The Geonomist Volume Twelve Issue Two

Geonomics is …
… shaped by reality. In the 1980's, the Swedish government doubled its stock transfer tax. Tax receipts, however, rose only 15%, since traders simply fled to London exchanges. Fearing a further exodus, the Swedish government quickly rescinded the tax altogether. (The New York Times, April 20) That willingness to tax anything leads us astray. Pushing us astray is that unwillingness to pay what we owe: rent for land, our common heritage. Assuming land value is up for grabs, we speculate. We cap the property tax on both land and buildings and the rate at which assessments can go up; while real market values rise quicker, assessments can never catch up. Our stewards, the Bureau of Land Management, routinely sell and lease sites below market value, often to insiders, says the Government Accounting Office. Once we grasp that rent is ours to share, we'll collect it all, rather than let it enrich a few, and quit taxing earnings, which do belong to the individual earner. That shift is geonomic policy.

The top American administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, wrote in The New York Times (July 13) “The Road Ahead in Iraq — and How to Navigate It”, where he stated: “We believe that a method should be found to assure that every citizen benefits from Iraq's oil wealth. One possibility would be to pay social benefits from a trust financed by oil revenues. Another could be to pay an annual cash dividend directly to each citizen from that trust.” I couldn't have said it better. Then on the domestic front, the billionaire financial adviser to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Warren Buffet, pointed out the sacred cow Prop 13 wears no clothes. After noting his property tax in California, where his home is valued at $4 million, or eight times as much as his one in Nebraska, is $2,264, for his home in Omaha, valued at $500,000, it is far more: $14,401. "This property-tax illustration, that tells you, you can draw certain conclusions from that. In effect, it makes no sense." (Wall St Journal, Aug 15) That I could've said better.

From the Northwest to the Southeast this summer, there I joined siblings for a mini-tour of some adorable historic towns. Charleston (where the States began their war), Savannah (where Sherman ended his march and the locusts of the G8 next winter descend), and St Augustine (America's oldest) are hot but well shaded by greenery or cooled by blue water. All showcase elegant architecture, nearby beaches, trendy shops, cutting-edge neighborhoods – and the peak land values that go with such amenities. If you'd like to live there, you can be sure thousands of others do, too. All that demand pushes housing out of reach for many wannabe first time buyers. Others, those who do afford the best sites that nature and society have to offer, of course pay those selling out, not those being excluded. If we arranged it so one's payment for locations compensated the rest of us (via a tax or dues combined with a voucher or dividend), then my envy would wither. The only green you'd see on me would be the moss from the Pacific NW rains.

The world's governments sided against the Bush administration. In March 2002, to bolster popularity in old industrial states, Bush introduced “safeguard'' duties of up to 30% on steel products. Carmakers complained that the tariffs increased steel prices. The imposts also violated World Trade Organization rules. The Bush people argued the tariffs met WTO provisions allowing temporary duties to protect a domestic industry from a flood of cheap imports and give it time to restructure. But what flood? The WTO saw no flood and ruled against Bush's heavy duties on steel imports. Joining the European Union in pleading to the WTO were Japan, South Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand and Brazil. It was the first time China or Switzerland had taken a complaint to the WTO. (The New York Times, July 11) Contrarily, those getting into bed with the administration on this issue are US labor unions and the left, whose opposition to international trade outweighs their opposition to all things Bush.

In São Paulo, Brazil's biggest city, the “roofless” copy the tactics of the landless. In rural Brazil, where under 5% of people own more than half the arable land, a few from the other 95% block highways, loot trucks, and take hostages; other peasants occupy farms, cattle ranches, sugar mills, even government offices to demand land from the new socialist government. They've raised their sights from forested land in the middle of the jungle to farmland with infrastructure, close to towns. As owners, they plan to grow for the domestic market and quit ranching and raising crops for export, presently the main draw of foreign investors. To operate, the landless movement receives tithes from peasants it has already successfully resettled. So some landowners openly add to their arsenals and goon squads. Under previous administrations, they killed squatters with impunity. (New York Times, July 27) Violence often follows raised expectations. The socialists could borrow a page from earlier governments elsewhere that re-divided land without one drop of bloodshed; they levied a land tax which induced large owners to sell off their excess at prices peasants could afford.

In a bid to spur enterprise and modernize the economy and on the advice of the World Bank, the government of Mongolia began May 1 to privatize and parcel out vast public lands, offering every Mongolian a free plot of land. The one million city dwellers may claim a fifth of an acre – too much, allowing speculation – and the 1.5 rural citizens may claim more than a half acre – too little. For nomads, this scheme is as helpful as a free set of tires for their horses. Nomads must move wherever there is grass; kept in one place there will be no grass left. This is the first time people in Mongolia can say, “this land belongs to me.” Already, the program breeds strife where historically there has been none. Some private claims have forced families to leave land they have inhabited for decades. (Christian Science Monitor, Spt 03) Yet private property in land is not necessary. Hong Kong's land is public and the place is very developed. What investors need is social stability and title to improvements. In a society that recognized land rent as public property, people, such as nomads, would not even have to pay for land, such as open rangeland, that no one else was competing for. People owe compensation only where there's competing demand for land, as in cities and for farming.

Big businesses, rich Australians such as the media kings Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch and Nutrimetics founders turned property developers Bill and Imelda Roche, and some of the world's wealthiest people – the intensely private American cotton tsar James Boswell, Urs Schwarzenbach, the Swiss currency trader, and Oskar Schwenk, the head of the Swiss aircraft maker Pilatus Aircraft – rent New South Wales public land for peanuts. The turf bears homes, five-star resorts, restaurants, prestigious golf courses, petrol stations, marinas, office buildings, and factories. The owners pay the state $1 per acre, if that – some qualify for tax-exemption. For some leaseholders, their rent is so low that their phone bill is higher. Given the vast differential between a lease's terms and its value, some holders sublease the land at returns of 1000% or sell the lease for millions of dollars. Periodically calls are raised for the State Government to recover the public's fair share. But politicians are reluctant to take on the vested interests. (Sydney's main newspaper, the Morning Herald, Aug 30) Eventho' Australia does collect some ground rent, perhaps more than elsewhere, like everywhere else few Aussies realize that rent is theirs. The public will likely stay unaware until they hear articulated the demand for a Citizens Dividend from recovered rent.

It's something all governments do all times and all places – use state power to enrich the elite. Yet democracies, at least, ought to be evolving away from this state/elite partnership – but not quite yet. To help his weary rich brethen, this past quarter W's administration issued four rulings that overly benefit the few at the heavy expense of the many.

