admin   October 23, 2016   Comments Off on Welcome

This website acknowledges that land is free – as free as sunshine, air and water. However, the further fact is that we think it can be owned, and this has a serious effect on the distribution of wealth.

That land is free by nature cannot be disputed.

It is here when we arrive, and we cannot take it when we leave. By natural law, all must have equal rights to its use. But we have devised  a system of absolute ownership with the right to charge a rent to a user. This is completely entrenched in the law of the land.

Of course, man must be able to use land for a reasonable term so as to be able to bring his product to completion and sale, and also to continue in business. The use of certain pieces of land bring benefits, either due to fertility, or more importantly, due to facilities provided by the community around.

So the question is, how to recognise the freedom of land, wbookshile providing security of tenure, and return to the community the result of its efforts as they apply to each piece of land. If we do not upset the laws we have too much, so much the better.

The method for collecting revenue supported by this website is a levy of a site value each year on each site. Although termed a tax, it is really a return to the community for the benefits attached to each site, whether negligible or enormous.

The following Topic Papers explore some of the implications of this proposal. The general intention is to name a particular problem, then to show how it might be dealt with under site value taxation.

The consequences of not recognising natural law are growing. The heavy burden of land prices and the increasing gap between rich and poor are problems that will have to be dealt with.

Please note; Signed Articles must be considered personal views of the contributors, and not necessarily the views of Landisfree.

Print Friendly


It is not generally understood that the vexed role of money in our society is due entirely to its underpinning by the great vexed, unresolved and ultimately all-underlying land question.

The best key to understanding this is undoubtedly the pictorial presentation of a great natural law: the Law of Rent.* << which can be found at www.henrygeorge.org/rent1.htm >> But it can perhaps also be quite well understood if I quote from the introductory passages to its classic version:

The Iron Law of Wages — The return to labor, however great the potential of the land that is worked, and however great the individual effort put into the work, will never be greater than the return available from the most marginal land in use.

From the foregoing it is clear that money’s power to exploit, in our society, is bedded in its power to grant to such a society’s “landowners” the power to possess stolen goods.

Where, under the natural Law of Rent, stolen goods are ruled out, when phony landownership is abolished, there money reverts to its original, and solely beneficial, role: as a measuring device which simplifies fair exchange, in people’s desire to trade goods with one another. I place the word “landowners” in quotes, in view of Thomas Paine’s famous words that so brilliantly pinpoint our all-underlying trouble: “I never heard that the Creator opened an estate-office to issue title-deeds to land.” The human-devised deed of land-entitlement is the institutor of robbery in our society — and the creator and originator of today’s entire “money problem.”

For these entitlement-to-land deeds then proceed falsely to co-opt land into the role of capital (land may be God’s capital; it’s not ours) and thus land comes falsely to assume a monetary value, fixed according to its exchangeability with true items of capital value: things brought into being by human labor.

The total madness of co-opting land into a capital role is that land, gifted to us by a mysterious Creator, cannot be made by man. Therefore the buying and selling of land in the market, as if it were a form of capital, invites its hoarding and monopolizing. This allows the ultimate horror to operate in our society: that of an all-underlying monopoly, for nothing can be produced, no labor can be exerted, without access to land.

Advocates of political decentralization such as Kathleen Janaway are entirely lost in advocating that money should be used to buy land. In this urging such folk are “doing the Devil’s work for him”! As we have seen, it is precisely the marketing of land that the false face of money, in our society, arises out of!

Let it be repeated: the original and true role of money in our society is entirely friendly, facilitating the exchange of goods among people by a simple device of measurement. Money’s role in accumulating an unjust quantity of goods in the hands of some depends on those goods being stolen goods!

Let it further be noted that, even were money in today’s society to be done away with, we would rapidly discover who still “held all the chips” — those who hold our society’s false deeds of entitlement to land! And let us note in passing that those deeds permeate equally the entire global stock market, and all those phony mortgages (roughly 80% of which are based on the land component) which have cruelly dispossessed people from their homes and caused the banking crash.

