History tells us that in the process of industrial development, people move from rural areas to cities to find work. It makes it sound like it's voluntary. In my case, it was. I moved from Suffolk to London, via University and a bit of travelling, because work and life here is much more interesting.
But historically, the process was driven by the sword. Violence drove crofters from the land. Because, says McIntosh, we were too happy to work hard for industrial owners if we all had our own plot.
Some revealing quotes in Soil and Soul, p94:
Quote from 1815, Patrick Sellar, a lawyer:
"Lord and Lady Stafford were pleased humanely, to order a new arrangement of this Country. That the interior should be possessed by Cheviot [sheep] Shepherds and the people brought down to the coast and placed there in lots under the size of three arable acres, sufficient for the maintenance of an industrious family, but pinched enough to cause them turn their attention to the fishing [i.e. waged labour]. I presume to say that the proprietors humanely ordered this arrangement, because it surely was a most benevolent action, to put these barbarous hordes into a position where they could better associate together, apply to industry, educate their children, and advance in civilisation."
1912, Kenya - Lord Delamere:
"If... every native is to be a landholder of a sufficient area on which to establish himself, then the question of obtaining a satisfactory labour supply will never be settled."
1960, J.L. Sadie in the Economic Journal:
"Economic development of an underdeveloped people by themselves is not compatible with the maintenance of thier traditional customs and mores. A break with the latter is prerequsite to economic progress. What is needed is a revolution in the totality of social, cultural and religious institutions and habits, and thus in their psychological attitude, their philosophy and way of life. What is, therefore, required amounts in reality to social disorganisation. Unhappiness and discontentment in the sense of wanting more than is obtainable at any moment is to be generated. The suffering and dislocation that may be caused in the process may be objectionable, but it appears to be the price that has to be paid for economic development: the condition of economic progress."
Sunday, 3 August 2008
Land
I'll add a lot to this, probably in the comments section.
Here goes.
Total land area in the UK is 1,395,000 km²
We have about 60 million people, in 22m households. If you kept, say, 50% of the land for countryside, that divides up as 0.032 km2 per household - about 5.5m x 5.5m. Not much. We do need to live on top of each other a bit then.
Our land use breaks down like this:
19% urban
9% forest
67% agricultural, including grasses and bare fallow
5% other
(http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/land/lduse.htm)
69% of that land is owned by 0.6% of our population.
Hummm...
(http://www.newstatesman.com/200409200005)
Cicero considered farming the best of all Roman occupations. He writes in On Duties: “But of all the occupations by which gain is secured, none is better than agriculture, none more profitable, none more delightful, none more becoming to a freeman…” (wikipedia, Roman agriculture)
Here goes.
Total land area in the UK is 1,395,000 km²
We have about 60 million people, in 22m households. If you kept, say, 50% of the land for countryside, that divides up as 0.032 km2 per household - about 5.5m x 5.5m. Not much. We do need to live on top of each other a bit then.
Our land use breaks down like this:
19% urban
9% forest
67% agricultural, including grasses and bare fallow
5% other
(http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/land/lduse.htm)
69% of that land is owned by 0.6% of our population.
Hummm...
(http://www.newstatesman.com/200409200005)
Cicero considered farming the best of all Roman occupations. He writes in On Duties: “But of all the occupations by which gain is secured, none is better than agriculture, none more profitable, none more delightful, none more becoming to a freeman…” (wikipedia, Roman agriculture)
One
I'm beginning a money project.
I have some questions.
What is the relationship between models of business ownership, and the distribution of capital?
Are private equity and shareholder models basically really good ways to take money from the many and clump it with the few?
What are the best models of business ownership from a sustainability and economic justice point of view?
How do they look if you're a) an SME wanting to grow, b) a mammouth - Dupont, HSBC - and c) in the government of a developing country? Also, if we think nationally, how would we do some of the useful things that existing models do - create funds for new stuff, and old people - if the money flow of cost - profit - dividend etc ran differently?
most of all, my question right now is, what do we know about this already?
I'm starting to read. I'll read and read and read. I'll post all my notes here. I'll maybe have a readership of 2. That's good. It just feels a bit odd to keep it all to myself.
Here goes...
I have some questions.
What is the relationship between models of business ownership, and the distribution of capital?
Are private equity and shareholder models basically really good ways to take money from the many and clump it with the few?
What are the best models of business ownership from a sustainability and economic justice point of view?
How do they look if you're a) an SME wanting to grow, b) a mammouth - Dupont, HSBC - and c) in the government of a developing country? Also, if we think nationally, how would we do some of the useful things that existing models do - create funds for new stuff, and old people - if the money flow of cost - profit - dividend etc ran differently?
most of all, my question right now is, what do we know about this already?
I'm starting to read. I'll read and read and read. I'll post all my notes here. I'll maybe have a readership of 2. That's good. It just feels a bit odd to keep it all to myself.
Here goes...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