May 22, W signed Executive Order 13303 which grants US oil corporations operating in Iraq permanent immunity from any legal actions under US or international law over any offense such as worker safety, oil spills, or breach of contract; both France and newcomer Russia had extended credit to the old regime. (World Socialist Web Site, August 19, via Alanna Hartzok)

After being entertained by two years of lobbying, Bush's Environmental Protection Agency ruled that when polluters modernize their plants, they no longer have to install devices that curb pollution. That lets 17,000 power plants, oil refineries, pulp and paper mills, chemical plants and other industrial facilities save billions of dollars. Failure to install pollution controls on 51 filthy facilities is responsible for 5,000 to 9,000 premature deaths and 80,000 to 120,000 asthma attacks every year. Installing devices on these 51 plants would cut nearly 7 million tons of pollutants every year, half the air pollution generated by all electric utilities in the United States. Several environmental organizations and state attorney generals vowed to take the Bush EPA to court. (New York Times, Aug 27)

The Federal Communications Commission's Spectrum Policy Task Force plans to hold an auction in which any incumbent opting to sell its license could keep all the revenue – up to $500 billion – that used to flow into the public treasury. Turning temporary licenses from the public into permanent titles of private owners would forestall emerging "smart" radio technologies that can share today's underutilized spectrum space. New frequency owners could charge sharers with trespassing and demand payment for access to their, formerly our, airwaves – worth $770 billion. (Wash. Post, Aug 12)

The Corporate Fraud Task Force gave prosecutors discretion to grant CEOs immunity from prosecution in exchange for cooperation. Jumping at this offer, a Puerto Rican bank settled money-laundering charges and a Pittsburgh bank settled securities law charges. Sometimes the settlement does not require the filing of any public documents in court. The Justice Dept also allows holding companies to plead out minor units to major crimes, which then pay minor fines; thus the parent company won't lose any federal contracts. In the past year, out of 250 white-collar criminals convicted, only one high-level corporate executive went to jail. The Bush administration eschews what works to correct guilty corporations – bad publicity, losing government contracts, and their executives going to jail. (Common Dreams, July 28, via David Bean)

Given W's history, you could see it coming. Yet enough millions of my fellow gringos voted for him that a little nudge in a decidedly partisan fashion from a sibling governing the swampy State of Florida mandated him into the White House, once again stained with shame. But why bother having a government if it doesn't defend rights? If all it does is dish out privileges? While the duty to defend us all equally is the farthest thing from the minds (or lizard brains) of most pols in power, it's the only rationale for granting power to others to wield over us. That, and the material for jokes on late night TV.

After accounting fraud at Enron, WorldCom, et al, and pressure from Portlander Bill Parish (a GeoSoc supporter), Microsoft became the 289th company to prominently list the cost of stock options they award executives and other employees as an alternative to traditional cash bonuses. Stock options let employees buy company stock at a fixed price and sell later at a profit if the shares rise – an incentive to perform best. The companies can deduct the cost of those options from their taxes, saving multi-billions, and inflate earnings – by 12% in 2000, distorting the picture for investors. After the stock market bubble burst, options became worthless for many employees (and the stock worthless for pension funds), while companies saved by having not paid bonuses or higher salaries. From the mid 1990s til now, the tech industry has kept lawmakers from requiring full disclosure, thanks to big campaign donations – $26 million in the last election alone. (USA Today)

The CEOs who cashed in before their stock dropped made out like bandits, contributing to spectacular CEO pay, which in 2001 was 350 times greater than factory worker pay, noted Worldwatch, growing more serious about distributive injustice. (Vital Signs, Aug 27) This year, shareholder resolutions to curb golden parachutes and other CEO prizes tripled up to 324. The group Responsible Wealth works to change the law on investor rights and director responsibilities. The SEC is considering letting stockholders have more say in selecting directors. (Christian Science Monitor, July 8)

Remember the economist who five or so years ago won a Nobel prize, got kingpins to invest multi-billions in his scheme, failed, and was rescued by government intervention to avert a worldwide financial panic? His luck may be running out. Now the IRS wants $40 million in taxes and $16 million in penalties and interest from Dr Myron S. Scholes. He and his pals paid themselves so much from the assets of Long-Term Capital Management that, apart from the tax benefits, their hedge fund could not have turned a profit. Long-Term paid one executive a bonus somewhere from $50,000 to $100,000. For opinion letters from lawyers saying that the tax shelter should survive an audit, LTCM paid the Shearman & Sterling law firm in New York and King & Spaulding in Washington more than $900,000. And founder Scholes asked his partners for and received a multimillion-dollar bonus for finding the tax shelter and strengthening it. After milking that cow, the only possible profit it could deliver would come from tax benefits. (New York Times, July 10) What would these bright guys do if there were no income tax to dodge? Figure out how to turn lead into gold?

Weyerhauser was ordered to pay nearly $80 million to a sawmill it had wronged and to release company documents that showed it used its near monopoly muscle to corral timber supply from other loggers in the Northwest in order to push up prices, in hopes of driving small mills out of business. (Oregonian, Aug 6) Since society fails to recover natural rents, that lets the early bird with the worm, like the founder old man Weyerhauser, stretch that initial advantage into an oligopoly, like Weyerhauser, Inc. When the more grasping must pay rent for every site they own, then it's no longer profitable for them to be a middleman and own sites that others use. Indeed, wherever society did raise the tax on land, owners of vast plantations did sell off their access to smaller users.

The US spends $1 billion tax dollars on powered milk, to keep its price up for dairymen, but can't get rid of it without knocking back down its price. So our government pays again for warehouses, even caves, where they pile up tons of powder. They did manage to giveaway a couple hundred million pounds to ranchers for cattle feed. (The Oregonian, Aug 24) Taxpayers pay again as consumers when they buy the milk. Besides money, another resource this agri-subsidy wastes is the land where the cows live. To avoid this madness, and to still get money to any needy dairy farmers, we could pay ourselves dividends from all the recovered rents for all sites and resources. In the countryside, where land costs less and other prices are low, the milkmaid's share of rent could go a long way.