In welcome contrast to these confusions (the give-away Law of Rent having been strictly excluded from our educational systems, from bottom to top!) let me acknowledge Kathleen Janaway’s profound insight: << in New Leaves, the journal of the Movement for Compassionate Living ( www.mclveganway.org.uk ) >>

There is overwhelming evidence that true democracy cannot function on this scale of the large modern state with central government. In the so-called democracies of today, the good of all the people is certainly not achieved. On the contrary the gap between the rich and poor grows ever greater.

Society’s acute need for radical political decentralization is, in fact, responded to by the Natural Law of Rent itself, which in sorting out economic problems carries with it the radical decentralization of political power!

Fortunately, as more and more people are coming today to see, radical political decentralization is not just the only sane way for society to operate, but is also the only happy way — as is so excellently expressed in the Irish Celtic saying, “It is in the shelter of each other that people live.”


The unspeakable effrontery involved in commoditising of the Earthly Mother — to bring her to market and sell her like a slave — brings in its wake, inevitably, the commoditsing of all of her children, which include the other orders of creation: furred, feathered and finned.


Let others labor

I shall own the land

They’ll work for bread

And place it in my hand

— Bill Mollison, founder of the Permaculture movement


Print Friendly



Tommasic dialogue

Stranger                  This looks like a nice country

Resident                  Yes, we do some things very well.

Stranger                   Only some?

Resident                   Well our tax system is a disaster

Stranger                   Oh dear! What is the tax rate on wages for example?

Resident                   One hundred percent!

Stranger                   What! But I have a leaflet here from HMRC. It does not mention anything like that!

Resident                   No, it is heavily disguised.

Stranger                   Tell me more.

Resident                   Right. But first we had better be clear what we are talking about.

Stranger                    Go ahead!

Resident                   Well, here is a tin of beans, it costs one pound before tax.They then                                           add 20% VAT.

                                   So the tax rate is expressed as a percentage of the cost before tax.

Stranger                    Seems straightforward. What are you leading to?

Resident                   When I say our tax rate on wages is 100%, I mean the taxes are 100%                                         of what is left after tax is deducted.

Stranger                   OK, I get that. But how does it tie up with this leaflet?

Resident                   We start with the cost to the employer, then take off all the taxes paid                                     on that cost, until we get  left with what the worker actually enjoys.                                        We find that all the taxes are as much as what he actually enjoys.                                               So that is a tax rate of 100%.

Stranger                   So you mean that 50% of Employers’ costs of wages goes in taxation?

Resident                  Yes, but from the point of view of the wage earner, as in the tin of                                              beans, the rate on what is left for him to live on is 100%.

Stranger                   Right, I get it. But why do they do it that way?

Resident                   That is a tricky question. What it comes down to, is that the people of                                       this country prefer this system, rather than using the natural                                                     provision for government expenditure, which is expressed as location                                       alues, created by all for the use of all.

Stranger                   How odd! But I suppose if I’m going to live here, I had better understand the details.

Resident                  Here is a set of tables…………………………..

The numbers at the foot are the total salaries negotiated when you take on a job. The employer has to pay more than that because he has to pay a surcharge called National Insurance of 13.8%. The mauve columns show the rate of tax applied to the remainder that the worker actually enjoys, after Income Tax, more National Insurance, and Indirect Taxes included in his purchases.

The yellow columns are the result of the same calculations for Self-Employed persons, who pay lower rates of National Insurance. However, remember they are responsible for their own Pension contributions.

The Indirect taxes included are derived from Government Statistics which show that the lower paid pay a higher proportion of their take home pay than do the higher paid, thus reversing some of the effects of lower Income tax rates.

The tax rates and detailed calculations are on the attached sheets.


