His main work is about reducing the possibility to extract "rents" from society by closing loopholes in our current economic system:
1. Money is "better" than everything else so those holding money can extract surplus value by lending it out. This was later also found out by Keynes and others. Keynes' solution: inflation. Gesell's solution: imposing carrying costs on cash.
2. Land is required by everybody yet impossible to increase. Solution: the goverment is owner of all land yet leases it out long-term by auction. All income is distributed among all mothers, since the price of land is direct consequence of the number of children/people in a country. Now you would distribute it among all citizens and call it "basic income".
His ideas are still completely valid and deserve a wider audience.
> All income is distributed among all mothers, since the price of land is direct consequence of the number of children/people in a country.
Isn't an inherent flaw in this that it encourages people to have as many children as possible?
I'm under the impression that at a point when your population is established you want something like a 1.2 birth rate, or just a little more than enough to cover your unexpected deaths.
Well, that's a tricky argument since at what point is a population "established"?
I concur, however, since I'd prefer it to be distributed among all residents, whether born in that country or not. But that's another discussion entirely.
His main work is about reducing the possibility to extract "rents" from society by closing loopholes in our current economic system:
1. Money is "better" than everything else so those holding money can extract surplus value by lending it out. This was later also found out by Keynes and others. Keynes' solution: inflation. Gesell's solution: imposing carrying costs on cash.
2. Land is required by everybody yet impossible to increase. Solution: the goverment is owner of all land yet leases it out long-term by auction. All income is distributed among all mothers, since the price of land is direct consequence of the number of children/people in a country. Now you would distribute it among all citizens and call it "basic income".
His ideas are still completely valid and deserve a wider audience.