Where the Atlantic meets the most densely settled part of America, the summer competition for beach space intensifies. In New Jersey, shore beaches were free until the 1950s, when the state started letting towns charge modest fees. Recently private owners, such as condominiums, began charging $300 a season just to step on the sand. Last year, they raised some prices to $700 – or $10,000 for life. (Philadelphia Inquirer, Jul 24)

On Nantucket Island, the careening SUVs of partiers drove J. Seward Johnson, homeowner and heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, to dump traffic-blocking boulders on his beach. The town raised the fine for driving without stickers from $50 to $250. Johnson later removed the stones for local fishermen. (NYT, Jly 20)

In Massachusetts, a 362-year-old Colonial law lets others fish and hunt on private property but not farm. Nine years ago, a judge ruled aquaculture, the planting and harvesting of oysters and clams, is farming. For the last seven years, Cape Cod shellfishermen were in court fighting eviction by an out-of-town owner from the flats stretching out to the low-tide mark. Discovering the beach had not been registered, the locals, whose noise and lights from their pickups and equipment annoy the wealthy summer visitors, formed HDYLTA (How Do You Like Them Apples?) Realty Trust and bought it for $25,000. A single day's harvest can be worth as much as $1,000 as oysters go for $4 apiece in fine restaurants, providing an alternative to low-paying jobs in tourism, on which many depend without a dividend from sky-high beach values. Owners of second homes, OTOH, have enough money to buy beachfront, so rare it sells for more than $1 million. Yet property owners and shellfishermen often settle, working out a deal where vacationers get fresh shellfish every day for the rest of their lives. (Boston Globe, August 31, via Wyn Achenbaum)

Used to be, developers tried to build wall-to-wall. Today, rich retirees and buyers of second homes do want the luxuries of a first-class resort but with some nature thrown in. In the middle of wildlife habitat, developers build multimillion-dollar homes, a hotel, spa, community center, and leave large swaths untouched for the animals. In California, open space increased the price of property within a mile 8% to 10%. By leaving space open, builders can satisfy local regulators but not the locals barred from the preserve and not the animals driven elsewhere in search of food. By donating land to a government or nonprofit group, developers qualify for a conservation easement, a federal tax deduction equal to the value of the parcel. Yet some governments or nonprofits cannot raise the funds to maintain a preserve, so the developer does it. Spring Island collects 1% to 2% of the price of each house sold, more than many states' property tax. (The New York Times, August 1, via Wyn Achenbaum) To spare habitat, society could collect site rents, not leave it to developers. That'd also raise density in cities and break urbanites of the car habit, so when they settle in the country, they'd rely on a car library. Then roads and home lots need not be so big, leaving more land for other species.

Twenty years ago, homes in the preferred suburbs and in the merely likeable ones cost almost the same, about $150,000. Since then, homes in the spendy areas — California and the Boston-to-Washington corridor — have doubled or tripled in value, even after adjusting for inflation. The increases have let longtime owners retire or borrow and finance home improvements or winter vacations, keeping the sluggish economy from going comatose. Across the rest of the country, the prices of typical homes have stayed ahead of inflation and a little behind incomes. Two decades ago, the ratio of home prices in expensive cities vs. affordable ones was three to one; now it's six to one. While $800,000 might get you an apartment in Manhattan, in the heartland $300,000 buys a home with elegant porticoes and broad lawns on Doctors' Row, roughly the same price as in the early 80's after being adjusted for inflation. (New York Times, Aug 6)

To get tax breaks and urban renewal subsidies, private developers project low profits in high rent districts. Qualifying developers don't pay property taxes, yet for a luxury apartment charge tenants as much as $2,000 a month. Condo buyers making as much as $46,000 a year get a waiver of the property tax. Residents of high-priced housing enjoy a park next door that was built with funds for renewing blighted areas. Portland's Development Commission doesn't even check to see whether the projected profits really end up being that low. While these new condo buyers get breaks, owners in other parts of the city don't; and this tax break inflates condo prices. Since 1998, the assessed values in Portland's Pearl District, the scene of these tax and subsidy favors, have doubled to $719 million, growing nearly $200 million more than the city anticipated at this point. The 10 urban renewal districts enjoying these tax breaks cover 13% of the city's land and in coming years will pull more than $80 million out of the city and county general funds. Developers justify these state favors by citing slim profit margins. (The Oregonian, June 27) Yet they and everyone could profit more without taxes on income or heavy mortgages for high priced land, lowered by public recovery of site rents.

At the beginning of September, all three major stock indexes hit 2003 highs – a rare alignment. The broader S&P 500 closed at a 52 week high, the Dow at 15-month highs, and the Nasdaq traded at a 17-month high. The trio of new highs tells some that the rally that began in mid-March and pushed the S&P 500 up nearly 28% won't fade; lo, after moving sideways most of the summer, stocks may head to regain higher ground. Because money tends to chase performance, such prophecies become self-fulfilling. OTOH, since 1950, September has been the Dow's worst month. Plus prices, relative to earnings, are high, so many investors stay on the sidelines. (USA Today, Sept 3) Last year, blue-chips paid only 2.15%, 10-year Treasury bonds yielded about 4% (also hitting their annual high in September, since bonds move with stocks), and Real Estate Investment Trusts paid 7%, since land value lags behind income (from any source: stocks, jobs, etc). (Chrst Sci Monitor, Jan 13) Over the past five years, REITs returned 40% vs. 1% for the average stock fund. The law requires them to distribute 90% of income as dividends to shareholders. Much of their gains came from malls, part of sprawl. (USA Today, Jly 7) When the land bubble bursts, what will implode with it? Stocks again? They didn't fully retrench down to half their last high (from 12k to 6k).

The private National Bureau of Economic Research announced that after eight months, the recession ended 2001 fall (nber.org/cycles/recessions.html); since then, the economy has been expanding normally, they say. Tho' 12 of the 31 American Nobel laureates in economics and three of the past Chairmen of the President's Council of Economic Advisers have been researchers there, can the NBER be wrong?

Economists in the media were aglow. Beating the Commerce Department's initial estimate of 2.4%, the output of goods and services in the US last quarter grew 3.1%, after adjustment for inflation rising at an annual rate of 0.7%. Are their reasons to cheer sound?

Government borrowing has been swelling our money supply by 7% per year, about double the economy's growth rate, so inflation or devaluation must come home to roost some day (The Daily Reckoning, Aug 11.) Consumers spent more by using their second mortgage. Eventho' land values have climbed skyward, the share that belongs to the owner has been falling, from 70% two decades ago to 55% last year (New York Times, July 20). Since 1994, mortgage debt doubled to $9 trillion while total debt almost doubled to $32.5 trillion (The Daily Reckoning, Aug 11). Shoppers bought fewer imports while foreigners bought more American exports, due to a “weak” dollar. This shrank business' swollen inventories and raised corporate profits 15.9% to $670.7 billion. Up for three consecutive quarters, corporate profits are 17.4% above the last 12 months. So businesses invested more in themselves, but have yet to rehire the fired who, without a share of social surplus, have no other means of support. And basically, much growth (70% of it: The Daily Reckoning, Aug 11) came from the US paying for its war on Iraq. Want to grow your GDP? Wreak death and destruction.