Another way of looking at it follows;-  








What this chart shows is the constituent parts of the cost of wages to an employer. For any given gross pay shown on the left, 100% is the employers’ cost including Employers National Insurance contributions in purple. Indirect taxes are shown in green, direct taxes, PAYE and Employees NIC in orange. The blue part is what is left to the employee to spend, excluding VAT and other indirect taxes, which we have called “reward for work”, ie take-home-pay less indirect taxes.

A particular aspect that is mostly forgotten is that Indirect Taxes impact more heavily on the poor. The Office for National Statistics publish an occasional table which shows that the lowest quintile of earners pay 31% of take-home-pay in indirect taxes, while the top quintile only pay 13%. As the chart shows, this partly counteracts the lower Income Tax and NIC suffered by the lower paid group.

The overall effect is to show that of the total cost to the employer, at least half is taken in tax. Or, perhaps, the cost of wages is double the actual reward for work enjoyed by the employees.

If the Chancellor was to promote a policy of doubling the cost of wages by the imposition of taxes, he would presumably expect certain thing to happen as a result!

Here are some suggestions as to the possible effects of this policy:
1.    A sharp distinction of the view of wages from the points of view of employees and employers.
2.    A bias against labour intensive industries.
3. A constant impulse to replace people by machines.
4. Unemployment as a constant factor in the economy.
5. The effect of taxation at the margin, leading to more tax required to mitigate the effects.
6. In the cycle of production, employment based taxation rolls up until paid by the final consumer. His gross pay has to be sufficient to pay the taxes and leave him enough to live on.
7.   Government expenditure is mostly wages, and is thus doubled under the same rules.
8. In order to cover the cost, an employee has to be able to add value to an amount twice what he needs to live on. Those who cannot meet this criteria will find their jobs at risk.

Is it any surprise to find that these things have actually happened?


Stranger                         Well, it seems a funny way to do things. But I read                                          that you give some of  the taxes back?

 Resident                        Yes we do. They are called tax credits. And the                                           rules for getting back some of the tax you                                                   have paid are even more complicated than                                                 the rules for paying it in the first place. Low                                               paid people get more back than they  have                                                 paid!

Stranger                        That must have some odd effects?

 Resident                        Yes, indeed. Here is a chart of average                                                            wages;- so, we know that average wages                                                      came down, and rents increased, when tax                                                  credits  were brought in. The total tax credits                                            became a  huge  drain on the Treasury, but                                                 did not affect our charts very much.

                                         We can still say the tax on wages is 100%!


Resident                 And here is a chart showing how tax credits impact on                                   lower incomes.  (Produced by “Mothers at Home                                             Matter) The thin red line is the original Gross Income                                    then the blue area is the income after Income Tax                                           Indirect taxes would reduce the blue area still                                                 further.




Stranger.                    Well, perhaps in spite of all that, I’ll                                          still  come to live here, Can I get a                                            house easily?                                           

 Resident                    Oh yes! You can get a house built                                           for £60,000 upwards, and an old                                             house can be very cheap.

 Stranger                      Really! That’s great.

Resident                    But there is a snag. You remember                                        those location values I was talking                                        about?

 Stranger                    Yes.

 Resident                    Well, because they were not                                                     collected for public use, they                                                   became site values. So a decent                                             site near to London, for example,                                          might cost you upwards of one                                              million pounds.                                

Stranger                     Oh dear! Maybe I’ll go and live                                                    somewhere else.

Resident                     Again there is a snag. At one time,                                            this country had a huge empire, and                                        we exported both our good practices                                       and the failure to collect location                                             value  for public purposes to all the                                         empire, and  these countries still do                                         that. So  your choice is rather limited.

Stranger                     Well, thank you. I think I’ll say                                                    goodbye now!




