Recent searches
Search options
Sometimes a simple message tells you a lot.... the concentration of wealth in the UK, in one simple graphic.
@ChrisMayLA6 it would be interesting to deconstruct the figure a bit more, because some roles simply involve more land. Like farming say.
Also it would be interesting also to know how much land the top 0.1% owned.
@ChrisMayLA6 that those families who own the land can be traced back to 1066 (well, the Domesday book, I suppose) speaks volumes about the engrained nature of inequality in the UK.
So much for trickle down!
@ChrisMayLA6 although the single largest land owner iirc is the forestry commission.
I don't know of they count as the top 1% or not really
Ha ha, well they'd be one of those quangos that are both public but also sometimes a mask for special interests
@ChrisMayLA6 interesting. We were discussing the land inequality in Asian countries with the group i’m traveling with. A few families owning 80% of the land, whereas in Korea, land was distributed without major land owners.
@Chiquidrakula @ChrisMayLA6 South not North Korea. Only one landowner in the latter
@John_Loader @Chiquidrakula @ChrisMayLA6
Going on a tangent, but I have a gut feeling that NKorean land is divided between farming "coöps", electricity production, military etc.
Ofc, they're then ultimately responsible for the state, but similarly in a capitalist society the state is the protector of property (eg. stopping people transferring land by force, or more importantly to the topic at hand: to the state itself). Thus in sovereign state all land ultimately belongs to the state.
@iju @John_Loader @Chiquidrakula
You might find Murphy & Nagel: Myth of Ownership of some interest - it takes the line that all things start with the state to develop an interesting defence of taxation among other things - there's a lot of things in iti I agree with...
@John_Loader @ChrisMayLA6 very true, meant the South.
@ChrisMayLA6 why is this unusual? It does not take account of farms, woodlands, national parks etc.
Not sure its unusual (in a historical sense)....
@ChrisMayLA6 agreed historically but on a practical level if land was hypothetically divided equally among the population there would be no farms, no national parks etc. No food. No more no less houses etc.
yes, but its not a binary choice - we could see considerable land ownership pluralisation with still holding where needed large enough for such activities - the key thing is to move more towards the middle between the concentration vs. complete equality continuum
@ChrisMayLA6 the U.K. is roughly 60M acres so in theory everyone could have an acre. How May of those 60M people would be bothered to grow essential food or maintain national parks and other areas for green open space and well-being? It would be a crisis! Back to the Stone Age. Personally I believe farmers and the national parks do a good job of delivering what society needs and are decent stewards of the land. They earn a low return on investment.
yes as I said earlier; its not so much an either/or - highly concentrated or equally divided, but perhaps a shift in the direction of the latter & away from the former along the line/continuum between extreme endpoints.... so less really large land holding & perhaps a more fluid market in land (as opposed to the land on which individual houses are erect on)
@ChrisMayLA6 wealth is concentrated in too few hands. We can all agree with that and it is getting worse. I just don’t believe British land ownership patterns are that relevant. Not for one minute do I think Musk, Gates & co care about British land.
I think that's where we would differ - wealth is too concentrated & land is one (but no the only) aspect of that.
@ChrisMayLA6 A few questions come to mind.
Is there a shortage of land for people in the UK?
How much land does the government own?
And can the government owned land be returned to the people thus affecting the percentage?
And assuming that all land in the UK was equally distributed, would that strengthen the economy and make people happier?
The main issue is the perceived miss-pricing of land & land hoarding by various groups. As I've just noted in an earlier reply I don't think prefect equity in land distribution is either likely of indeed a sensible target, but a move to reduce its ownership concentration, would enhance other aspects of the economy, not least housing & potentially farming, by changing the price structure of the land market
@ChrisMayLA6 I bet that one percent is also doing 70% of the work in the UK, and therefore that wealth is well deserved.
irony klaxon?
@ChrisMayLA6 Fair. I bet there are some of them running around, actually believing that they work as hard as a thousand normal workers. But no, I don't believe that.
If less than 1% of a country's population controls more than half of its land, that country is not a democracy. Even if it cosplays as one.
The election of Orange Stalin has made many USAmericans realise their country hadn't been a real democracy for decades, if ever (David Graeber argues that republics are created precisely to prevent real democracy breaking out). When are the rest of us going to wake up to the fact we need pro-democray movements as much as Kong Kong does?
@strypey @ChrisMayLA6 Scotland has a massive problem with land ownership. A previous TV programme about the police in the Highland and Irelands had a patrol stop a VW for speeding. After issuing the paperwork the PC can back and said something like - foreign driver but he can pay the fine as he owns most of Scotland
I think I recall seeing that - was it on a couple of years ago?
@ChrisMayLA6 @strypey yes. The new series running now.
@strypey @ChrisMayLA6 Democracy and land control are completely unrelated questions.
For a democracy, first, you should ask yourself, did >50% of the people vote. Second, are the people allowed to vote directly on issues?
Who owns how much land has nothing to do with a democracy, it sounds more like communism to me, which we thankfully have leaved behind us in the dustbin of history.
@h4890
> Democracy and land control are completely unrelated questions
Ahhhhahahaha 
Wait, are you serious?
> For a democracy, first, you should ask yourself, did >50% of the people vote
Voting has much less to do with democracy than land. People in China vote for their officials. Does that make it a democracy?
> Who owns how much land has nothing to do with a democracy
If I owned all the land in my country, could you honestly call it democratic?
@strypey @ChrisMayLA6 Yes. Depending on how you acquired the land, yes, it could be fully democratic.
China does not allow other parties, it is a one party state, I think you understand that.
Me:
> If I owned all the land in my country, could you honestly call it democratic?
@h4890
> Depending on how you acquired the land, yes, it could be fully democratic
This is charmingly naive. Would you like to buy a bridge?
> For a democracy, first, you should ask yourself, did >50% of the people vote.
> China does not allow other parties
So? More than 50% of the people vote, so it meets your test.
I do not think you are arguing in good faith, and I am not naive.
@h4890
> I do not think you are arguing in good faith
Opinions are like armpits, everyone has a couple.
> I am not naive
Some of the claims made in your posts suggest otherwise, but I'm open to being persuaded.
@strypey This is incorrect. I think you are naive.
@h4890
> This is incorrect. I think you are naive
"No you are" is the level of discourse you're descending to. Really? What age are you, 5?
@strypey I was not the one who started it, so I'm just letting you experience a taste of your own medicine! 