Emboldened by these rosy figures, economists forecast even more growth for the rest of 2003. Yet oil companies are gouging everyone, foreign economies (to whom we export) are not growing, and to control growth, the Federal Reserve, where Greenspan has at last lost his guru status (NYT, July 20), may raise interest rates, instantly upping the cost of doing business. (NYT, Aug 28) Plus, housing starts may have peaked, having hit a 17-year high in July (Oregonian, Aug 20). If they conform to the 18-year land price cycle, the construction sector will soon start to contract, undercutting other sectors, too.

The IMF published a paper not to declare policy but to stimulate debate that says in Nigeria since 1965, oil has generated about $350 billion in 1995 dollars for the population of 120 million people. Between 1970 and 2000, the number of Nigerians living in poverty – less than a dollar a day – doubled from 36% to 70%. Rather than let politicians continue to spend the royalties on themselves and on wasteful projects, distribute the mineral wealth directly to the people, “ultimately the true and legitimate owners”, said authors Sala-i-Martin and Subramanian. Now per capita GDP is $1,084; an oil dividend – a la Alaska – would make each Nigerian adult better off by $760. Letting people spend the money, not politicians, would end corruption. Spending it on real needs would grow the economy. Both improvements would please creditors and shrink debt. (Reuters, Aug 1)

Sergei Kruschev, son of past leader Nikita, said as president of Russia he would re-nationalize natural resources, presently ripped off by a few ex-aparatchniks, and funnel the royalties into rebuilding the economy (International Russian TV, Spt 8). Hogging oil created a new elite in Russia, as it did over a century ago in America. In 1985, no Russian had assets worth more than a few thousand dollars. Forbes's latest list of world billionaires includes 17 Russians. Only three other countries had more billionaires. (Boston Globe, July 31)

Paul Metz, member of the advisory board of Green Budget Germany, in his presentation to the Paris Peak Oil Conference in May 2003: “Putting this Alaska model of 'fossil equity' into worldwide practice for the Global Commons can solve many of the fairness and financing problems in Sustainable Development and Globalization. An Earth Dividend model would end 'environmental colonialism', stop further growth of the 'ecological debt' of the North to the South, and generate purchasing power in a 'bottom up' way that is beneficial for clean, local businesses worldwide.” (GBG News, July)

Nigeria and Russia are far from alone in being corrupt. In the US, Medicare fraud totaled over $13 billion last year, down from previous years but still 6.3% of payments issued. (Oregonian, Jly 10) This and all other wasteful social programs could be folded into a hefty Citizens Dividend, which would operate under the constant scrutiny of citizen watchdogs.

“As poor countries try to pull themselves into the world market, they come up against the richest nations' insistence on stacking the deck for their own farmers. Struggling African cotton farmers are forced to compete with products from affluent American agribusinesses whose rock-bottom prices are made possible by as much as $3 billion in annual subsidies. Sugar producers in Africa are stymied by the European Union's insistence on subsidizing beet sugar production as part of a wasteful farming-welfare program that gobbles up half its budget. The United States, Europe and Japan funnel nearly a billion dollars a day to their farmers in taxpayer subsidies. This allows American companies to then profitably dump grain on international markets for a fraction of what it cost to grow, courtesy of the taxpayer, often at a price less than the break-even point for the impoverished third-world farmers. If all else fails, wealthy nations simply throw up trade barriers to lock out foreign commodities.” (NYT half-page editorial, July 20)

The September issue ran “Up in the air” on pages 46 and 47. "Each economic era has a resource that drives wealth creation. In the agricultural era it was land. In the industrial era it was energy. Today it may be the airwaves, also known as the radio-frequency spectrum – the most valuable resource of the emerging information economy." So opens a two-page summary of statistics on the spectrum, a fascinating article with a chart and quotable quotes, such as, "Economists estimate that in the United States alone the commercial value of access to it could be more than $750 billion." In organizing a conference on the spectrum, our frequent sponsor, the Robert Schalkenbach Fdn, through the efforts of Christopher Williams, Cliff Cobb, and Mark Sullivan, has shown itself to be on the cutting edge of these issues. (Heather Remoff, Aug 3)

“One-fifth of all US children under age five live below the poverty line. America's earnings gap is huge, but the gap in accumulated wealth is much worse. The bottom 60%, the majority of the country, earns 23% of the nation's income but owns less than 5% of the wealth. The chasm is worsened by Republican control in Washington, which showers colossal tax giveaways and other benefits on the elite, while slashing programs that help little people. Giving trillions in write-offs to the wealthy, while adding trillions to the public debt, is a transfer of wealth.” (editorial, Sept 04)

Apologists claim Bush's tax cuts and record-breaking deficit spending are needed to recover from the recession. If so, then cut taxes first for bottom earners, who'll clear the shelves, instead of let the IRS require poor parents to prove they care for a kid (The Oregonian, Aug 6). And de-tax sales; tax holidays always spike consumer spending, even more than 30% off sales (USA Today, Aug 1). Plus, put money into everyone's pockets with a dividend from recovered rent.

London's Sunday Observer ran a letter by David Reed, the Labour Land Campaign's new Vice-Chair (Aug 31): “Keynesian strategies can work only with the back-up of a tax on land values.” Dave Wetzel, Vice-Chair, Transport for London (Jul 30): “Around 1985, The Labour Land Campaign (which I have Chaired since it was formed in 1983) with Tony Benn who was then an MP in the UK Parliament drafted The Common Ownership of Land Bill. It would put land in a National Trust and split with the rental income three ways: 1, pay for improved public services; 2, defray and reduce taxes on labor and trade; 3, provide each man, woman and child with a land dividend. I personally introduced #3, the dividend.”

David Brunori, contributing editor for State Tax Notes and research professor of public policy at George Washington U: “providing tax breaks to particular companies in return for a promise of doing what most companies would do anyway violates all notions of good government. Ending the practice would result in a fairer, more efficient, and more accountable public-finance system. It might just save states a little money as well.” What to do instead? William Fulton: “a two-rate tax [higher on land, lower on buildings] may be part of the solution to the economic development puzzle.” (August)

In 2001, they along with oiligarch David Rockefeller and former Fed chief Paul Volcker created the center to bridge the gap between policy studies on foreign politics and those on foreign economics. At their unveiling, VP Dick Cheney delivered the keynote. They work with the Council on Foreign Relations, and with the World Bank on a study of economic development hobbled by corruption (other's, not their own). They're the Maurice R. Greenberg outfit, who coined a name close to ours for their Center for Geoeconomic Studies.