Print Friendly

SA 55. LAND REFORM IN TAIWAN by Chen Cheng (preface) 1961

China Publishing Company 1961


LAND REFORM achievements on Taiwan have attracted                           widespread attention. Countries of   Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America have sent representatives  to  make on-the-spot inspections or have requested cooperation  and the dispatch of Chinese personnel to help them solve their land problems.  Foreign visitors  have  shown  a  keen  interest  in  our   program.   Consequently, it is hoped  that  these  pages  will  make a small contribution to better understanding of Taiwan land reform and serve  as  a reference  for  those who  want  to carry out similar projects.

A study  of  Chinese  history  for  the  last  2,000  years shows recurring  pattern s of  war  and peace.    Many  causes may  be  listed, but  the  most  important  is  inability  to  maintain  a  proper  balance between  land  and population  for  any length  of  time.  Whenever population increased to a point where land was insufficient, violent uprisings  broke  out  and  civil  wars  ensued.    But  with  resulting reduction of   population   and  restoration   of   the land-population equilibrium,  another  period  of  social  and  political  stability  would begin. Lasting peace and stability are not possible until this vicious cycle has been ended.

We  know only too  well  that  the best way  to effect  changes in an agrarian economy  is to develop  industry  and  trade. However, in a country  where  the  economy  is  predominantly  agricultural, capital investment in land and the exploitation of human labor constitute great  impediments  to   such  development. We must begin by setting and labour free throgh land reform.

Not only that. Even to step up land productivity, land reform is necessary. Under an unreasonable tenancy system, farmers have neither  the  interest to increase  production  nor   the ability to   improve  land  utilization.

When  the  author  was  Governor of Hupeh Province in 1939, a serious drought occurred. Curiously,  farmers refused to cooperate with the civil and military personnel and students who were dispatched to help them pump water into their fields. We later discovered this was because they could enjoy the full fruits of their labor only by allowing the rice seedlings to wither and then planting drought-resistant  crops  in their stead. After the implementation of farm rent reduction on Taiwan in 1949, there was a steady increase in rice production. This was due to the fact that with increased income resulting from rent reduction, farmers have greater incentive and increased ability to boost production.

The author was appointed Governor of Taiwan Province in 1949. At that juncture the general situation on the mainland was deteriorating fast, the morale of the people on Taiwan was low, economic confusion and social unrest were rampant, and it looked as though anything might happen. To safeguard  the  island  as  a base of operations for national recovery, we required social stabi lity, and the first prerequisite had to be satisfactory solution of the problem of the people’s livelihood . Social and economic conditions of Taiwan still rested on an agricultural basis. Farmers constituted more than three-fifths of the population, and the number of tenants was more than two-thirds of  all  farm  families.  Social stability, improved people’s livelihood and economic development  could  take  place  only  through  land reform.

In view of the unstable situation on Taiwan  at the time,  it  was decided that reform should not be rushed but should be undertaken in  a series  of  steps.  As  the first of  these,  rent  paid by tenant farmers was limited to 37.5 per cent of  the annual yield  of the main crop. The successful implementation of this program can be attributed to three factors: (1)  reasonable  rentals  which  gave the tenant more income but  caused relatively  slight loss to  the landlord; (2) correct classification of land categories and  grades, leading to just and reasonable appraisal of the yield of the main crop; and (3) heightening of the farmer’s incentive and productive ability in coordination with the government’ s policy to boost production of rice by 20  per  cent.  Consequently, the  amount  of  the  landlord’s income was  not  diminished  in  spite of rent reduction.

At that time, about 21 per cent of farmland in  Taiwan  was public land. As a part of its rent reduction policy, the Chinese Government offered such lands for lease at reduced rentals in order to improve the livelihood of farmers. Once the rent reduction program had been successfully carried out, the government decided, in 1951, to offer these lands for sale to incumbent tenants, who were given all necessary protection and assistance.

By 1953, the rent.reduction program had become solidly established and had produced excellent results. With this as a basis and with the experience gained from the sale of public lands, we decided to implement a land-to-the-tiller policy aimed at eradication of the tenancy system and the freeing of capital in­ vested in land to promote industrial and commercial development and the transformation of the economic and social structure of the country.

