After a night with a lot of cramping in my legs I ask myself what did I do wrong? Does it perhaps have to do with not going for a walk the day before?
If I would stick to my perfect plan I would go for a walk every day. Why then, why did I not take care to fit it in yesterday, on Sunday? For instance, we drove to the Club in the afternoon for our coffee and cake. Why did I not say to Peter, let’s walk to the club? Why didn’t I think of it? Actually I cannot see any reason at all why we should not have been able to walk.
When I could not sleep during the night because of the cramping I thought a lot about what I had been reading yesterday on the internet and also what I had been reading in kindle. Well, in kindle I have finally come to the last pages of ANNA KARENINA. Tolstoy wrote in this novel not just about AK. A lot of other people are written about in great detail, especially LEVIN, one of the big landowners. But I can see now how ANNA has turned into the main character of this book. She is a woman of her time and her circumstances, seen through the eyes of a male writer who definitely has a lot of insight into what a woman’s feelings may be. LEVIN’s connection with the land is dealt with in great detail in the novel and seems to have a lot to do with Tolstoy’s feelings about land ownership. And this brings me to what I have been reading and reblogging yesterday about HENRY GEORGE and the land question: How the way the land is taxed or not taxed affects our lives.
It is said if we had what is called a “single tax” we would have a more just society. A single tax on what you may ask. Well, we are talking here about a single tax on land. Of course, whoever owns some land, would not want such a tax. I learned yesterday about Neoclassical Economics. Apparently this is being taught at universities these days. Everyone who is being taught NCE would be discouraged to consider the teachings of HENRY GEORGE. The teaching of NCE protects the established land ownership and goes against the teachings of HENRY GEORGE. This is the way I see it. Tell me if I am wrong.
If you belong to the top third in society, of course you want things to remain the way they are. For sure, the very,very top want to continue ‘earning’ millions every year without paying any taxes. If you are more in the middle, you are constantly in danger of falling behind, but you have hopes of eventually arriving in the top where you are safe. The bottom third in society they are the ones who can be squeezed in all sorts of ways. Entitlements or security for them? Most countries cannot afford it or soon won’t be able to afford it any more. If more and more people in the bottom third become more and more destitute, what then? Do economists ever consider this? I am sure, some do, but feel they cannot change anything.
Apparently HENRY GEORGE was thinking of solving problems. To him a trade-off is a compromise that overlooks the possibility of a reconciliation or synthesis. He was for reconciling by synthesizing, taking two problems and composing them into one solution. He was of the opinion that reconciling is better than compromising. If you read what I reblogged yesterday, you find for instance the following:
“He (HENRY GEORGE) took two polar philosophies,
collectivism and individualism.
He synthesized a plan to combine the better features
and discard the worse features of each.”