The Journal of Planning Practice & Research ran Tom Gihring's “Applying Value Capture in the Seattle Region” in Vol. 16, Nos. 3-4 (Winter 2002): 307-320. He uses our term “geo-bond” to distinguish bonds paid off from land rent vs. those paid off from a tax on other values. He figures that, given the rapid rise in land-value in recent years, “a land-value gains-tax combined with a hypothecated general LVT can raise as much as $118 million to support the necessary transit improvements. At a minimum, about $24 million could be raised from an incremental gains tax alone”. Addendum: For the studied station, the total construction estimate, including station construction and street improvements but not right-of-way acquisition, is $80 million, affordable when both land taxes are levied.

Eric Miller, editor of the online urban magazine, told his state's gubernatorial candidates that, “property tax reform and enlightened zoning guidelines can go a long way to improving California's business and urban environment. The value of a plot of land depends less on what is on it than on what is around it. This is the source of real estate's famous dictum: Location, location, location. The state should tax properties according to the value of the land and community, not according the value of what is built on it. Because one can command higher rents for a well-built, well-designed property in a well-kept neighborhood, owners build, which increases the density and attractiveness of a city.”

The nation of Israel pays every family with kids –almost every family – a stipend whether they need it or not. It's Israel walking the talk of its socialist founders who at the inception, 1948, put all land into the Israeli National Trust. Hence, eventho' the payment does not come from land rent, it could. Were they to collect their site values – high in places like Tel Aviv – and share them, they could replace the stipend, headed down from $440 per month to $167, other income supplements, and the average salary, $1,628 and shrinking. (New York Times, July 20)

Not a book, but an academic paper (like a book but less lengthy and less literary) titled "Rent Seeking and Economic Growth: Evidence from a panel of US states" by Ismail M. Cole and M. Arshad Chawdhry in vol 22 no 2 (2002 Fall). By rent, they don't mean what's paid for land but the loot lobbyists wrangle out of politicians. Being such a lucrative occupation, it becomes a domestic brain drain; as smarties go away from engineering, into lawyering, growth slows. Their successful rent seeking drastically diverts government investment away from public goods, also holding back growth. Worse, rent seeking grows as government grows. In sum, rent seeking slows growth and is self-perpetuating. Of course, there's growth and there's growth (development that's equitable and sustainable vs non), but that's another issue. (thanks, Jim Mann)

Not a book, but an academic paper (shorter than a book but more wordy) titled “The Effects of New Urbanism on Housing Values” and subtitled: “A Quantitative Assessment”, it's by Yan Song and Gerrit-Jan Knaap of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, University of Maryland. They wisely chose to study a much studied Portland OR suburban area, Washington Co. They conclude that the humans burrowing into suburbia do pay more for some but not all of the design features of New Urbanism. They pay premiums for houses in neighborhoods with: mostly homes, not other land uses; more and shorter dead-end streets; more and smaller blocks; streets that connect to many others internally but not to the outside world; stores within walking distance; and closeness to the light rail station. 'Burb buyers pay less to live: on a major transportation artery, close to a cul-de-sac, and in neighborhoods that are dense, contain more commercial, multifamily, and public uses than single-family residential. In sum, houses in a neighborhood with more new urbanism features command a 15.5% premium ($30,000 for a $200k home). So design really matters, as does the old location, location, location.

This work by Michael Hudson, “Savings, Compound Interest and Asset-Price Inflation”, is not a book but contains more revelations than many major tomes. Taking seriously the conflict of growth – that economies grow and shrink in S curves while debt service expands relentlessly, exponentially – economists would have to articulate a new general theory and leave Keynes in their wake. From NIPA he finds that in the US (and the UK), buyers of real estate garner 70% of bank loans, empowering them to further bid up real estate prices. In the late 1940s, people spent 1% of their income on interest compared to 7% in 1989. Paying for things nobody made – like land and official fiat credit – does not get anything made. Only paying for things people make gets more things made. Paying down mortgages, bonds, and their derivatives leaves people with less to spend on producing, distributing, consuming (and protecting). This is called “debt deflation”. To prop up their stock, major corporations purchase their own; some years IBM spends 10 billion dollars buying back their equities. (Presented at last year's meeting of the Eastern Economic Assoc in New York City, where we presented on funding everyone an extra income from rent)

Finally, a real book. Bill Grennon, NH Green Party organizer (Jul 28) recommends Tax Pollution, Not Income by former NH Green, Roy Morrison. Praised by David Ellerman, Economic Advisor to the Chief Economist at the World Bank, it's in the series, Directions for A New Millennium from Beshert Books, available for reading and downloading in PDF format at: essentialbooks.com/id91.htm

Between 1997 and 2002, single-family homes appreciated 51% due to supply and demand – limited desirable locations coupled with rising incomes. When buying a home, first choose your neighbors. Location, location, location drives values. Better to buy a lesser house in a great neighborhood than the best house in a lesser neighborhood. Appraisers call it the principal of progression. If you buy the least expensive house in the neighborhood, the value around you drives up your property. If yours is the grandest house in the neighborhood, its value will be pulled down by the lower value of houses around it. The quality of schools, altho' a bit of a chicken-or-egg scenario (what came first: good schools or high income residents?), indicates home values. Even if you don't have children, you can trace the course of a neighborhood with how the schools have done. The time that commuting takes is an issue; housing located in the inner areas will appreciate at a higher rate. The value of homes in Providence, RI, shot up when a commuter train began between Boston and Providence. Other positive influences on property values include views, recreation areas, shops and restaurants. (CNN, July 24, via Wyn Achenbaum)

Unwanted, unsolicited email messages now make up over 50% of all email. That reduces everyone's productivity. This cost should not be imposed on the recipient of such spam but on its senders. An owner of an email inbox should be able to charge spammers and everyone admission. One could program their software to charge half a cent, or 1 cent, or 5 cents. By experimenting, a recipient would find a price that works. If senders pay the owner's demand, the mail would be accepted. If not, no entry. Most wouldn't charge friends, listservs, and other "white-listed" designees. A portion of the charge for the incoming e-mail from everyone else could be siphoned off to pay administrative costs. If that sounds hairy, remember the US financial system settles hundreds of millions of transactions worth $3 trillion—more than a quarter of the annual GDP—every day. By Jonathan Rauch, resident writer at the Brookings Institution and a senior writer with National Journal, where an earlier version appeared, this article reinvents an idea by an IBM researcher Scott E. Fahlman, that appeared in these pages in the spring. Back in 1998, Progress Report Senior Editor Fred Foldvary proposed having spam include a symbol, like $, in its sender's address, making blocking unwanted mail a snap.

