42 posts categorized "ecosystem services"
Gems from George: More Men, More Yield ... Malthus was wrong!
WHY DO WE LOOK AT EACH NEW birth as the arrival on earth of another hungry mouth? Why are we incapable of seeing that along with each new mouth comes a pair of hands? The world does not have six billion mouths to feed — it has six billion hard-working human beings whose creativity and ingenuity must be unleashed.
In the next decade India and China will each add to the planet about 10 times as many people as the US. But the stress on the "world's carrying capacity" caused by the new Americans will far exceed India's and China's combined.
In any case even if, as predicted by the UN, Asians and Africans will make up 80 per cent of humanity by 2050, they will simply have returned to being proportionately as numerous as they were before the Industrial Revolution.
Me voici, owner of some four hundred well developed pines, a few thousand tons of granite scattered in blocks at the roots of the pines, and a sprinkling of earth. That's a town lot in Vancouver. You or your agent hold to it till property rises, then sell out and buy more land further out of town and repeat the process. I do not quite see how this sort of thing helps the growth of a town, but the English Boy says that it is the "essence of speculation," so it must be all right.
7. The corporations which pollute the world's air through emissions from their US-based factories and refineries and electricity-generating plants will be asked to pay for carbon credits to offset the pollution they create. Where should the revenue go?
David Cay Johnston: Is It Is Time To Drop Income Taxes?
David Cay Johnston: Is It Is Time To Drop Income Taxes?.
I think DCJ is asking the right question here, at least as a top-line, and raising some important points in support of answering it.
Five ancient principles that have survived the test of time and are, therefore, profoundly conservative, should guide us.
The first is the moral principle of progressive taxation -- that the greater the gain you manage to attain, whether through hard work or luck, the greater your duty to pay back the society that made your riches possible so that it will endure. This concept is 2,500 years old, coming to us along with its civil twin, democracy, from ancient Athens.
The second is horizontal equity. Each person, or business, with the same ability to pay should pay the same tax. We must not tolerate a system in which one family or company pays far more than another with the same income, thanks to all the fine print in the tax code.
Simplicity, transparency and ease of payment should be the last three of the five guiding principles, as Adam Smith taught more than two centuries ago.
It must not take from individuals what rightfully belongs to individuals.
It must not give some an advantage over others, as by increasing the prices of what some have to sell and others must buy.
It must not lead men into temptation, by requiring trivial oaths, by making it profitable to lie, to swear falsely, to bribe or to take bribes.
It must not confuse the distinctions of right and wrong, and weaken the sanctions of religion and the state by creating crimes that are not sins, and punishing men for doing what in itself they have an undoubted right to do.
It must not repress industry. It must not check commerce. It must not punish thrift. It must offer no impediment to the largest production and the fairest division of wealth.
Look at the same question in reverse -- is our tax system encouraging unproductive or even counterproductive activities?
What else should we call a system that lets hedge-fund and other financial speculators defer paying taxes for years or decades on their carried interest, while discouraging investment in long-term projects that may not pay off for a decade or more? How else to explain our gross overinvestment in housing?
And what about corporate tax accounting costs?
Under President Barack Obama, business has been able to immediately write off 50 percent of new investment one year and 100 percent in two other years. We need to examine the long-term benefits and costs of full expensing. The White House says full expensing lowers the average cost of capital for business investment by 75 percent. But what other effects are there?
More broadly, we need to debate why corporations must keep two sets of books, one for shareholders and one for the IRS. How much more efficient would taxation, and commerce, be with one set of books?
I hope that DCJ, perhaps the best journalist on this beat, will explore further, to see what other tax bases might be used.
Which ones would be just?
Which ones would avoid taking from individuals and corporations value they've created?
Which ones would take back from individuals and corporations value that the community created or nature provided?
Which ones would push back on individuals and corporations the costs of the pollution they've incurred instead of permitting them to impose those externalities on the rest of us?
Which ones would encourage good behavior?
Which ones would create widely shared prosperity?
Which ones could tax the value of franchises and privileges that our ancestors gave out willy-nilly, or which past administrations or Congresses have given to their BFFs (best friends forever), which rightly belongs to we-the-people?
The writings of Mason Gaffney, from the 1950s to the present, provide a wide variety of logical and just tax bases. They've remained largely hidden, for reasons that relate to how delighted the special interests have been with their privileges. DCJ could help bring these to popular attention.
Walter Rybeck's book, Re-Solving the Economic Puzzle, also provides some good approaches to this.
It would also be useful if our government would start measuring the value of these privileges. But I suspect that the powers that be will see to it that this doesn't happen.
Mr. Kegley of the state grange requested me to express to this conference as the representative of the grange the purport of the resolution that we have been adopting for the past five years, and with the permission of the chairman I will do so. He cautioned me particularly not to "let them put anything over on us," and I will try not to do so. Our particular grievance lies against the speculators. We have adopted resolutions for the past five years at every session of the state grange, county granges, and by a great many subordinates, for the reform of our system of revenue so as to abolish speculation in land. When I was a small boy I purchased a pig. It spent most of its time rubbing itself against the pen, but did not seem to grow. Finally I asked my father what was the trouble. He teased me for awhile and then stated, using big words, that it was "supporting too many parasites." I asked him what a parasite was, and he said, "Your pig is lousy." The speculator is a louse on the body politic. He is absolutely useless, a mere parasite. He takes what does not belong to him. We farmers clear up our land and more than half the values we create goes to speculators. That ought to stop. We ought to collect from the speculator all that he gets that he does not earn. There ought to be taken from the speculator a special economic rent, not a tax, not a burden upon industry, not a burden on anything he is doing except his stealing.
We believe that the speculator ought to be relieved of that which he has unjustly acquired, to which he has no more right than the slave-holder or pirate to his ill-gotten wealth. These are strong terms, but it is the language of the grange. They have adopted resolutions again and again, unanimously and with great enthusiasm, and we submit that the principal thing this conference can do is to so reform our system of taxation, of public revenue, as to prevent the speculator getting a single dollar he has not earned.
Just a word considering what the speculator is doing in the community. If I went over on the other side of the mountains and dug a ditch, and a man should take water from that ditch, say half of it, he would be stealing. Yet every farmer who goes out on the stump land on the West coast, cultivates a farm and opens it up, has most of his value stolen from him by speculators — absolutely stolen. If a man were to come to my farm and drive off half my stock he would not be robbing me of a bit more, directly or morally, of what I had created, than he does when he takes the value I have created by clearing my farm. An Italian went to Bellingham and bought a lot from a speculator in the suburbs for $200. After awhile he thought he wanted to buy another lot, and tried to buy it for $200 — a lot next to the one he had already bought. But the speculator said, "No, you have added $100 to the lot adjoining your house." He did not get that $100. The speculator stole it. It is absolute stealing. Now we go further than that; we say the special curse of our whole system of taxation is the speculator. If we take from the speculator anything like what he is stealing from us we would not need any taxes. We could absolutely abolish all taxes and have a vast fund left over for a dividend to every stockholder.
Our timber is increasing tremendously. Our fisheries are increasing. The value of land on Second Avenue has increased, not because of what has been done by the owner, but because there are something like 80,000 people more in Seattle now than there were 10 years ago. The people that come in create but don't get that value. The speculator gets it all. The speculator is the sole cause of unemployment. Every man who wishes to control any natural resource should be made to pay to the public an annual rent of 4% or 5%, whatever is right, on the population value of the natural resources he is controlling, and we would have in this state more than $100,000,000 a year over and above our expenses, and that is a very conservative estimate. Timber increased in the State of Minnesota in 8 years more than $7 per thousand. You and I have built the Panama Canal by the increase in the price of sugar, $1.50 a sack, a few dollars on a suit of clothes, 50 cents to a dollar on a pair of shoes. The Panama Canal will add to the price of the billions of feet of timber in this state perhaps a dollar or two dollars per thousand, how much nobody knows yet, but something. Who is going to get that? If any man living thinks the timber barons are going to get that he is badly fooled. The state grange, the state federation of labor, and other organizations in this state propose to collect for the people every dollar of population-made value, or a fair rental on the values which our people have added to these natural resources, giving to the timber men merely what they have created, but keeping for the people all the values they have created. We propose to give the individually-made value to the individual who creates it. That is all we claim, all that we want. It is considerable to be sure, but it is all that we want. We want that every individual should have all that he creates, absolutely free of taxes. That is the position of the grange, asserted again and again in resolutions as clear as language can be made, to give to each individual all that he creates; to abolish all penalizing fines upon any industry and not fine a man for doing what he ought to do, what we want him to do. Up in Whatcom County every man who keeps a cow is fined 60 cents a year. If he keeps a good horse he is fined $8 a year. If he paints his house or takes out a stump he is taxed (fined). In the state in which I was born and raised, they paid a man for planting trees; but here we tax a man who blows out a stump. We should fine the man who keeps the stump in, and reward the man who takes it out. We want to tax the stump and exempt the cow. That, we think, is the only system. As representative of the grange I will have to make my report to the grange — they want to know what the attitude of every speaker is and what he thinks concerning the speculators. I think we of the grange do not care a continental about anything else. Are you going to help us to rid ourselves of the parasites (the speculators), or are you not? Are you going to help us to free ourselves from the men who are robbing as of the values we create, or are you going to fool away your time in a sham fight in putting upon property a lying tax which ultimately will fall upon the farmer and the wage-worker?
As I listen to the accounts of what was on the computers in the compound where Osama bin Ladin was living, including ideas for attacking American commuter railroads, my mind turns to why people in other countries might have such hatred for America.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that we are using, month in and month out, such a disproportionate share of the world's finite natural resources, and our corporations (and multinational corporations, too) are profiting hugely from withdrawing those resources from land around the world without adequately compensating the peoples of those countries -- not the current leaders but also the future generations of peoples -- for what is being taken out. In our name.
Why do they hate us, if they do? Because we are consuming 2 to 4 times our per capita share of the world's resources, and there are others who can't get their per capita share as a result. And maybe because some might have reason to suspect that the extremes of weather that many parts of the world seem to be experiencing are a result of our disproportionate pollution of the environment.
So how do we revise our incentives so that we structure things better?
To the best of my knowledge, the answers lie in the ideas commonly associated with Henry George. Explore this blog. Explore wealthandwant.com. Read George's books, "Progress and Poverty" and "Social Problems" (a collection of essays) online. Explore Mason Gaffney's website. See what you think. Is there a better way? Is there a way to better organize things to create a better, more peaceful, more just, more sustainable world, in which all of us can prosper, and none can reap what others sow?
I stumbled across this document in a little book which runs to 24 pages, from 1887. Those with an interest in Alabama history, particularly as it relates to taxation, might find that it helps explain how the 1903 constitution came about -- whose interests it sought to protect. Consider it, too, in light of our current economic situation -- too few jobs, lots of income and wealth concentration; not enough credit available to afford housing or commercial sites. These problems can be solved, but not in the ways we've already tried.
PREFATORY NOTE -- This address originally was delivered to the United Labor Organization of Houston, Texas, in 1887. It appeared in full the next morning in the Houston Daily Post, and afterwards in The Standard, published at that time in New York by Henry George. Mr. George then issued it in tract form, giving it the name of "The Case Plainly Stated." Many editions of it have since been published from time to time in this country and in Europe and Australia, and it is generally regarded as one of the clearest brief statements extant of the philosophy of land value taxation as taught by Henry George in his famous "Progress and Poverty."
MR. CHAIRMAN:— The land question is simply a question as to how the use of the bounties of nature shall be best regulated and controlled. By bounties of nature I mean the coal beds, the mineral deposits, the land — all those natural elements which were not created by human industry, but which Nature has freely and abundantly provided for the use and enjoyment of all the children of men; and I propose to show how the right of capital and. labor to use these natural elements should be regulated by the government*, so as most to conduce to the happiness and well-being of mankind.
* The word "government" as used in this presentation of the Single Tax refers to the tax levying power as vested, not alone in the federal, but also and even primarily in the state, county, and municipal governments.
It is probable that a complete application of the Single Tax will be reached through its gradual adoption at first in cities, counties and states, before it is substituted for tariff and internal revenue taxation.
I am a Single Taxer, and a discussion of the land question by me can be nothing more than a mere attempt to expound the teachings of that great master of the subject, Henry George.
George, at the outset, calls attention to the marvelous improvements in the arts and sciences, the discoveries, inventions, and labor-saving machines which, within the past 100 years, have so immensely increased the productive powers of the human race. Is it not a moderate estimate to assume that on an average the labor of one man today, with all these labor-saving inventions, will produce as much of the comforts and luxuries of life as the labors of four men would a hundred years ago? And does it not follow that the average workman of today creates, by each day's labor, four times as much wealth as the average workman did a hundred years ago? George teaches that if the workman of today, on an average, creates four times as much wealth as the workman of a hundred years ago, then the services of this workman of today are four times as valuable to society; then why should not his wages of right be four times as great? Why should he not be four times as independent? Why should it not be four times as easy for him to make a living and support his family in comfort and decency?
Will any one presume to assert that this is in fact the case? On the contrary, is it not just about as hard for the poor man to make a living today as it ever was? Does he not dread the loss of a position today just as much as he ever did? George asserts that labor-saving machinery really ought to lessen the burdens of labor, to make it easier for the laborer to live, and in fact, to lighten his toil. But alas, from some apparently mysterious cause, — a cause which many comfortably well-to-do people insist is one of the unfathomable mysteries of Divine Providence, — what George claims should rightly result from inventions does not result from them. And still we are all the time making new discoveries, and year by year increasing, by means of new inventions, the productive powers of working men; yet, with the increase of population, the lot of those who produce all this wealth seems to be becoming more precarious, less independent and more and more wretched.
Who denies that under the present social system, wages tend to fall irresistibly to the point at which the wage-workers can barely subsist? This is called the iron law of wages, and all the strikes conceivable can only temporarily, and but fitfully, arrest this steady tendency. For so long as unemployed men compete for employment against the employed, wages cannot permanently advance. The worker may create quadruple the wealth, but he is not permitted to retain any more of it as his share.
Now, where does this wealth go — this wealth which we now produce so much more easily and in such vastly greater quantities than ever before? What becomes of it? Who gets it? Why is it that in this age of wealth-producing and labor-saving machinery, poverty as abject and hideous as ever before seen in the history of the world abounds and increases in our midst? What is the cause of the so-called iron law of wages? Henry George has discovered it. He has pointed it out, and he has shown us the remedy. He has demonstrated beyond a doubt or question that it does not result as a fatal necessity from the nature of things, but that it is a result of violation of natural law, of a refusal on the part of society to recognize the inalienable right of every citizen of access to the bounties of nature within the territory of his country on equal terms with every other citizen of that country.
Let me now give you a short lesson in the elements of this new political economy.
Three factors enter into the creation of every conceivable kind of wealth. By wealth we mean any material thing produced by human industry which gratifies human desires. These factors are land, labor and capital. Wealth in a civilized community is produced only by means of a union or partnership between land, labor and capital. Labor does the work, capital loans the tools, and land furnishes the natural elements on which, and out of which all material things resulting from human industry are created. In speaking of land in the new political economy we never include improvements or anything which is the result of human toil. We simply mean the opportunities which land and the elements within it afford for the employment of capital and labor — we mean the raw elements as they lie on or in the bosom of the eartli, untouched by the hand of man.
Now, as before remarked, the product of land, labor and capital is wealth, and after it is produced, it is divided among these factors entering into its composition. A certain portion of it, called rent, goes to land, either directly in the form of rent or in the form of interest on the selling price of the land or of the coal bed, or whatever it is; another portion of it, called profit or interest, goes to capital for the use of tools which capital has furnished, and the balance left, after land has been paid rent and capital has been paid interest or profits, goes to labor as wages for the work which labor has done, including the labor of superintendence.
Now what does rent signify as used here? Rent is the price paid for the privilege of access to the raw material — for the mere privilege of getting hold of something not created by man, on which and out of which labor and capital can produce wealth. This rent may be paid periodically, or may be paid in a lump in the form of purchase money. In either case the result will be the same. Is it not clear that in the division of wealth after it has been produced by this partnership between land, labor and capital, the more land gets for rent the less there will be left for capital and labor? Is it not quite as plain as A B C that the more it costs capital and labor to get hold of these natural elements, the coal beds, the mines, the water fronts, the land — the gifts of nature which a kind providence has provided for the equal use and enjoyment of all — the less there will be for labor and capital to divide between them?
In the new political economy we must never confuse land with capital. One is never the synonym of the other. Land, as before stated, is simply the natural opportunity, exclusive of improvements or anything done to it by man. Capital is something that has been made by man, like a machine for instance, which is useful in the production of wealth. It is wealth used to produce more wealth.
But someone asks: Suppose the capitalist who is using the coal bed or using this natural opportunity, whatever it may be, is also owner of it. Where then does your partnership between land, labor and capital come in? We answer just the same as before. A sum equal to the interest on the market value of the coal bed (independent of the machinery, excavation work, etc.) is in such cases a factor of rent. The owner, in addition to profit or interest on his capital, as before defined, must also take from the wealth produced a sum equal, approximately, to interest on the market value of the coal land, otherwise he would sell out and quit. It is evident that the more money the owner is obliged to invest in purchasing the coal bed, for instance, the greater must be the sum which he takes out of the wealth produced to cover interest on that investment, and hence such interest money is simply rent paid for the use of a natural element, for the privilege of access to one of the bounties of nature. Therefore, is it not equally plain in this case that the more paid for this privilege of use, the less will remain out of which labor can get wages?
A few years ago we read in the newspapers of a great boom in the vicinity of Birmingham, Alabama. We were exultingly told that the lands containing coal beds and mineral deposits in northern Alabama had gone up in value from $75,000 to $50,000,000 in the space of six years. What does this signify? It means that when capital and labor shall attempt to utilize these coal beds and mineral deposits, when capital and labor shall unite together, the one to furnish the tools, the other the labor, with which to produce wealth out of this raw material, then will a set of landlords step forward and block the enterprise with a demand for $50,000,000 for the mere right of access to these free gifts of nature, or in lieu of it the payment of $3,000,000 a year as tribute money, that being the interest of $50,000,000 at six per cent.
There lie the coal beds and mineral deposits untouched by man, fresh from the hands of the Creator, intended by Him, if He is the just, benevolent Being whom we have been taught to worship, for the equal use and enjoyment of all His children, and yet our laws say that capital and labor must pay a few forestallers $3,000,000 a year for the privilege of applying the hand of industry to these elements.
And after this blackmail has been paid, how much will there be left for the wages of labor? The answer is, just as little as labor can ordinarily subsist upon. Why? Because this monopolization of the gifts of nature going on, not only in northern Alabama, but everywhere else, enables capital to drive a hard bargain with labor. For this reason, and this alone, they can't deal with each other on equal vantage grounds. Suppose labor objects and says to capital: "I'll not accept the pittance you offer." Capital replies: "All right, go elsewhere." And so labor starts out to get work for himself, and what does he find? Here he is, living in a country capable of raising food for ten times its present population, and he finds four-fifths of the land untilled or but partially cultivated. He finds four-fifths of the coal beds and mineral deposits unused. He finds vacant land and unused lots on every side. He goes to New York City even and he finds there within its corporate limits almost one-third the area of that city vacant, unoccupied, and unused, although there are miles and miles of tenement houses, in which men and women and innocent children are packed and crowded like maggots, as though there wasn't ample room in the city for the comfortable housing of every human being in it. He finds unused natural elements all around him wherever he goes, sufficient to give employment and support in abundance to tens of millions of happy families.
But now suppose labor attempts to make use of any of these unused natural opportunities? Suppose he concludes to go to work for himself upon a piece of vacant land in the suburbs of a city, for instance, where labor could be applied to the greatest advantage. What happens? An individual comes along and waves a title deed, and orders him off the premises. He finds that all these unused natural opportunities are owned by individuals and claimed as private property. He finds himself frustrated at every point. He finds that he can't go to work anywhere without paying blackmail to the owner of some natural element for the mere privilege of working and so he strikes back to northern Alabama and takes off his hat to Capital and bows very low and says: 'Please, sir, give me a bare living and I will be your slave."
And that is about all that he does get, and that is all he ever will get under the present system of land ownership, though you may strike and boycott and potter about graduated land taxes, graduated income taxes, and graduated nonsense until doomsday.
With advancing population the greater becomes the demand for natural opportunities and the higher the prices which can be extorted for the privilege of using them. As population increases, the town lots, the coal beds, the mineral deposits, the water fronts, the land, go up in value, and so goes up also the amount of tribute money which labor must pay for access to them, for the privilege of employment. The more of the products of industry which go for the payment of this constantly increasing tribute, the less and less will grow the share allowed the laborer and the more dependent and the more wretched will his lot become.
Here in Houston today, suppose Enterprise has $50,000 to invest in the paper mill business, a sum barely sufficient to put up the building, buy the machinery and carry stock. He finds a beautiful site for his mill on the banks of the bayou. It is a vacant lot. The hand of man has never been applied to it, and it stands there now just as it stood when the Indian roamed over the site of this city. The owner of that block, however, thinks he can make Enterprise pay him $20,000 for the privilege of giving employment to labor on this natural opportunity — this piece of ground. That is the price, and if he can't get it today he will get it when the city grows a little larger. But Enterprise says to him: "I have only $50,000 capital, all of which I shall need in my business." The land owner answers it is not his lookout, and so Enterprise turns away checkened and baffled, and the mill is not built.
And so it is everywhere. Wherever we find a portion of the vacant surface of the earth which could be utilized by capital and labor, and which affords an opportunity for human toil and enterprise, there we find a human vampire with a paper title in his hand warning off labor; and that vampire must always be placated by the payment of blackmail before the wheels of industry can begin to turn.
Need we wonder that these wheels turn slowly, and that they are always getting out of gear; that we are always talking about dull times; that men are always out of employment and always hunting for work, regarding it as a favor even to be allowed to work; that we are all the time growing too much cotton, when millions of human beings have only one shirt to their names; that we are producing too much food, when half the population of the world is insufficiently fed; that carpenters are out of work, when half the people are not comfortably housed; shoemakers wanting work and millions needing shoes? How could it be otherwise, when labor is compelled to beg for work in the midst of limitless unused opportunities for work, on which opportunities, however, sit these human vampires, these dogs in the manger, waving labor back with their paper title deeds?
Now let us go back for a moment to that partnership between land, labor and capital. For illustration, suppose the wealth produced by the partnership to be created by the application of capital and labor to those coal beds and mineral deposits in northern Alabama, valued, as we have seen, at $50,000,000. In the division of wealth produced we have shown how, say six percent of this $50,000,000, or $3,000,000, must go to land as rent. Or, in other words, $3,000,000 a year must be paid to land owners directly as rent or interest on purchase money for the bare privilege of utilizing these gifts of nature. Now, in the division of wealth produced, why is labor entitled to any portion of it? Clearly because labor's industry has contributed to its creation. Why is capital entitled to any part of it? Because capital has furnished labor with tools with which to develop the mineral deposits. The capitalist who owns the tools can trace his title back to the creator of them, to some individual or set of individuals whose industry produced them and from whom he purchased or inherited them. The title, then, of both labor and capital to a portion of the wealth produced from these mineral deposits originates in human industry, and it is a sacred title. Now then, why should the land owner get any portion of this wealth, to produce which capital has supplied the tools and labor has done the work? This owner claims the right of making capital and labor pay him interest on $50,000,000, or $3,000,000 a year, for the mere privilege of access to this raw coal and raw ore. Ought we not to scrutinize most carefully his right to extort this immense tribute? And if he can show no natural and moral right to claim it, does not society countenance the robbery of labor in permitting him to do so? Where does his title originate?
We find that six or seven years ago he paid someone who claimed to own the land in which these mineral deposits are found $750,000 for the raw natural element for which he now demands $50,000,000. Was this additional value of $49,250,000 in six years produced by his industry? Was it produced by the industry of any previous owner of these natural elements? Did it cost $49,250,000 to discover these mineral deposits? We trace back his title a little further, and we find that perhaps a hundred years ago it originated in a grant to John Jones from the government — that is to say, the people who inhabited this country a hundred years ago and who constituted the government said: "We will divide the land and we will give John Jones this particular tract for his private property."
But did these people create that land and the coal and iron in it? Can it be shown that they had any better right to it from the Almighty Creator than the people of this generation have? Was the earth intended by the Heavenly Father for one generation to dispose of forever, or as an abiding place for all generations? Was Thomas Jefferson right or wrong when he wrote: "The earth belongs in usufruct to the living; the dead have no right or power over it?" By what authority could the people living here a hundred years ago, long since dead and gone, confer upon John Jones, also dead and gone, a right which would enable John Smith today, by tracing a paper chain of titles from him, to extort from capital and labor a tribute of $3,000,000 a year for the bare privilege of getting to that coal and iron and making it useful to mankind?
