Anyone who says "X is what we need to do" over and over again will be part of a weird cult eventually and that's not a bad thing regardless of whether X is desirable.
-
-
Replying to @arindube @mattyglesias
Also, Ladejinsky didn't focus on common ownership of land, or on land value taxation. He focused on expropriating land from landlords and giving it to tenant farmers. Which turned out to be an incredibly successful policy.
3 replies 1 retweet 22 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion @mattyglesias
Yes. Using land reform to disrupt the grip of the landed gentry was likely a valuable move helping the development process writ large in East Asia. Much more than just talking about how taxing land.
6 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @arindube @mattyglesias
Do you think redistributing houses would have a similar effect today? I feel like it might. Taking care of a house is similar in some ways to taking care of a small farm.
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion @mattyglesias
I don't. It doesn't seem to involve the same types of distributional inefficiencies as the political economic grip of the landed gentry entailed historically. But I could be wrong.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Some lit suggests effect of small farms is through support for public goods, and eliminating opposition of large landowners to same - they oppose policies that raise wages. Gavin Wright’s Old South, New South Is example. Would that translate for housing?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Makes sense that if you distribute wealth more evenly, there's more support for public goods...that falls out of a lot of models. Probably not wages, though.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.