Richard Giles, head of the Sydney Australia Georgists (Jul 31): “Last issue told of a tax cutting consumption of dangerous substances used in dry cleaning. Given that these substances cause cancer, why did the state discourage them, not ban them?”

JS: Political reality, social norms. Some egregious behaviors you can ban, some fine, some we must tolerate until enough of our neighbors share our views.

RG: “Another article refered to a congestion charge in London which reduced the number of cars using the inner city by 60,000, which is good for those who now use the roads more freely but not so good for those who do not. I wonder whether those 60,000 fewer cars represent lost productivity.”

JS: Probably a gain. Using bus, train, carpool, bike, etc at least saves the ex-drivers money, maybe time, perhaps health, and the cleaner air is good for everyone.

RG: “To that we can add the diversion of resources into the administration of this system”

JS: And subtract the waste of resources on traffic cops, road maintenance, collision response, etc.

RG: “and the use of cameras, the huge fines for what to many motorists must be a trivial offence…”

JS: Do suggest Orwell's Big Brother. Rather than not have government help ease congestion, we could neuter the state in more crucial ways, such as abolishing taxes and laws on victimless crimes.

JS: If paying a road use fee interferes with liberty, why doesn't pay a land use fee? If paying rent for some land is legit, isn't paying rent for some road also legit? While a road use fee thins out the traffic, it collects compensation – from those crowding the roads, for those crowded out from using the roads.

RG: “The term Geonomics proposes charges not Georgist, but ideas attractive to those in the environmental movement.”

JS: One reason Georgists are dying out may be that their older generation excludes all recoveries of all rents but one, a tax on land.

Elizabeth Erick, tax researcher, Great Lakes United (Jly 9): “Echoing never ending proposals, the Corps recommended last year a massive dredging project to accommodate deeper draft ships. We at GLU seek an alternative to re-plumbing the lakes, a way for domestic and regional shipping to operate sustainably, a win/win. (Jul 10): Tax reform could support a more fuel-efficient means of bulk transportation. I would appreciate talking to you to preliminarily scope out tax reform scenarios for the industry and government to ponder.”

Jeff Smith: Turning to the big picture for a minute, is dredging economic? If shippers paid, not taxpayers, would they dredge? Even if they also had to set aside deposits and hold restoration insurance? Balancing these extra and fair charges, what if shippers no longer had to pay taxes (just user fees, like everyone else)? And what if instead of a specific subsidy as now, they got a general citizens dividend (like everyone else)? Politically, these ideas may not yet fly; such a sea change is more of a long-term goal. But you could work towards it incrementally, shifting taxes into a Great Lakes Ecology Security Deposits, and subsidies into shipping vouchers.

Gillian Kerr, Canadian grad student (Aug 30): “I have just read your 'Sharing Natural Rents to Sustain Human Society'. My thesis is looking at creating a cost accounting framework to be applied to the current rent capture regime for oil and gas extraction in Alberta. The framework adds environmental externalities, focusing on one at a time, into the overall rent capture mechanism. It educates the most oil-and-gas rich part of Canada on what lies outside their current accounting practices. It's a wake-up call for Albertans about how our common property is used and abused. Can you direct me to any literature, websites, or contacts?”

GK (Sept 1): “Your focus is on land rents and not oil and gas rents, correct?”

JS: Only because land rents are the biggest, most easily ignored, and hardest to collect.

JS: Rent has many technical meanings and one popular one - what you pay for your apartment. I'm using it in a unique sense, for want of a better word, to refer to the money we spend on the nature we use, hoping that physical act of paying for fuel, land, food, etc, is something the public can wrap its flighty mind around.

License herein is not for driving or doctoring but our custom of letting people getting away with a misdeed, like letting the powerful pollute, whether there's a law against it or not – the custom of kowtowing, probably instinctual in us herd animals.

Subsidy is used to refer not just to props for agri-business but almost any gov't expenditure that does not cover the cost of defending rights, which is the core mission of gov't. Of course, societies might differ on what rights are. I'm using a narrow focus on rights, hence a broad one on subsidies. Probably you're getting money from your fellow taxpayers to go to uni, and that'd be a subsidy, like spending on the industrial/military complex.

BTW, will you recommend any of the following: bonds, deposits, insurance premiums, auction bids on emission permits, taxes?

GK: “I may not get down to recommending an instrument, just a costing of the externality that would need to be in the overall rent capture.”

JS: Yet, since there is no market where people exchange emission rights with health rights, how can you know how much pollution costs? If there were an auction for emission permits, or trials for indicted polluters, those proceedings would generate numbers. Anything else is just a guess.

Callie Jordan, Oregon activist (Aug 8): “A member of our Local Currency group, Karen Harding, had a paper from the class you taught here in Hood River. Could you send me a copy? Also, I was reading your online article about tax shifting, which btw is very concise thanks, and I came across one proposal that I don't understand: 'Activists could persuade their local jurisdiction to give residents the same property tax breaks that politicians give big corporations, meanwhile establishing a Benefit District to collect rent to fund a Housing Voucher, good for taxes, mortgages, and lease payments.'”

JS: Sorry to confuse. I tried to say that rather than exempt just big business from the property tax, exempt everybody. At the same time, to collect site rent, set up what's called a Benefit District or Assessment District or Special Service District which has the power to tax land value alone, leaving built value to the owner. It must also spend the raised revenue on one program; it can't kick any of the money into the general fund. Now that housing is so unaffordable for so many, that single purpose could be to distribute high land values to all residents via the Housing Voucher. Hope that helps.

A geo-libertarian: “It's impossible in practice to separate out what part of land output is due to natural advantages, what part due to human improvements.”

JS: To those not doing it, it looks impossibly difficult. Yet private landlords and tenants agree on fair rents and so do public landlords and tenants. Funny how some people always care about users paying only the exactly fair amount when the recipient is the public, but are totally indifferent when the recipient is private.