Who dares to blaspheme the name of the Almighty Ruler of the universe by saying that the coal and iron were not intended by Him for the equal use and the enjoyment of all His children — the humblest babe born today in a garret equally with a child of the proudest duke who ever lived?
MAN IS A LAND ANIMAL.
Is not man a land animal? Can he live without land? Can he any more rightfully be deprived of access to land than he can rightfully be deprived of life itself? Can he any more rightfully be compelled to yield up to a forestaller, a mere owner of land, a portion of the fruit of his industry for the privilege of getting hold of the raw material elements than he can rightfully be compelled as a slave to yield up to a master a portion of the fruits of his industry? To compel him to do so is as much a robbery of labor in one case as in the other. Why then is not the humblest babe that God sends into this world naturally and by inalienable right entitled to access to land on equal terms with all his fellow human beings?
Mind, when we say access to land we do not include access to improvements on land, or access to anything produced by human industry, a title to which can be shown originating in human toil; we simply mean access upon equal terms to the free bounties of nature as they lie upon the kind bosom of mother earth, untouched and undisturbed by the hand of man. What I produce by my industry is mine. What I obtain by exchanging the products of my industry for the products of another's industry is mine. What my father or my grandfather produced by his industry was his, and if he has given it to me it is mine.
In all these cases human industry is the origin of property right, and property rights originating in human industry must be held sacred, else there would be no incentive to human effort. Do not the values produced by the individual belong to the individual producing them? Do not the values produced by the community belong to the community producing them? Is there anything wrong, immoral or communistic in this ideal? And yet this is the sum and substance of the Henry George philosophy.
Take the case of the vacant block on the bank of the bayou which Enterprise wanted for a paper mill and could not get. Fifty years ago it was worthless. Now labor must pay a tribute of over $20,000 to the so-called owner for the privilege of using it. Whose industry has put $20,000 of value on that piece of vacant ground? Not the industry of the present owner, nor the industry of any former owner, because no man has ever done a stroke of work upon it. That value of $20,000 has been placed upon the land by the common energy and enterprise of the entire community. Since the community has produced that land value why does it not belong to the community? Why has not the community the same rights to the value it creates as the individual has to the values which he individually creates?
How shall this derangement of the wheels of industry, this blackmail upon enterprise, this robbery of labor, this eager and fatal competition among laborers for employment, this slavish fear of the loss of a situation in the midst of abundant unused opportunities for employment — how shall this curse which our present land system has fastened upon the productive industry of the country, be removed? Simply by doing justice; by being honest; by recognizing in our laws one of the inalienable rights of man; by recognizing in every human being, in every generation, the present as well as the past, an inalienable right of access to the bounties of nature on equal terms with every other human being.
How shall this right of access on equal terms be secured? Simply by making every individual who claims a right to the exclusive possession of a tract of land pay in the form of a tax approximately what the use of that tract of land is worth, exclusive of all improvements on it or anything done to it by the hand of man, and by abolishing every other form of taxation. Take the rent of land for public use instead of taxes.
Some one asks: "Will not this proposed change vastly increase the functions of government and immensely add to the number of government employees?" I reply no. On the contrary, at least two-thirds of the present army of revenue collectors and tax gatherers will be dispensed with, and the remaining one-third will collect this single tax on land values at one-third the expense now incurred in the collection of national, state, county, and municipal taxes.
Another inquirer asks: "Will not the new system offer abundant opportunities for corruption and partiality in fixing the amount of this tax annually to be paid for the exclusive use of a piece of land? And how do you propose the amount of the tax shall be determined?" It will be determined by the same law of demand and supply which now determines the amount of tax under the present system. The single tax will be fixed by the same machinery of an assessor and a board of equalization which fixes it now. For instance, under this system a piece of property on Main street rents for $5,000 a year. Interest at the prevailing rate on the building alone, added to the annual cost of insurance, repairs and caretaking, and a sum sufficient to provide a sinking fund for renewals amounted to, say $3,000 a year. The landlord is then collecting the difference between $3,000 and $5,000, or $3,000 for the use of this naked earth. That is to say, he is collecting $2,000 a year for the use of something never created by man, to which all are by natural right equally entitled, and which owes its rental value of $2,000 a year exclusively to the common enterprise and energy of the entire community.
This is the sum which, under Henry George's system, would be turned over to the government in the form of a tax for the common benefit of the community who collectively have made the use of this land worth $2,000 a year.
Here an interested friend anxiously inquires: "But if the landlord has to pay this tax of $2,000 a year for the use of the land, will he not take it out of the tenant by raising his rent to $7,000?" No, for the landlord's charges now all he can compel the tenant to pay. Suppose he tries to. Suppose he says to his tenant: "You must now pay me $7,000 a year." What happens? Just what happens every day now. If the tenant can do no better he pays the increase. But now, mark you, when the landlord goes to pay his tax what happens then? Why the board of equalization says to him, you have received $7,000 a year rent for the use of improvements worth only $3,000 a year. You are therefore collecting $4,000 a year instead of $2,000 for the use of the naked lot, and you will therefore pay the city or state $4,000 a year for the privilege of the exclusive use of the ground instead of $2,000 a year as heretofore. Now what has the landlord made by jumping up the rent? Nothing. What would be made by thus jumping up the rents under the present system? Everything. Under which system would landlords be more apt to force up rents?
Another way by which the board of equalization under the George system would determine the amount of tax to be paid for the privilege of the exclusive possession of a tract of land, and which would also compel landlords to collect from their tenants and turn over to the government in the form of a tax the full value of the use of the land, would be from observation of the prices which real estate brought in the market. But note, at this point some smart fellow jumps up — and he is likely enough to be a newspaper editor — and vehemently protests, saying: "Why, sir, the taxation of ground values plan does not propose to allow any exclusive ownership of land. It demands that the government own it all and rent it out or divide it up into 60,000,000 or 70,000,000 little bits, or do something of that kind with it, and here you are talking about lands being bought and sold under the Henry George system. Why, man alive, you don't know what that system is!"
Now, Mr. Editor, or Mr. Who-ever-you-are, let me say to you that in your ignorance, or in your indifference to the sufferings of your fellowmen, or in your desire to pander to the greed of monopoly, or to the timidity of capital, you may say what you please; you may misrepresent as much as you please for the purpose of bringing odium and contempt upon the cause; you may call it what you please — state ownership, state landlordism, ownership in common, communism, nihilism, anarchism or anything else; but the fact, nevertheless, remains that, under the just and righteous land system which we are trying to explain, the land will continue to be bought and sold under the same form of paper deeds, precisely as it is bought and sold today. It will continue in precisely the same way to pass to devisees by will and to heirs by law of descent and distribution. The right of control, of exclusive possession and dominion over a piece of land and of the free and exclusive enjoyment of all improvements on it, will in no way be abridged or disturbed. When you buy a lot on Main street today worth $10,000 with a building on it worth $10,000 more, your deed recites a consideration of $20,000. Now when you buy this same property under the George system, the only difference in the whole transaction will be that your deed for it — assuming that the price accords with the market value prevailing at the time of your purchase — will recite a consideration of only $10,000, and $10,000 is all that you will then pay for the property. You will pay nothing for the land. After you have bought the property you will pay yearly in the form of a tax to the government, approximately the full market value of the (yearly) use of it — which will amount to the annual rental value of the land, and as the man from whom you purchased had to pay the government the same annual rental value, you will consequently pay nothing, or approximately nothing*, to him for the land itself when you purchase the property. You thus save an investment of $10,000 in dirt; instead of such investment you will pay for the common benefit of the community, including yourself, what the privilege of the exclusive use of that spot of earth is worth — nothing more, nothing less — and that is simply what you ought to pay. The $10,000, which, under the present system, you are compelled to bury in a bit of earth, you will have left you with which to increase your business; and if you do increase your business with it, and add another story to your building, no tax gatherer will come around and impose an additional fine upon you for doing something with your money which gives employment to labor.
* There will, no doubt, be instances where the desire of an individual to get and retain possession of a certain piece of property, will cause him tooffer a bonus over and above the market value of the improvements.
Thus, under the single tax system, land would be sold and would change hands as it does now, but it would only bring in the market approximately the value of the improvements on it. If land in any locality should get to selling for considerably more than the value of the improvements on it, this would be a certain indication that the parties using the natural elements in that neighborhood were not paying for the benefit of all the people what the use of the same was worth, and so a board of equalization would put the tax up. As population increases the value of the use of land increases, and with it, under the George system, the revenue from this tax on land values will increase, and thus the entire people who collectively produce this increasing value will get the benefit of the values collectively produced by them. As it is now, the increase in the value of land, which amounts to several billions annually in the United States, four-fifths of which is increase in the value of city and town lots and mineral deposits, goes to a comparatively small number of individuals who do no more to produce these values than any other members of the community.
Another doubter puts this objection: Under the George system you would make the owner of a lot on Main street, with an improvement on it worth $10,000, pay as much tax as the owner of a similar lot adjoining, having a building on it worth $50,000. What justice is there in that?
Let us see. Take away the improvements and these two lots are of the same value — that is to say, the value of the use of both lots for ordinary business purposes is the same. Suppose it is $300 a year. Now, the man with the $50,000 improvement collects from his tenant ten percent on his $50,000, or $5,000. He also collects $300, the value of the use of the lot, making in all $5,300. The man with the $10,000 improvement also collects ten percent upon the valuation of his improvement from his tenant, of $1,000. He, too, collects $300 in addition for the use of the lot, making in all $1,300. Now after both have paid the government $300 apiece for the privilege of the exclusive use of these lots, each will have left ten percent upon the capital invested, and why should one be entitled to any greater percent upon the capital invested than the other?
The fact is, that under this system there will be no such thing as taxes. Taxation, as we now understand it, will be abolished. The revenue derived by the government from requiring all who use a natural opportunity to pay into the common treasury what the use of that opportunity is worth, if it is worth anything at all, will be more than sufficient to enable the government to dispense with every species of taxation. As it is now, when you pay your taxes, you are simply robbed of a portion of the fruits of your industry, for which you do not get, directly, any equivalent. Under the proposed system, when you pay your single tax on land values you will get directly a full equivalent for every dollar paid. You will get the privilege of the exclusive use of a tract of land for what that privilege is worth.
If this system were adopted what would become of the vacant lots and lands, the unused coal beds and mineral deposits, the unoccupied water fronts and water privileges over which human vampires now stand guard, retarding enterprise and driving off labor? They would become absolutely free. No one could afford to hold them and pay taxes on them. The vampires would turn them loose. Land speculators and land sharks, instead of trying to grow rich by forestalling labor and capital and thus preying like devouring beasts on their fellowmen, would turn their talents to better account. Wherever labor could find an unused lot or coal bed or mineral deposit or unused tract of land, there labor could go to work and employ itself without being required to invest a dollar in the purchase of a right of access to the natural element, without being compelled to first make terms with a dog in the manger claiming it as private property and holding it for speculative purposes.
If that vacant natural opportunity were situated near a center of population, or were of a character to bestow peculiar money-making advantages upon the persons using it, this advantage would create a demand for it, and this demand would regulate in the manner already pointed out the amount which labor and capital would pay for the use of it, in the form of a tax for the common benefit of all. If that vacant opportunity, for instance, were a tract of land four or five miles from this city, it would have few advantages to make the use of it at present peculiarly valuable. Why? Because there is so much vacant land of the same character near it, the use of which is equally valuable, that no one would give a bonus, as it were, for the use of that particular tract. Labor would, therefore, at first get the use of that land for nothing. It would have no taxable value at all until all the other vacant land similarly situated was put into use. Under this most just and equitable system the taxable values of land would be confined almost exclusively to the cities and towns and the coal and mineral deposits. Where people congregate, there land has value. In New York City alone, capital and labor today pay to a few thousand land owners, in ground rent alone, exclusive of rent paid on improvements, for the bare privilege of living and doing business, tribute money amounting to hundreds of millions annually, a sum almost equal to the expense of carrying on the government of the United States. It is in these great centers of trade and commerce that land has its greatest value; it is here that land values are mostly found and from these centers nine-tenths of the revenue of the government from this tax on land values would be derived.
If the George plan were suddenly put in force today, not only would all farmers be relieved from direct and indirect taxation, not only would farmers participate in common with all others in the universal and uninterrupted prosperity which would result from removing the obstructions which needlessly hamper and clog enterprise, but probably three-fourths of the working farmers in this country would pay no land tax at all. Why? Because with so much vacant or but partially cultivated land as there is here today three-fourths of the farmers would have no taxable value at all; and all who are counting on the farmers of America being so foolish as not to see how they will be as much benefited by a just and righteous land system as any other class will certainly be disappointed.
"Yes," says our farmer friend, "but you propose to confiscate the farmer's land." Let's see about that. You are a farmer owning say a hundred-acre farm, situated like a majority of farms, in a neighborhood where for every acre of land in cultivation there are two or more acres unimproved or but partially improved. Your farm is worth under the present system, say $2,000. A hundred acres of this unimproved land adjoining it of the same quality is held by some speculator at $500. Your tax on your hundred-acre farm is $10 a year, the speculator's tax on the hundred acres of land adjoining of equal value, exclusive of improvements, is $2.50 a year — one-fourth as much as yours. You give employment to labor on your land, and thereby add to the prosperity of the community. The speculator excludes labor from employment on his land, and thereby retards the prosperity of the community. Why should you be taxed any more for using your hundred-acre tract, and giving employment to labor on it, than the speculator is taxed for holding in idleness a tract of equal value and preventing labor from using it? Why should not the speculator pay at least as much tax for the privilege of excluding labor from his tract as you have to pay for the privilege of employing labor on yours? Have you hurt anyone by turning up the wild sod and building fences and houses and putting $1,500 worth of improvements on your land? If not, why should you be fined for it by having your taxes increased?
Where our plan is adopted you will have no taxes at all to pay until this vacant land around your farm is put into use. Until then no land value could attach to your farm, and the tax which, with increasing population, you would ultimately be required to pay, would seldom equal and rarely, if ever, exceed that which farmers now pay on the improvement valuation. Assuming that you spend say $600 a year on your family, then under the present system your taxes, direct and indirect, and the toll which the merchants take for collecting indirect taxes, amount to at least $100 a year. You may not know it, because an indirect tax always fools a fellow paying it. You will be relieved from all these taxes, but best of all, men who are now idle and who can't buy what you raise will all be at work, and not only that, but their wages will be high enough to pay good prices for what you raise. It is true that under the new system you could only sell your place for $1,500. Still, with this same $1,500 you could buy just as good a place from some one else. The purchasing power of your farm, when it comes to buying another farm, would not have been reduced. Do not your interests as producer or a laborer vastly exceed your interests as a land owner?
Now, coming back to the elements of the new political economy, some one says: "What difference does it make to the workmen whether labor and capital pay this ground rent to the individual or to the government, since, according to your theory, it must be paid all the same?" In the first place, if it is paid to the individual none of it ever comes back to labor and capital unless value received is paid for it; so far as labor and capital are concerned, it might about as well be cast into the sea. But when it is paid to the government in the form of a tax on land values it does come back to labor and capital again in the form of relief from every species of taxation, direct and indirect.
Again, the amount that Enterprise would pay the government for the privilege of access to the natural elements would be less under the single tax than is now paid individuals for this privilege. Under the land value tax the prices could not be advanced by monopolization of these elements, as is being done now.
But best of all, and by far the most glorious result that will flow from the establishment of a just and righteous land system, is that it will enable the wealth creator to stand erect, presenting to capital an unterrified front.
Return for a moment to the coal beds of northern Alabama and imagine the Henry George system adopted. Labor now again objects to the terms offered by capital, and again capital tells him to go. And again labor goes forth hunting for work. But how different he finds the aspect of things. He finds the same unused natural elements, the same unused coal beds and mineral deposits, the vacant lots and lands, but he no longer finds a fellowman sitting upon every vacant opportunity for work and waving him off. They have vanished. They have gone to work themselves. He finds every unused opportunity for labor, wherever it may be, absolutely free. Not a dollar of capital need be invested in buying a natural opportunity, in paying for the privilege of work. When labor went forth hunting work before, he not only had to ask capital to pay for the tools, but also to pay, usually a greater sum, to some forestaller, in addition, as blackmail, for the privilege of access to a natural element.
This will all be changed. It won't take near as much capital to start enterprises as it did, or in other words, to give employment to labor. In fact, labor could then take even an axe and hoe and find plenty of vacant opportunities on which he could make a living without having to bury himself in a wilderness to do it. All this makes him feel independent and enables him to bargain with capital for employment on equal vantage grounds.
Some time since a large manufacturing firm in Massachusetts adopted the eight-hour system. After trying it a year they gave it up and went back to the ten-hour system. The general manager said they could only make five percent profit on their investments by requiring only eight hours' work, and that unless they could make a bigger percentage than that, they would not be bothered with the management of the business — they would put their money into town and city lots, because that species of property would certainly enhance in value as much as five percent annually, and that, too, without any trouble to the owner, and so it is everywhere. Now, is it not absurd to expect to reduce the rate of profits with which capital will be content below this steady percent of increase in the value of town and city lots, by any combination of labor, or by any legislation which falls short of restoring these land values to the people who collectively create them?
Suppose you have $10,000 today. The best and safest thing you can do with it is to invest it in town lots in or near some growing town. Ten years from today, unless the George theory becomes generally understood, the lots will be worth $20,000 and you will have drawn to yourself $10,000 worth of wealth for which you have given no equivalent. You will simply have robbed the labor of the country of $10,000. But now suppose ground values to be appropriated to the public use by taxation. What are you to do with your $10,000? You would not buy vacant lots now; there is no speculation in them. The tax which you would have to pay for the privilege of excluding capital and labor from the opportunities for employment which vacant lots afford, would be too heavy for you. In fact, you couldn't even loan on land alone, because land alone will have no selling value in the market. The result is, that unless you let your money lie idle and so lose interest on it, you will be compelled to invest it so as to give employment to labor. You must put it into buildings, into machinery, into manufactory stock, into farm implements, into some channel where it will be active and where it will afford employment to labor.
Not only must you do this with your capital, but every other capitalist must do the same with his capital. Capitalist thus must bid against capitalist, since capital can only increase by calling labor to its aid and giving it employment.
Under the present system the rich can grow richer without calling in the aid of labor, without giving employment to labor. They do so by buying space and monopolizing land.
Under the present system, as wealth accumulates, the wealthy seek to invest in land, to get control of natural elements, and get into a position from which to blackmail labor, thus becoming an obstacle in the way of the production of more wealth.
Under the better system, however, wealth could not thus be made to set up an obstacle to the creation of more wealth, or, in other words, to the employment of labor. It can then only obtain a profit by investing in lines of enterprise which give employment to labor.
Under which system will the demand for labor be greater? Under which will earnings be higher?
Almost a month ago (7/12), Martin Wolf, the Financial Times' chief economics commentator, posted a piece to his blog under this title. The last time I looked, perhaps 10 days after his initial post, there were about 150 responses. I circled back recently, and found that the comments count had risen to over 350.
This ended up as a heated debate. Nobody will be surprised if I conclude that the result of the debate (often surprisingly ill-tempered) was pro-LVT 10, anti-LVT zero. I am surprised by some of what the anti-LVT proponents have said. I would have thought they would wish to open their minds a bit. I did and was persuaded of the case, as a result. Is not the purpose of such exchanges to learn from one another?
Some of the arguments addressed at the case for LVT are quite extraordinary.
The essential point is quite simple: the value of resources is created by the economic activity of other factors of production. The owners of these resources can become hugely wealthy and are often untaxed on that increase in wealth: the Duke of Westminster is the richest Englishman simply because he owns a large amount of land in a valuable part of London. So why should he have command over the labour of so many other people?
That wealth is, in the strictest sense, unearned. If that rise in wealth were taxed away, other taxes -- those on labour, capital and entrepreneurship -- could fall. This would be both efficient (because taxes on rent do not create distortions, as Ricardo showed) and also just, because the wealth was unearned. Now, surprisingly, the UK allows foreign landowners to enjoy the increase in value created by the British economy, entirely tax-free. This is utterly crazy.
Let me add four other points.
First, throughout history, the main source of wealth was land-ownership. The parasitic landowner became wealthy on the efforts of others -- peasants, tenants and even developers. Sometimes the parasite was also a farmer or developer, but that does not change the fact that these are two distinct economic roles. The parasite built fine castles and palaces and often sponsored music and culture. But he was still a parasite. The beauty of capitalism is that many of the wealthiest are no longer parasites. This is good. But many of the wealthy still are parasites. Moreover, now everybody wants to get rich by being a mini-landowner. That is a huge diversion of effort.
Second, the financial system's ills are the result of unchecked credit-creation. Yes. But unchecked credit-creation would be impossible without collateral. Land is always the principal form of collateral (buildings are a depreciating asset). That is why financial bubbles that do not create credit booms (like the dotcom bubble) are economically benign, while property bubbles are potentially catastrophic. When the value of collateral collapses, the financial system implodes.
Third, there is really nothing new about this understanding of the role of resource rents. They were central to the classical system, from which modern economics, in its various forms, derives. Ricardo's analysis of rent remains intellectually impeccable.
Finally, as Herman Daly has noted (http://steadystate.org/modernizing-henry-george/), today economically valuable resources are much more than just land (and what lies below it). They include all the services of the biosphere - those that are appropriated, those that are appropriable and those that are non-appropriable. If we do not think seriously and intelligently about how to price resources, we are likely to go seriously adrift, perhaps even into disaster. Here land is the least of our problems -- it is appropriable and, by and large, appropriated. So, at least, the price mechanism works, even though the distribution of the gain is grossly unjust. But, in other cases, no appropriation is possible, or at least it is not easy. Nobody can appropriate the atmosphere. It is nigh on impossible to appropriate the oceans. How do you own species diversity? These are serious challenges.
So, I conclude where I started: resources matter. It was a great mistake to exclude them from the canonical neo-classical model. It is also a great mistake not to tax their owners to the hilt.
In Weather Chaos, a Case for Global Warming - NYTimes.com.
Theory suggests that a world warming up because of those gases will feature heavier rainstorms in summer, bigger snowstorms in winter, more intense droughts in at least some places and more record-breaking heat waves. Scientists and government reports say the statistical evidence shows that much of this is starting to happen. . . .
If the earth were not warming, random variations in the weather should cause about the same number of record-breaking high temperatures and record-breaking low temperatures over a given period. But climatologists have long theorized that in a warming world, the added heat would cause more record highs and fewer record lows.
The statistics suggest that is exactly what is happening. In the United States these days, about two record highs are being set for every record low, telltale evidence that amid all the random variation of weather, the trend is toward a warmer climate.
Recall that the US uses a disproportionate percentage of the world's oil and coal, and produces a disproportionate percentage of the world's greenhouse gases.
As poor people around the world -- and not-so-poor people, too -- contemplate America's place in the world, particularly when they are suffering from the effects of extremes of weather, are they likely to be willing to accept the notion that America is somehow special, and that it is the rest of the world that must adjust to us, or will they come to hold us accountable to the rest of the world's people?
When we wrap our minds around the implications of that question, we will come to the question of how we can reduce the demand for the kinds of energy which pollute the world's air.
Part of the answer will come from reducing, even reversing, urban sprawl, and setting our incentives so that our cities get re-developed more quickly and more effectively. This will also be good for the economy, creating jobs in the ongoing redevelopment process and then again in the new buildings created by this redevelopment.
What incentives? Start with the incentives which promote intense use of land well-served by taxpayer-provided infrastructure (highway systems, rail and subway systems, bridges, tunnels, air travel, etc.; water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, etc.); and services (schools, police, ambulance, firefighting, street-cleaning, trash removal, recycling, public health, courts and prisons; public parking, etc.) Every one of those services serves to increase the value of land within the area served. Most of them contribute more to the land value than they cost. Yet we continue to fund them, in many places, with taxes not on land value but on wages or sales -- stupid taxes, to be blunt about it!
We can settle down and study the problem, or we can continue to do what hasn't worked yet. But not for long, and not for free. Our neighbors in the other 94% of the world are going to start holding us accountable at some point. Do we want to wait until it hits us, or do we want to get out in front of it?
And if we could, via a simple reform in the US, set an example that would contribute to prosperity in other countries, wouldn't we be wise to pursue it?