Five principles were adopted.  (1) We decided to carry out the program gradually and by peaceful means. Landlords were permitted to retain a reasonable maximum of tenanted land. Amounts over and above this limit were compulsorily sold to the government at fairly fixed prices for resale to tenants. Next, the government extended loans to the farmers to enable them to buy the lands retained by the landlord. (2) Both the compulsory pur­ chase of land and its resale were effected through the government

Without direct contact between landlord and tenant so as to prevent abuses or disputes.  (3)  Care was taken  to  see  that  the  buyer was the original tiller, that the land was the same he had been  tilling and that the way of operating the farm was unchanged.  (4) For protection of other enterprises, limits were set to farmlands owned by educational, social, and economic undertaking and industrial and commercial plants, and such lands were exempted from compulsory purchase and sale. (5) Protection was given to owner-cultivators by preventing the transfer or lease of farmlands purchased under the land-to-the-tiller program before the price had been paid in full. A production loan fund was provided to encourage the farmer-purchaser to operate the land on a cooperative basis with improved techniques.

Successful implementation of the land-to-the-tiller policy was attributable to these principles and four other  important  factors. First, a firm foundation had been laid by the operation of the rent reduction program. Second, the prior implementation of the general landownership classification program had resulted in clear and accurate data on land categories, distribution of rights, actual condition of use, and identity and number of resident and non­resident landlords. Third,   the   compensation   paid  landlords  by the government was fair and reasonable. Issuance of  land  bonds and stock shares of public enterprises as compensation guaranteed landlords against the risk of possible inflation. Fourth, the government induced landlords to engage in industry and assisted those with  small  holdings  to  take  up  other occupations.

Several conspicuous results have emerged  from  land  reform on Taiwan, social unrest and  confusion  have  gradually  given way to stability. Social order is  especially  good  in  the  rural  areas. After the farmers acquired landownership, they became deeply interested in maintaining peace and order in the community. The farmer’s productive capacity has been raised and economic development fostered. Increased income, a  better livelihood and higher purchasing power have stimulated industrial and  commercial  development  and  economic  prosperity. Gradual  transfer to industry and trade of the capital  originally  tied  up in land  has  led to a phenomenal development of trade and industry, trans­ formation of the social and economic structure, and a big forward  step  toward  an  industrial society.

According to our experience, the implementation of  land  reform is not only basic to the betterment of the people’s  livelihood and the promotion of political and social  stability, but also  a motive force for furtherance of economic development and industrialization. The  progress we  have  made  in economic reconstruction is largely due to the influence of  changes  in agriculture.

As of today, our efforts are directed toward several  goals.  On the one hand, we have to preserve and expand the achievements of  land  reform and  protect the  interests of the farmers. On  the  other,  we  need  to  strengthen  land  utilization  and  make  full use of  the economic value  of  land in order to enrich the people as  individuals  and  the  nation  as  a  whole.    Meanwhile, we  must accelerate economic development and foster  industry. The author

is convinced that  with  the  implementation  of  land  reform on Taiwan, we can  break  China’s vicious circle of  cyclical war  and peace,and also fully  develop  our  industry  and  trade  so  as  to  modernize the national economy and the people’s livelihood, and to guarantee and develop  political democracy  through economic freedom. We may even  say  that   land  reform  on Taiwan  will  mark  an  important change  in  the  course of  our history.

The situation on the Communist-controlled Chinese  mainland is entirely different. There, in the name of agrarian reform, the  Chinese Comunists  have deceived  the people and created  a reign of terror. As  a  result  of  Communist  rule,  Chinese  farmers  have fallen into the status of  serfs. Years of farm failure have exposed all the  people  to starvation. The  contrast   with   the  situation  on Taiwan  is clear  and indisputable.

