ALL ABOARD! USA v. CHINA

~~~~

Australia’s defence minister Richard Marles has joined in solidarity with counterpart Pete Hegseth’s USA warmongering speech against China.

I guess we’ve got to show China what we’re going to do with it if it were to attack Taiwan? “Peace through strength“, eh Richard?

We’re just being tough, right? We’re not really angling for WWIII?

While I prefer diplomacy to chest-thumping and threats, perhaps China has become a handy scapegoat for the USA’s increasing socio-economic troubles. You know: “Look over there!

Sounds remarkably like the British Empire facing off against Germany in the early 20th Century. All that hubris eventuated in WWI. There was no way out of the warlike atmosphere that had been created.

Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.

AI ON GEORGISM

Question: Committing to land-price inflated mortgages has much to answer for in currently failing world economies, IMO. Enough to convince one to see Georgism as being a superior model to the rent-seeking excesses both in capitalism and communism. No?

Answer: You’re diving into some spicy economic territory here, and I love it! Let’s unpack your point about land-price-inflated mortgages and Georgism’s appeal, keeping it sharp and conversational.

You’re not wrong—skyrocketing land prices, especially in urban areas, have juiced up mortgages to obscene levels, tying people to decades of debt just to own a home. In many failing or stagnant economies, housing costs eat up way too much income (like 40-50% in some cities), leaving less for spending, saving, or investing elsewhere. This chokes consumer demand and economic mobility, while banks and landlords rake in profits. It’s a textbook case of rent-seeking—unearned wealth from owning finite land rather than creating value. The 2008 housing bubble showed how this can tank entire economies when speculation runs wild. Data backs this: in the U.S., median home prices have outpaced wage growth since the 1970s, with the price-to-income ratio jumping from ~3 to over 5 in many markets by 2025.

Now, Georgism—taxing land value instead of labor or capital—has serious legs as a counter to this. Henry George argued that land, being a finite resource, shouldn’t be a golden ticket for rentiers to hoard wealth. A land value tax (LVT) hits speculators holding undeveloped lots or inflating urban land prices, encouraging productive use of land and reducing price bubbles. It’s not anti-capitalist—it’s pro-market by leveling the playing field, rewarding work over monopolistic ownership. Unlike communism’s heavy-handed state control, Georgism keeps private property but taxes the unearned value of location. Studies like those from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy show LVT can stabilize housing markets and fund public goods without distorting economic incentives.

But here’s the flip side: implementing Georgism isn’t a slam dunk. Transitioning to an LVT means upending entrenched property tax systems, which are political sacred cows. Homeowners and real estate tycoons would fight tooth and nail—look at how Prop 13 in California locked in low property taxes for decades, inflating prices further. Plus, valuing land separately from buildings is tricky and could spark disputes. And while Georgism tackles land speculation, it’s not a cure-all for every economic woe—trade imbalances, tech disruption, or monetary policy still matter.

So, does Georgism beat the rent-seeking excesses of capitalism and communism? It’s got a strong case—capitalism’s land monopolies and communism’s state monopolies both distort wealth creation, and LVT sidesteps those traps. But it’s not a silver bullet, and the politics of implementing it are brutal. Still, it’s a bold fix for the mortgage mess and land-price insanity. What’s your take—ready to storm the barricades for a land value tax?

Reply: Yep! I’m in!

INSIDERS

Two all?

It’s often interesting to dip into the ABC’s “Insiders” on a Sunday morning. The National Party’s deputy Kevin Hogan did a pretty good job explaining what happened in the split this week between his party and the Liberal Party.

There was much detail covered.

An unconnected final mention in the show of the world’s financial “uncertainty” as Donald Trump threatens further tariff ‘protection’.

Yes, it’s true that there’s much “uncertainty” in the world at the moment, but why is this exactly?

What is it that has generated all this uncertainty? It seems to loom over us like the sword of Damocles, but the elephant in the room may never be discussed on “Insiders”.

It can’t be, you see, because it threatens status quo.

  • How can it be possible for the “Insiders” program to mention the banking industry’s irresponsible lending against increasingly impossible land prices that it has helped to pump skyward?
  • How can it mention a deeply involved and compliant real estate industry?
  • How can it mention a media which is almost totally reliant upon massive funds spent into advertising real estate and banking?

It simply can’t. It’s just not done to query such overarching economic issues.

“Insiders” must continue keeping its eye on all the political detail, without ever venturing into the cause of this world “uncertainty”.

“There’s nothing to see here!”

Rentierism (and housing unaffordability) must prevail.

~~~~~

2027: THE DEPRESSION WE HAD TO HAVE