Very dry skin looks rather dull. This is not surprising, because the skin lacks moisture. If it is moisturized regularly, then the skin shines. By the way, the lack of moisture in the skin is one of the most common causes of wrinkles at an early age.
It's no secret that a wrinkled and dry skin makes one look older. Moreover, it becomes an excellent habitat for a wide variety of microbes, including various fungal infections and eczema. To moisturize the skin and prevent its excessive drying you need to take a regular care of it.
There are many ways to reduce the moisture level: a genetic predisposition, the use of low quality skin care products, the sebaceous glands disorders, the climate change, the lack of proper nutrition and vitamin deficiency, the influence of various chemicals, the improper use of medications. Often your skin may become dry due to diabetes, psoriasis, hypothyroidism, seborrhea, eczema and so on.
So how to retrieve your skin elasticity and beauty?
Ayurveda offers a number of fairly simple guidelines to follow that will make you forget about the excessive dryness and sagging of the skin.
The first rule is to wash your skin with cool water. After washing wipe the skin with an extremely soft cotton towel. No hard and coarse fabrics. You can also replace washing with the use of a moisturizing spray that contains mineral water.
Wipe your skin lightly; rubbing is not suitable here.
Use only soft soap; otherwise you will deprive the skin of its natural protection layer.
Massage the skin at times using various moisturizers.
Doing so you will be able to moisturize and smooth the skin. Immediately after taking shower apply a thin layer of coconut oil on your skin then make the skin dry with a towel. Do not use any cleaning agent containing alcohol.
Eating right is another major point to make your skin glowing. Your daily meals should include dairy products, fresh fruits and vegetables, grains and carbs. Eat more veggies of orange and yellow color as they contain a large number of antioxidants. And of course, give up fast food completely, since it only ruins your skin.
By following these simple Ayurvedic tips you can get your beautiful skin back.