Bill Grennon, NH Green Party activist (Aug 29): “What is the consequence of optimizing land use in the city core and paying citizens a dividend, diverting all of the pent-up energy that we now spend on consuming? If we can divert that towards the creation of local culture (art, beauty, refinement, etc) by providing a living stipend, won't it work in unison with New Urbanism/architectural ideas?”

JS: My read is that both sides – pro and con New Urbanism – are for planning, just one plan vs another, since I saw no mention of the market. Yet a market made vastly more participatory might give us the cities that both sides want. Geonomics opens the market to everyone. When we pay rent, then those who're well positioned – both in space and class – lose the motive to speculate, presently a huge distorter of urban pattern. When we get rent as shares equal to everyone, then even the ex-poor can hire architects. Of course, they may not, and may “waste” (depending on your tastes) the income. That happens in Alaska, where everyone gets an oil dividend, and a few use it to leave the frozen tundra for Hawaii for a couple weeks. But ancient Athens had a dividend and with it a Golden Era. I bet when the dividend finally feels permanent, not just a happenstance, then people getting it will evolve their tastes from one-shot consumerism to refining a life that balances work and play, taking and leaving, cutting corners and crafting beauty for posterity. Even if I'm wrong, the money – rent – belongs to them.

From Richard Heinberg: The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, New Society Publishers, 2003). In Chapter 6: Managing the Collapse (on strategies for coping with the declining amount of fossil fuels), p. 225: “Tax reform is also essential. Geonomic tax theorists, who trace their lineage back to 19th century American economist Henry George, argue that Society should tax land and other basic resources — the birthright of all — instead of income from labor. It is no accident, say the Geonomists, that the only state where income grew faster during the last two decades for the poorest fifth of households than for families at the top of the economic heat was Alaska — which is also the only state to share rent from a natural resource. Geonomic tax reform, say advocates, could decrease wealth disparities while reducing pollution and discouraging land speculation. Similarly, taxing nonrenewable resources and pollution — instead of giving oil companies huge subsidies in the form of depletion allowances — would put the brakes on resource extraction while giving society the means with which to fund the development of renewables.” On p 234, his list of referrals gives the website for the Geonomy Society.

The Victoria Transport Policy Institute's summer newsletter lists again our annotated bibliography of academic studies on how mass transit raises nearby site values, since we have added new studies, trimmed some excess wordage, and better structured the introduction. GB Arrington of Portland's Parsons Brinckerhoff, author of one of the new studies, (Aug 19): “The TOD study we did for Caltrans found the relationship between land values and rail transit investments to be even stronger.” VTPI's president, Todd Linton, calls it “the best article on the topic in the internet.” Rick Rybeck, son of Walt and a DC City Planner (Aug 29): “Your latest compilation of studies on this topic is fantastic and getting it posted to the VTPI website is great. They highlight it in their e-mail that they send to users to alert them to new additions to their site.” (www.vtpi.org/smith.htm)

Camille Clingan, Supervisor, Portland's Green Zine Newsletter (Aug 13): “I just wanted to take a minute to thank you for your article, 'Help Push Legislators on Land Value Tax Bill', as it was a great addition to our first issue. As we head into our second issue, I would like to invite you to be a contributor again.” The Jefferson City, MO's Post Tribune ran GeoSoc stalwart John Morales' letter, which ended with our contact info for interested readers.

At the July 15-20 annual meeting of the Council of Georgist Organizations in Bridgeport, CT, attended by many government officials and where I was honored to mc the banquet and speak twice, two different people approached to say they'd come to hear us talk geonomics. One of them, Bill Grennon, NH Green Party organizer, added (Jul 28): “What a delight to finally meet you in person and hear your impassioned explanations of all things geo-green! Could you send me your powerpoint [Financing the Livable City]?” Stephen Zarlenga, author on monetary reform (Jul 31): “Great seeing you at Bridgeport. I thought your talk [20 Factors that De-railed HG] made the most political sense of any other in terms of how to advance Georgism. If it's not on line, this list ought to get a copy. I'm really looking forward to seeing you out in Oregon.” Bryan Kavanagh, Aussie land evaluator (Aug 1): “An excellent rundown, Mr Smith! It should get further distribution here in Oz, if our renaissance is to take hold.”

Across the Sound from Seattle in Port Townsend, Jim Rough interviewed me on his community TV show June 26. The studio crew found it fascinating enough to keep me an hour after, still answering questions. Anyone else got a time slot to fill?

The Boston Society of Architects selected my paper, “Geonomics: Recovery of Site-Rents for Urban Density”, for publication in Density: Myth and Reality - Perspectives and Critiques. The BSA (the AIA's biggest chapter) is making the papers available to people attending their annual conference September 11-14 (which I will) and are working with a journal to publish them as well. (Russ Lopez, Aug 7)

Kurt Kristensen, grad student, publisher of peoples' poetry and organizer of two yearly performances, poetspeak.com (Aug 13): “I reviewed your web site and the summary of your research. You have many valid arguments and, in the interest of a sane and sustainable society, you should continue to push them incrementally. I recommend that you contact Representative Hass and others at the legislature; I will share the PDF summary on property taxes. I do believe that simplification is necessary and timely and wish you would do a study on the cost of that for Oregon. Your website is bookmarked and I encourage you to email me occasionally with things you perceive I might be interested in.”

At Hanno Beck's Banneker Center's website lie our Geonomic Quotient quizzes about which people testing their trivia say, “That was great! Your test should be mandatory in all grade schools!” (July 22)

Mark Aldington, Managing Partner, Addventure Partners Ltd, London (Aug 1): “Thanks for your thoughts: 'Let merit earn as much as merit can, thereby increasing the pie, so that the social surplus, divided fairly, will suffice to meet minimal needs.' Something I have been struggling with in terms of developing partnership business models of how to allocate value and this has given me another way of looking at things. Thanks.”

Todd Boyle (Aug 5): “Markets are incredibly useful; six billion people depend on smoothly functioning economies, based on individual buying decisions, yes. But the simple mechanism of supply and demand just doesn't cover everything in the universe. How will our commons ever extricate themselves from unnecessary privatization, from expropriation? A thousand thanks for sending the autographed copy of The Geonomist. I read it over and over. You da man. You deserve more recognition; you're doing an essential service to humanity. I will mention you in my posts and emails.”