We are sincerely sorry for our failure to carry out Dr. Sun Yay-sen’s land-to-the-tiller ideal while we were still on the main­ land. Though that failure may be partly attributed to internal disturbances and foreign invasion, it was due mainly to the selfishness of a small minority  of  people, to their  shortsightedness and lack  of courage. The achievements of land reform on Taiwan may compensate, to some extent, for that failure, but we cannot be satisfied with this limited accomplishment. We must make greater exertions to achieve still greater progress. We must be determined. on the basis of the experience gained on Taiwan, to put the land-to-the-tiller policy into effect on the mainland after its re­covery. Our brethren there  then  may  be delivered  from starvation and slavery, and come to enjoy the freedom, stability, and happy life that they are entitled to.

Chen Cheng





Man cannot  live   without  land,  from  which   he  derives  his sustenance. Land  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the mainstay  of human  life. It must   be   observed,   however,   that while  there has  not  been   much   change   in  the   total  area  of   land  since ancient times, the increase of population, if unchecked, may have no  limit at all. In primitive  ages when  there was  plenty of land with few inhabitants, every  person  could  have  as  much land as he  wanted.                                                           Hence  there  was  no   land  problem. But  in  later times, as land became scarce in proportion  to increased  population . the supply  was  insufficient   to  meet  the  demand.                                                            Land came an object over whose possession individual fought individual   and   nation  fought  nation. Thus   the   land  problem gradually arose.

Though the land problem is complex, it may be  said  to  consist of  the following aspects:


  1. Problem of land distribution:  This  arose  as a result  of the lack of proper regulations to  govern  the  ownership  of  land and the enjoyment of its fruits. The feudal form of land distribu­ tion  was  unjust  and  objectionable.   Unrestricted   appropriation of land for their own benefit by big landlords must be considered outrageous.

Note. We hope to add a précis of the rest of the book in due course.   

Print Friendly

SA54. Saving the Commons in an age of Plunder – by Bill Batt

ABSTRACT. Land ownership, as commonly understood today,  originated with the enclosure movement during the English Tudor era almost four centuries ago. Karl Polanyi referred to this “propertization” of nature as the “great transformation.” That land, water, and air was a social commons is now archaic and forgotten, and with it the classical economic concept of rent, which was, in theory, once paid to royalty as the earth’s guardian. Garrett Hardin’s article, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” raised alarm about the abuse and loss of this realm, and he recommended constraints and privatization to prevent this. Most  people view titles to landed property much as they do their household goods, but Henry George saw that the earth should be seen as a common resource and its value taxed to benefit everyone. This would restore economic equilibrium to market exchanges and pay for government services. The capture of natural resource rents can  supplant taxes on wages and capital goods, and it comports with all textbook principles of sound tax theory. This policy can be the modern replacement for the commons, and implementing resource rent capture is both economically and technically feasible.

Garrett Hardin’s Lament

Almost 50 years ago, Science Magazine published ecologist Garrett Hardin’s (1968) article “The Tragedy of the Commons,” now arguably the most widely cited and reprinted scientific article in recent history. As both history and parable, it purported to show how unattended and unprotected natural resources were exploited and ultimately destroyed by  villagers  in  16th-century  Tudor  England.  The  context  was   the  enclosure movement that drove peasants off the land into the cities and provided cheap labor for the ensuing Industrial Revolution. “The commons” was well understood as the shared land, usually pasture, that provided the space for grazing animals (Polanyi 1944). Hardin recounted in metaphoric terms an explanation of an ecological history of resource overshoot that has since been replicated countless times over. Continue reading

Print Friendly

SA53.- Eurofail – VAT, by Henry Law

The EU began as a noble concept. Unfortunately, it has consistently got the economics wrong, thereby sowing the seeds of its ultimate disintegration. The EU gave us VAT, CAP, a tariff wall and expensive food. It would be difficult to conceive of a worse combination, apart from capping them with a common currency. Bearing in mind that all taxes apart from LVT amplify the effects of locational disadvantage, it is not surprising that support for Brexit came from the country’s margins, not excluding parts of the South-East. This is not to suggest that those who voted to leave were making a reasoned and calculated choice. At that level it was a gut reaction, with nasty overtones. However, if one neglects one’s back garden, weeds will grow. Some, such as knotweed, can undermine a house. The UK has neglected its fringes for many decades.