RYAN JACK knows Rangers will have to hit top form if they are to beat an Aberdeen side they have faced five times already this season in tomorrow night's Scottish Cup quarter-final replay.
The Light Blues midfielder, who of course played for the Dons before moving to Ibrox in June 2017, is looking forward to another battle against his former side although he admits it will be difficult for either team to surprise the other given the number of times they have met already throughout this campaign.
Jack, speaking at this morning pre-match press conference at the Hummel Training Centre, said: "I think it's just the way the league is and the way the draws have worked out for the cup competitions.
"I think what we do know is that every time we have played Aberdeen and faced them it's been a very tough match, so tomorrow night we expect the best Aberdeen to turn up to Ibrox and we need to show a reaction from Friday and make sure we turn up as well.
At the start of the season we said that we wanted to do as well as we could in all the competitions we entered, and I think we've not hidden away from the fact we want to do very well in the Scottish Cup and we do want to go all the way.
"But we know it's going to be a very tough test in front of us tomorrow night and we've got to put all our focus into that match.
"I think Aberdeen will definitely come with belief and a game plan to probably hit us on the counter attack and try and soak up the pressure, as they did the last time we played [at Ibrox].
"But, as I said, we just need to focus on ourselves and make sure we show a reaction from Friday night after dropping two points.
Jack has recently enjoyed playing alongside January signing Glen Kamara and he feels the Finn has bolstered manager Steven Gerrard's options for the key positions in the middle of the park.
He added: "It's been very good. Glenn's a good footballer, a top footballer, and that's obviously why the manager has brought him to the club.


