonious global society.

Sustainable happiness depends on the spiritual as well as scientific advancement of individuals and groups in a society.

Ecology is a moral science - the ultimate of science and religion that enable humans to achieve sustainable happiness through a different outlook to fellow beings, nature and natural resources.

Therefore I believe that the neo-malthusian theories will fail if humans learn to accept Ecology as the ultimate of science and religion!
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Q1: - 2009/04/28 14:56 GMT LVT is usually short for Land Value Tax or Taxation.

In my part of the world, GFC means Good for Corporates!
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Q1: - 2009/04/28 23:54 GMT Hi Eugene,
yes good points, my sunday morning rant was a little obtuse. Birth rates yes rather than pop growth.
I have smoothed out some of these points in a longer blogpost here http://www.earthsharing.org.au/2009/04/28/populationist-pressures-unravelled/

This post includes more on the economic factors undermining communities and prodding proud people into refugee status.

Someone else asked what LVT is - Land Value Taxation.
GFC = Good for Corporates...nahh only joking, Global Financial Crisis.

With my research I was a little shocked to see how well organised the populationists are. They have graphs everywhere.

However, those of us with a georgist background have a deeper understanding that health and literacy funding have a large influence on birth rates. The ability to put food on the table ie economic oportunity, is another huge preventative measure to large birth rates. Also, every now and then a population correction occurs. Who knows, maybe the present swine flu is mother nature re-balancing the playing field.
Listen to the Renegade Economists podcast I co-host, covering land rent issues weekly - http://www.earthsharing.org.au/2008/05/26/renegade-economists-now-podcasting/
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Stein Holden

 
Click here to see the profile of this user
Re:Q1: - 2009/04/29 11:34 GMT Hi Karl
You wrote:
"Cheaper land & higher wages could restore our connection with family and community. Women would be better educated, having a drastic effect on population growth."

I agree with your points about education, health, etc. One dilemma, however, is that in some of the environmental hotspots the effects of these are too far into the future and in the meanwhile land is getting more and more scarce and more expensive to access while the shadow wages of people (because the labour market is not working and many are rationed out of it) are getting lower and lower. The system of equitable land distribution as a safety net is also eroding because each child in the family only can get a very small piece of land. Setting minimum farm sizes seem not to solve the problem. Food-for-work programs can be an alternative safety net but also needs to be financed by somebody. So for me it is not about which theory you believe in but about which theory applies to which bio-economy. I am an optimist and try to believe more in Boserup than in Malthus but when it comes down to the reality, these are empirical issues. Still, I believe there can be solutions to poverty traps, that often are strengthened by policy failures. So this is primarily about replacing policy failures with good policies!
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Q1: - 2009/09/21 09:24 GMT High birth rates predominantly occur where health and education is low.This in turn results from a negligent revenue raising system. When resource rents are recycled amongst the people rather than into the deepest pockets of the wealthiest, respectable health and education funding is possible.

Whilst cultural and religious aspects may impact on population growth rates, the effect of the wealth gap dominates. The health olympics is a worthy study which re-iterates that regardless of the health spending, unless the over-riding economic policy encourages opportunity and equality, health efforts will be undermined. We need to be able to put food on the table to remain healthy.



http://foreclosureprocesstoday.com/
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Q1: - 2009/11/15 15:34 GMT Hi All,


I think some points should be clear. You should clear it so that the discussion can be informative and interesting. what do you think about it ?


Thanks,
http://www.babyphon-babyphone.de
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>