The first of the ugly sisters is VAT.

Older people will remember the queues at customs when returning to the UK from abroad, asked if they had “Anything to declare?”. It is the EU wide VAT that has made it possible to do away with this unpleasant ritual. However, it replaced one bad tax with another. Purchase taxes promoted cross-border shopping and created the artificial crime of smuggling. VAT facilitated cross-border trading, but at a terrible cost. The EU requires it to be set at a minimum of 15%, apart from special exemptions. Contributions to the EU are based on a notional VAT yield, on the assumption that aggregate VAT is an indication of the size of a country’s economy. Continue reading

Print Friendly

SA52. Low Hanging Fruit – by Henry Law

Exit from the EU opens up the possiblity of some quick wins, sometimes referred to as “low-hanging fruit”.

One of the most malign features of the EU’s economic and fiscal policies is VAT. Governments can not reduce it below 15% or abolish it or replace it with a different sales tax or a different tax altogether. It is regressive and expensive to administer, especially for small business because of the amount of paperwork it causes. It is also vulnerable to fraud and avoidance. It adds to the government’s welfare bill as money has to be paid to the poorest people so they can pay it back to the government in tax. EU membership has prevented any discussion of the subject. Debate is always shut down with the killer statement that it cannot be changed. It is an important factor in the throwaway economy as it is charged on repairs, even to buildings. The issue has never been raised at EU level, not even by Green politicians. Continue reading

Print Friendly

SA51. Location Theory and the European Union, – by Peter Holland

  1. Introduction

Current economic analysis and theory pays little attention to the actual locations in which economic activity is taking place. The benefits of a particular location include factors such as inherent fertility or proximity to natural resources, but the largest factor in a trading economy is that the work of the whole community confers a great advantage on particular locations. If individuals, firms or nations are allowed to claim this for themselves the result is a large, unfair and ever increasing disparity in wealth, unemployment and civil unrest.  This article introduces a quantified analysis of the economic potential of the major countries in Europe. It describes how these changed with the formation of the EEC and subsequently the EU, and shows how this effect provides riches for some and condemns others to poverty. The paper also describes how this unfair advantage is exacerbated by the Euro. Finally some possible solutions to correct this error and provide an equal opportunity for all to prosper will be outlined.

Map 1 Europe pre treaty of Rome


  1. Origin and Development

The original work on Location Theory is accredited to Von Thunen (1783-1850) a north German academic with formal scientific training and practical experience as a farmer.  He was interested in whether there was a natural location for particular forms of endeavour.  For the next century these ideas were developed in North America, especially with a view to determining the best location for new industries.  In the 1950’s Prof. Colin Clark was introduced to these ideas and he developed them further.  He implemented a major project to determine the effect on the UK manufacturing industries of joining the EEC and the results of which are outlined here. Continue reading

Print Friendly

SA50. Finland’s Basic Income – why it matters by Fred Foldvary, Ph.D.

Fred Foldvary, Ph.D.

The government of Finland is planning to be the first European country to provide to each adult citizen a basic income, replacing its existing welfare, social security, and unemployment payments. A pilot program is planned for November 2016, to be implemented by the Finnish Social Insurance Institution.

The replacement of qualified welfare payments with funds not related to any income, employment, disability, or age status was proposed in 1962 by the free-market economist Milton Friedman, as a negative income tax. It was partly implemented by the US federal government as an “earned income tax credit”. A basic income does not depend on the tax code, and eliminates the negative incentive of getting money by qualifying as poor, disabled, or unemployed. Continue reading

Print Friendly