6 case studies, and to assess the influence on the different parameters, ANOVA tests are used.
strategy on the flexibility characteristics.
characteristics and key performance indicators, except the total time of increased energy demand.
especially on low insulated building.
to a high insulated building.
performance indicators were comparable to the IEA EBC Annex 67 key performance indicators.


text:
Q: Is Android's Wakelock a necessity for background services? I am writing a long-running background service that collects and analyzes device data. To do this I start a service, the service spawns a thread and the thread does the data collection / analysis.
From my reading I have learned that if I want the service to do it's thing while the screen is locked / device is sleeping, that I should be using a partial wakelock to ensure that the cpu does not go to sleep while the service's thread is running. However I'm really confused about this because I am currently not using a wakelock and am able to background my app or lock the screen or kill the app via the task manager and each time I do this I am able to observe via the logcat and Log statements that the thread that I spawned in the service is still running and doing the work that I want it to.
I've even run an adb shell dumpsys power and found that I have refcount = 0 for wakelocks which indicates to me that a different app isn't holding the wakelock for me.
Am I just getting lucky that my service seems to run just fine in the background without a wakelock?
Edit:
The device has exhibited this behavior when connected to USB and when detached from USB. I have am periodically uploading the data that I collect to a server and have run tests where I never plug the device in and have the screen locked the entire test and I still am seeing that my thread runs and data gets uploaded.