Karl Williams, Aussie teacher, organizer, and promoter (Aug 20): “Some great news – in no small part due to all the terrific Green contacts you made here. Mate, Anne O'Rourke [trade law authority] has been doing some OUTSTANDING promotional work on our behalf. She's been putting the word around, arguing our case, keeping me in touch, lining up engagements and, to her further credit, devouring big books and reports on Geoism in her quest to understand it fully. And Anne is even going to our annual Henry George Commemoration Dinner, taking Kaz and Janet (remember them?) along. What an absolute winner, eh? Our journal, Progress, is getting better with more Green content, as we have a Greener readership since your visit. I contacted each and every one of those 40-odd addresses you posted me, and about 20 took up the offer for a complimentary trial subscription. I took the liberty of including your excellent Earth Day Speech in the forthcoming edition.”

Lloyd Churches, Aussie programmer (Aug 1): “Brilliant stuff ['20 Ways Georgism Got Derailed']! I think I can differentiate you from many other Georgists because of your emphasis on a Citizens Dividend. It is certainly an added carrot for getting new people interested. I really start to think that a better name for our organisation here is EarthSharing. Indeed you did stress the word sharing so much in this paper. Great work. I'd like to read more of your stuff. I wonder if you can send your conference papers to me to read.”

JS: They're on their way. Thanks for asking. Anyone else for a copy of 20 Ways or talks told Down Under?

Joan Sage, Philly Green (Aug 19): “I passed your excellent article ['What the Left must do'] on to other Georgists. I hope Z picks it up. Perhaps we can get it on the Greens' website.”

JS: Whatever else happens, it'll be in Australia's next Progress. Any other wannabe readers out there?

Brian Beinlich, Oregon technologizer: “Sorry I didn't renew on time. I didn't get a reminder! Keep up the good work.” The work of forgetting to send out notices? Enough of that! If you're reading this and are not Brian, assume dues be due!

Last quarter, the Robert Schalkenbach Fdn helped us participate in the Connecticut CGO conference and sent an advance for us to join the American Institute of Architects in Boston, Sept 12-14. The Henry George School of New York funded our fall class (back page). Individuals pitched in mightily, too. For re/joining, thanks to sustainer Nic Tideman (VA prof) and supporter Ed Clarke (OMB economist). If you don't see your name on this list and know it belongs there, please send a donation. We'll know what to do with it.

“Paying for the Commons” to be presented in Canada's BC, the lovely Victoria, on November 18, sponsored by the Sierra Club and organized by companero Caspar Davis. It's an evening discussion about paying for natural resource consumption with yours truly, globetrotting founder of the Geonomics Society, on how land and other natural resources can and should yield a Citizens' Dividend, providing a basic income for everyone, and how proper pricing for natural resources, and a requirement for security deposits from resource exploiters will help ensure responsible resource use.

Bill Grennon, HH Green Party organizer, (Jul 28): “Keep me posted on your travels. I would love to offer you a place to stay. BTW, how about a nonpartisan coalition, 'The New Commonwealth Coalition', to bring our geo ideas to different affinity groups by inviting them join our coalition by endorsement, and to influence the Libertarian & Green parties to try and build a geo bridge for them to unite behind.” JS: Sure. Let's coalesce!

In Washington, DC next winter from Feb 20 to 22 is the Eastern Economics Assoc annual meeting. We're in the track of the US Basic Income Group. It'll be US BIG's 3rd Congress. Come to our panel, “Sharing Rents”, featuring VPI's Nic Tideman and the OMB's Ed Clarke. Even propose a paper in an abstract of 150 words before November 7. Anyone who submits a paper must also be available to act as discussant. To attend, register with the EEA. Indicate on your registration form that you will be attending the USBIG conference (on Capitol Hill at the Hyatt Regency, 400 New Jersey Ave NW) and you can register at the members' price ($45 in advance and $60 on site) without paying the EEA membership fee (saving $50). Pass this announcement on to others. More info on the EEA conference is at iona.edu/eea, more on BIG is at usbig.net. James Robertson, ex-advisor to the British Cabinet and Bank of England and co-founder of The Other Economic Summit and Schumacher College (Aug 3): “Excellent news that this conference is to be held.”

Which way to a carfree future? No way, while we subsidize highways and sprawl. Sustainable Portland lies on a level playing field, where we pay for the nature we take, not the values we create. Smart Growth is not spending other people's money. It's sharing common assets. Based on natural cycles, it's economics as if Earth really mattered. And it has worked wherever tried.

Discussion leader Jeff Smith editor, The Geonomist
September 30, 2003. 6:45 PM. BELMONT LIB., SE 39th & Taylor, Portland Oregon.
for more information: 503/234-0809

If not for yourself, than for your economy, do take a vacation since a leisure society is good business. The French, who make life style an art form, welcome 75 million foreigners each year, making theirs the most visited country in the world. A mere 51 million visit America. (The Christian Science Monitor, July 15)

The Washington Post ran Joe Robinson's op-ed on extending vacations (July 27). Almost 40% of us work more than 50 hours a week, as Americans did back in the 1920s. The tab paid by business for job stress is $150 billion a year. In 1910, President William Howard Taft proposed a two- to three-month vacation for American workers. In 1932, both the Democratic and Republican platforms called for shorter working hours. The Japanese have two legally mandated weeks, and even the Chinese get three. Since making an across-the-board three-week vacation the rule nine years ago, H Group, a financial services firm in Salem OR, has seen productivity soar and profits double. Europeans get four or five weeks by law and can get another couple of weeks by agreement with employers. Europe had a higher productivity growth rate in 14 of the 19 years between 1981 and 2000. Three years ago Joe, author of Work to Live: The Guide to Getting a Life, founded the Work to Live Campaign to lobby for a law mandating a minimum of three weeks of paid leave. Since then, thousands of Americans have signed a supporting petition. You can, too.

Kathleen Walsh, Take Back Your Time Day organizer and GeoSoc member (Aug 27): “Barbara Brower [Dave's daughter?], a professor at PSU, said she would assist in pulling in the university. TBYT Day is October 24th, so time is running short!” Call Kathleen to pitch in (503/233-6350), and be sure to take that day off!

Matt Fair, Canadian artist (Sept 02): “From various media I collected thousands of short clips on the work ethic into a six CD mosaic, The World Owes You A Living. It's not argument but a chorus of horse's mouths, both discursive and anecdotal. A review is at
theworldowesyoualiving.org/PAGES/brochurepage.htm

Nurture us! You employees and usually retirees can often get a matching grant from your company.

THE GEONOMIST

Vol. 12, No. 2
Editor: Jeffery J. Smith

THE GEONOMIST

Vol. 12, No. 2 Editor: Jeffery J. Smith

Vol. 12, No. 2
Editor: Jeffery J. Smith