A: You were not "lucky" that your service is fine without a wakelock. Your device never slept.
If you have USB connected and supplying power, then your device will not sleep. After all, what is the point of saving power if you have a ready supply of it to use?
You need to connect to your device using adb over IP (adb connect ) and then do logcat from there to see if you still observe your expected logs.
EDIT: Forgot to actually answer the question.
If you want your service to do things constantly, then you need to keep a wakelock. Keep in mind that permanently keeping a wakelock is basically sin #1 in mobile programming. You should NEVER EVER KEEP A PERMANENT WAKELOCK.
Since your service is tracking data usage, then there is no need for a wakelock since, if the device is sleeping, then there is no data to be logged.
EDIT 2: Let's experiment!
Hmmm. Sleep is hard to force, so let's go straight to the nuclear option.

*

*Modify your code so that instead of actually uploading data, you instead store some meta-data to tell you that you would have stored data at a specific timestamp. Also, modify your code so that you can keep track of power events and also timestamp them. If you can, keep all of this data in memory so that we don't have too much system code running.

*Put your phone into airplane mode. That's right, turn off all external connections. Also, don't use ADB or logcat or anything like that.

*Kill all non-essential apps. Uninstall is best.

*Run your service as a user would using the UI. DO NOT USE A TEST OF ANY SORT; TESTS MAY PREVENT SLEEP (it's hard to know anything for certain on Android since sleepiness is an OEM thing).

*Wait a while.

*Dump out your in-memory logs with timestamps. You probably won't get accurate data on when the sleep occurred, if it will even tell you that you slept. But you should be able to infer it from odd power event orderings as you transition back to the state that you were just in.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Maariv: Did Rahm Emanuel cancel his son's Kotel Bar Mitzvah following threats from Kahanists?
Analogies with the Richard Goldstone Bar Mitzvah fiasco would probably upset both men.
It is not easy to hold a bar mitzvah ceremony for one's son, certainly when one is the White House chief of staff. Rahm Emanuel, one of the key figures in the Obama administration, will come to Israel next weekend in order to watch his son Zach be called up to the Torah — but the busy chief of staff is still having difficulty deciding on the nature of the affair. Emanuel, who initially intended to hold the ceremony at the Western Wall, discovered that the fact that he is an American politician with Jewish roots and Israeli opponents is a recipe for trouble.
And perhaps the reason for the change in plan lies in the restriction that is imposed on American diplomats not to spend time over the Green Line for non-work related purposes. The Western Wall, in the view of the Americans, is "occupied territory" that Israel annexed in the Six-Day War.
The alternative celebration for Zach Emanuel, which is scheduled for next weekend, will be a small family affair. Jewish sources in the Old City of Jerusalem said that to the best of their understanding, Emanuel had apparently canceled the bar mitzvah ceremony he planned to hold at the Western Wall. "The Emanuel family is not expected to celebrate at the Western Wall in the coming two weeks; no one has coordinated such a visit with us," they summed up.
However, another source said that Emanuel might arrive at the Western Wall without coordinating it in advance and causing a commotion there.
In any case, it is reasonable to assume that the visit will also be used for meetings with political officials in the Prime Minister's Bureau, and perhaps also with Binyamin Netanyahu himself. Emanuel was among the initiators of the latest crisis between Israel and the US concerning construction in Jerusalem, which broke out after the visit of Vice President Joe Biden. However, Emanuel was also the one who led the American consent to "get down from their high horse," as one of the ministers from the forum of seven put it, and the understanding that the pressure on Israel should be stopped for internal political reasons.
Cross-posted from Promised Land Blog.
Last Saturday I met an Israeli-American friend who came for a short visit from his studies in Europe. We talked some politics, and finally came to an issue which always puzzles me: the fact that American Jews are unwilling — almost unable — to criticize Israel, both in public and in private, and even when Israeli policies contradict their own beliefs. My friend noted that if some of the articles on the Israeli media – and not even the most radical ones – were to be printed in the US and signed by non-Jews, they would be considered by most Jewish readers like an example of dangerous Israel-bashing, sometimes even anti-Semitism.
All known data indicates that the vast majority of US Jews support the democratic party, and many consider themselves as liberals (Barack Obama captured 78 percent of the Jewish vote). Yet except for a group of well known activists, you can hardly hear these people criticize Israel, which is not exactly a picture-perfect liberal democracy.
I am not talking here about the old Jewish establishment or about AIPAC. AIPAC are professional politicians. Their status is based on their connections to the Israeli governments, and their ability to promote Israeli interests in Washington. Breaking up with Israel — even just criticizing Israeli politics — will not just hurt their status, it will simply leave them unemployed. Expecting AIPAC or other Jewish leaders with good ties in Jerusalem to declare that, for example, Israel should lift the siege on Gaza, is like asking an insurance lobbyist to speak in the name of the public option.
Naturally, I don't expect anything from Jewish neo-cons either. These people like Netanyahu, they supported George Bush, and they will go on speaking about culture wars and Islamo-Facists versus Judeo-Christians even on the day Mahmoud Haniya converts to Zionism. You can agree or disagree with them, but at least their views are consistent.
UPDATE: January 5 2010 — Haaretz's Akiva Eldar posits similar arguments.
In the run-up to his appointment as ambassador, Michael Oren, with the help of the mainstream US media, pulled off an amazing image makeover — the movement neoconservative became a pragmatic centrist. The Israeli media, however, is not playing ball.
Oren, under pressure, tried to use the Goldstone Report to differentiate J Street from Americans for Peace Now (APN), with whom he has deigned to meet. His implication is that J Street is beyond the pale because it did not denounce the report.
The facts do not back Oren's argument. Both organizations have not denounced Goldstone. However, between the two, APN has clearly taken a markedly softer tone regarding the report. In fact, when the House of Representatives tabled resolution 867, condemning the Goldstone report, APN called on Congressmen to oppose it, while J Street only asked for its amendment. J Street is also closer to Oren's and Israel's position on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 (IRPSA), which it supports. APN, on the other hand, urged Congress members to oppose it. Indeed, last Friday (January 1 2009,) APN's Lara Friedman published an blog post criticizing Oren for trying to force Obama's hand on the issue.
Clearly, J Street is closer to the Israeli position on two issues that Oren deems crucial. Why then, as reported in the Forward, did he attack the organization for "fooling around with lives of seven million [Israeli] people," while stating in this interview that outreach to APN is "very important"?
One option is that Oren is grievously misinformed. This was also the excuse for another recent incident casting doubt on his credibility.
Last November, a woman, Nofrat Frenkel, was detained by Israeli police and interrogated for 2.5 hours after she wore a tallit and carried a Torah in the women's section of the main plaza of the Wailing Wall. When questioned, Oren categorically denied the report.
When asked about the incident at the annual meeting of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in December, Oren dismissed these accounts as "widely misreported," saying she was simply "led away" from the area.
Such a blatant misrepresentation of facts could not be sustained for long, however. On December 22 2009, the Israeli Embassy issued a statement backtracking on the denial and shifting blame to the Foreign Ministry.
Oren responded to a question based upon information he had requested and received from Israel, which was later proven to be incomplete. The ambassador has since demanded a full and complete report on the incident.
That brings us to the second option: Faced with such a glaring gap, Oren makes up the facts as required. However, as with NGO Monitor's Gerald Steinberg, one is struck by Oren's hubris. It's hard to believe that Oren does not realize that this type of behavior will be quickly exposed, given today's reality of instant internet-based fact-checking.
This carelessness could be the result of a situation where Oren's fundamental political training tends to overpower his common sense. Michael Oren is a product of the Shalem Center, Sheldon Adelson's neoconservative institute in Jerusalem, which he joined in 1998 as part of its initial group of senior fellows.
[Strauss] therefore taught that those in power must invent noble lies and pious frauds to keep the people in the stupor for which they are supremely fit. . . . Like the Grand Inquisitor, he thought that it was better for human beings to be victims of this noble delusion than to "wallow" in the "sordid" truth. And like the Grand Inquisitor, Strauss thought that the superior few should shoulder the burden of truth and in so doing, protect humanity from the "terror and hopelessness of life.
In this context, Greenwald specifically describes William (Bill) Kristol as a "Straussian clone." It is probably no coincidence that Kristol is a member of the Shalem Foundation's board.
Both options are worrying. The Israeli ambassador has a credibility problem, either the result of incompetence or, more likely, his ideological bent.
The confrontational Oren that has emerged in the little amount of time since his appointment may have bigger problems than his credibility, however. Oren's dishonesty seems to be the result of a need to defend positions that do not resonate well in the beltway, among most American Jews and in Israel. It is hard to believe that these positions originate in Jerusalem. Increasingly, they appear to be closely coordinated with two groups disenfranchised under the Obama administration — the old Jewish-American establishment and the pundits at the Weekly Standard and the National Review. If this is case, Michael Oren, who disingenuously called J Street a "unique" problem, is becoming one himself, for both Israel and the US.
Razi Barkai: because you are everyone's ambassador in the US, not only the Israeli right's.
Michael Oren: yes, that is how I see it.
The Catholic Church today is respectful of Jews and Israel; it also adores its former Popes. I don't see a contradiction. I'm not sure why I'm so unmoved by these Jewish protests — maybe because I think Jews should keep their powder dry for actual problems. Or maybe because excessive whining is just so damn annoying.
Those 'actual problems' include the obliteration, in Israel, of so many values I was brought up to believe were what Judaism was all about.
This has probably already been in the news, and I am probably inadvertently plagiarizing someone else's original sarcasm, but I couldn't resist the temptation: Where is Bill O'Reilly when we need him?
On a more serious note, this type of behavior probably contributed to the State Department's damning report on religious freedom in Israel and the Occupied Territories.
A recommendation issued by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate to hotels and restaurants has generated new tension between Israel and the Vatican [see this for another recently reported source of tension].


text:
Dehio is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 Erhard Arnold Julius Dehio (1855–1940), Baltic German merchant and politician, former mayor of Tallinn (1918)
 Georg Dehio (1850–1932), Baltic German art historian
 Ludwig Dehio (1888–1963), German archivist and historian, son of Georg Dehio
 Karl Gottfried Konstantin Dehio (1851–1927), Baltic German internist and professor of pathology

See also
 48415 Dehio, a main-belt asteroid named after Georg Dehio

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
How to Use Blasting for Deep Compaction of Soil?
Home/ Construction Engineering & Management/How to Use Blasting for Deep Compaction of Soil?
Blasting is an economical compaction method that can be applied for various soil types such as granular, silt, clay, loess, etc. Not only is the technique highly effective in loose soil, but also capable of compacting granular soil down to a depth of 40m.
The blasting method involves the determination of the right amount of explosive materials, placement of explosives at a suitable depth below the water table, and finally, the safe explosion of the charge. One can apply either the surface or internal blasting technique; the latter is considered more effective and safer.
The technique is generally employed in construction works such as earth rockfill dams, airfields, roads, and harbors. The limitation of the method may include the risk of explosives, unexpected results of blasting, and receiving permission to store and use explosive materials.
Assess the situation and determine whether blast-induced vibrations cause structural damages or trigger landslides around the construction site. This assessment requires an understanding of the impact of the expected blasts, which is one of the difficulties that may arise.
Achieve permission to use explosives.
Determine the right quantity of explosives. The individual charges are 1-12 kg or 10-30 g/m3 of the soil to be compacted.
Place explosive materials in drilled or jetted boreholes at a depth of about 50-75% of the total soil depth intended to be compacted, below the water table.
The distance between boreholes ranges from 5-15 m.
For large projects, engineers can use test blasting to determine optimum borehole spacing, charge size, interval, and spacing of basting.
Further compaction cannot be achieved by reducing explosive spacing or increasing the quantity of explosives.
The maximum blasting repetition ranges from 2 to 3 times because soil compaction after three rounds of the blast is low.
The first blast is responsible for 50-60% of the total settlement, and the second blast is accountable for the additional 20% of the full settlement.
The compaction result within the blast-affected area may vary; the soil around the blasting point and hard soils may loosen due to the blasting effect.
The increase in relative density ranges from 15 to 30%.
At a depth of 12 m or shallower depths, a relative density of 75-85% can be achieved, but the relative density would reduce to 65-75% at depths greater than 12 m.
Surface settlement ranges from 2-10% of the total depth of the compacted soil layer.
The soil surface settles after the escape of gasses through fissures and dissipation of pore water pressure.
Engineers can check the achieved state of compaction by measuring surface settlement. Alternatively, use tests such as cone penetration test, standard penetration test, or weight soundings.
Blasting can compact up to 1.5 times charge depth and 1.2 to 1.3 times charge depth in loose sand and medium dense sand, respectively.
A maximum depth of 40 m of granular soil can be compacted by blasting.
If the relative density of soil from the surface to a depth of 2 to 3 m is low, additional surface compaction may be needed.
The loosened soil surface thickness may increase as explosive quantity increases.
Blasting efficiency is based on blasting-generated pore water pressure and the size of the liquefied zone around the blasting point.
A small amount of gas in the soil can reduce the blasting effect considerably; hence reduce the degree of compaction.
Blasting creates high pressure in saturated sand; 1 kg of explosives generates more than 14 MPa pressure at a distance of 4 m.
Fig. 1: Blasting Compaction
Fig. 2: Soil Compaction by Blasting Technique
FAQs for soil compaction by blasting
What is explosive compaction?
It is a soil compaction technique in which explosive charge is placed at suitable depth in the soil to be compacted. Then, the charge is exploded to create ripples similar to that of earthquakes; resulting in soil compaction.
How to check the soil that is compacted by blasting?
Engineers can check compaction by blasting by measuring surface settlement. Alternatively, use tests such as cone penetration test, standard penetration test, or weight soundings.
What is the maximum repetition for blasting compaction?
The maximum blasting repetition ranges from 2 to 3 times because soil compaction after three rounds of the blast is small.
How to set up spacing and size of charges for blasting compaction in large projects?
What is the maximum soil surface settlement due to blasting?
What are the Causes of Slope Failure?
How to Cast and Fix Precast Concrete Door and Window Frames?
AI The Future of Construction Safety
What are Patterns of Foundation Heave?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Nigeria church building collapse kills at least 17
Other News Materials 13 September 2014 22:44 (UTC +04:00)
At least 17 people were killed when a guest house under construction at the Lagos headquarters of one of Nigeria's best-known Christian evangelical pastors collapsed, Reuters reported on Saturday citing rescue officials.
More than 100 people were hurt when the building collapsed on Friday at the compound in the Ikotun neighborhood belonging to the Synagogue Church of All Nations. The church is headed by "Prophet" T.B. Joshua, who has followers across Africa and around the world.
On Friday, members of the church initially prevented emergency services officials from participating in the rescue work, making it difficult to establish a toll for the dead and injured. They did not provide an explanation.
But on Saturday they allowed state rescuers to work on the accident site. "We are still working," Ibrahim Farinloye, spokesman in Lagos for Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), told Reuters.
He earlier said the lower floors of the building located in the church compound had already been operating as a guest house. "They were trying to add an additional three floors," he said, when the building collapsed.


text:
Butterfly Rapture wins Global Music Awards Bronze Medal
By Brian Kelly | Awards
My latest album, Butterfly Rapture, has won a Bronze Medal from the Global Music Awards in the Instrumental Performance Solo category!
Butterfly Rapture wins Best Instrumental Piano Album in Akademia Music Awards
Exciting news!! My new album Butterfly Rapture won "Best Instrumental Piano Album" in the February 2016 Akademia Awards! THANKS to The Akademia Music Awards for this honor! http://bit.ly/2daVs55
Butterfly Rapture nominated 2015 Album of the Year by SoloPiano.com
Exciting news! Butterfly Rapture, my new solo piano album, has been nominated 2015 "Contemporary and Modern" Album of the Year by SoloPiano.com. Congrats to my fellow nominees!
Another Time, Another Place – Robin Spielberg, PA, USA
Butterfly Rapture – Brian Kelly, CA, USA
My Beloved – Michael Dulin, AL, USA
Shine – Michael Logozar, TX, USA
Between Shadow and Light – Neil Patton, OR, USA
The Sunflower Waltz – Anne Trenning, NC, USA
Love – Peter Kater, CA, USA
The winner will be announced January 26, 2016.
Pools of Light named among Top 40 Favorite CDs for the Decade
Brian Kelly's "Pools of Light" album has been named among "Kathy's Top 40 Favorite CDs for the Decade."
These are listed in alphabetical order by the artists' last names.
Brian Kelly Afterplay album eligible for Grammy consideration
Brian Kelly's Afterplay album is eligible for Grammy Award consideration.
Brian Kelly Afterplay Wins 2nd Place in Best Instrumental Jazz Category
The 2009 Just Plain Folks Music Awards Album Winners have been announced. I'm excited and honored to learn that my album, Afterplay, came in 2nd place in the "Best Instrumental Jazz Album" category. The winners are listed here: http://www.jpfolks.com/09albumwinners.html
Brian Kelly Afterplay album nominated Best Instrumental Jazz Album 2009
Afterplay, the latest album by Brian Kelly, has been nominated for "Best Instrumental Jazz Album 2009" in the Just Plain Folks Music Awards. "Celtic Fire" (track #8 on the album) has been nominated for "Best Instrumental Jazz Song 2009".
Brian Kelly awarded Track of the Week in Electronica
"Angels Breathing", track #8 from the Brian Kelly / Pools of Light CD, has been awarded "Track of The Week in Electronica" on garageband.com the week of December 8, 2008.
Brian Kelly's Angels Breathing is Track of the Week
"Angels Breathing", track #8 from my Pools of Light CD, was "Track of the Week" in Ambient on garageband.com the week of October 27, 2008.
Brian Kelly nominated for Best New Artist of 2005
NAR Lifestyle Music Awards: Brian Kelly's Pools of Light CD has been nominated for Best New Artist of 2005.
Brian Kelly eligible for NAR Lifestyle Music Award
Brian Kelly's Pools of Light CD is eligible for nomination in several categories of the 2005 NAR (NewAgeReporter) Lifestyle Music Awards.
© 2022 BRIAN KELLY. music. All Rights Reserved.


text:
Here's How White Nationalism Moved from the Fringes to the Mainstream
Society | Hunter College, The Graduate Center
By CHAR ADAMS
Barack Obama became the nation's first Black president in 2008. In the years that followed, minority representation around the country increased. In a stark backlash to this progress, white nationalism moved from the margins to the mainstream of American politics.
This is the claim Hunter College and Graduate Center Professor Sanford Schram and Richard Fording (of the University of Alabama) make in their new book, Hard White: The Mainstreaming of Racism in American Politics. Hard White traces the white nationalist movement from David Duke, the former KKK leader, to the emergence of the alt-right.
"There was an opportunity for extremists to do what they had been thinking about for several decades, whether or not they should get more involved in conventional, mainstream electoral politics. And they started to," Schram says.
"Extremists started to change their rhetoric a little bit, and their attitudes, and their behaviors, and started to participate more in mainstream politics. And that opened the door to white nationalists, white supremacists, racists, becoming more involved rather than sitting on the sidelines."
Schram called this shift a "hard white" turn — hence the book's title.
Schram and Fording also show that Donald Trump's popularity did not stem from appealing to economically stressed voters. Instead, they say, he mobilized already racially hostile voters to demand a place in the White House.
Hard White cites Obama's presidential tenure and the increases in minority representation as two major shifts that ignited the mainstreaming of white nationalism. According to Schram, the nation underestimated the immensity of this movement.
"The main takeaway of the book is that out-group hostility has become more of an issue," he said, using the term "out-group" to describe a social group one does not belong to. "What we're seeing now is the increasing polarization of out-group hostility where people are more extreme in their views of being anxious about out-groups. We show in our book that white in-group identity may be best understood as a platform for out-group hostility."
Hard White
Oxford University Press, 2020
Sanford Schram (Professor, Political Science and Sociology) | Profile 1 | Profile 2
"HOW WHITE NATIONALISM MOVED FROM THE MARGINS TO THE CENTER OF AMERICAN POLITICS" (The Graduate Center)
Barack ObamaDonald TrumpObamapoliticsracismTrumpWhite nationalismwhite nationalists proud boyswhite supremacy
Exploring Liberalism's Lost History and Values
The Statues We Love to Hate


The Home Tour Directors and their committee are responsible for the Meridian-Kessler Home Tour, the largest and most prestigious tour of vintage homes in Indiana, and a tradition at the very heart of the neighborhood. The Home Tour, now entering it's 38th year, begins on Friday evening with The Twilight Tour Celebration Benefit Dinner, Dance and Silent Auction. All funds from the Silent Auction support MKNA Grants for Youth, Senior and Service organizations. These dollars turn into summer camp programs, library reading programs, fitness and sports programs, health and mentoring needs, beautification projects, leadership training and academic programs. The Twilight Tour is followed by the Day Tour, a two-day tour of homes which showcase the beauty, diversity and compelling quality of this neighborhood.
The Home Tour is probably the most volunteer intensive activity of Meridian-Kessler, and its largest source of funds. Subcommittees range from Home Selection, Home Reviews, all important Publicity, Silent Auction, Planning, Advertising, Host/Hostess, Twilight and Sponsorship. This tour has had a huge impact on our community over the years and has proven to be a strong stimulant for its continued renewal.
Please join in this year. Add your home to the rich roster of participants-it is a wonderful goodwill gift to the community and a great timeline for getting those projects that you have always wanted to do DONE. We also welcome tour home suggestions. For volunteers, it is an upbeat opportunity to make new friends while directing benefit to your neighborhood. So call in or email lend your talent and be part of this neighborhood tradition.