Real Estate Games
Trying to Find the Origin
Long ago, in a land far away, Great European Kings sent their men to a foreign land to murder the innocents
and strip them of their land. The bold men, lacking inheritance, set out for the unknown world in search of
fortune. The land was paid for by the Kings with the blood of dead Indians. The men who partook in the
slaughter were rewarded with tiny parcels – ten thousand acres – in exchange for their efforts.
The degenerate children of these men, say 50% of their offspring, traded on their inheritance – selling off
hundreds of acres to the ambitious and successful. Of these ambitious and successful, most went
bankrupt, but a few managed to hold on to their land long enough to charge rent to the next generation.
The degenerate sons of the degenerates, falling into drink and gambling and wishing to draw upon their
grandfather’s fortune sold off more and more acres until the land was greatly dispersed. There arose a
class of middle men who arranged for sales and negotiated the claims.
After several generations of decline and profit, the same parcel of land that cost a King 100 Indian scalps
and a soldier of fortune 10 years and two arrow wounds was selling for hundreds of millions. But it was
still the same land that was paid for with a single days worth of blood.
Who would pay millions for a couple hundred dead Indians?
Billions?
This is one understanding of inflation and the collapse of our overvalued financial system.
- AdamAdamR's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 306 reads
****
leads to higher real estate prices is of course true. However, if you compared the rise in value of land over 250 years to the rise in population I don't think you'd find them congurent.
What I mean is that while its true as a maxim -- I don't think it applies to the value of land here in the US beyond the most general sense -i.e. more people , higher prices --- but not in any balanced way
I think you're sensitivity level to the tired old p.c. statment that the Europeans are bad and the Indians are good has caused you to once again misinterpret this --- but if that's what you are getting from it, that's your right.
You did make a clear statement about the superiority of the white man. There's nothing nasty about it. Sounds like you're uncomfortable with acknowledging that? The Indian was at a stone age level technologically speaking and the white European had guns --- that about decides it. I'm not speaking to any inherent superiority -- like character, or whatever. The Indians probably had a better idea about how to co-exist with mother nature.
Anyhow, what you are calling theft I am calling "paying for" That seems to be the true misunderstanding. My point is that it takes a lot of work, effort, time, resources, and dedication to slaughter a race of people. It's a work spanning generations. This is real work of real value, as suppossed to the digital computer game of repacking mortgages. The digital real estate games that were played have no standard in reality -- the money is removed from a gold standard as you know, but there are other standards.
A point I am making in this "creative blog draft (i.e. an unrevised piece meant to convey an unpolished idea)" is that blood is also a standard of value. Perhaps blood is the real standard value of currency predating even gold.
If you look at what backs our currency now, it may be blood. It certainly isn't gold, but if a country tries to move away from our currency we may resort to bombing them. Perhaps blood is the true basis of currency.
you're so funny! You always seem to misinterpret things in an intelligent way. How did you conclude that I was calling all the descendants of European ancestry on this continent degenerate?
Then you go on a little defensive tiff about the superiority of the white man! Good for you!
Just having a little fun Claire. Anyhow, in case you're wondering, the idea behind the sentence you totally misinterpreted (!) was that the bad seeds sold the land their ancestors fought for and this is one way the land was dispersed. I toss out the 50% statistic as a benchmark. I guess the other half held onto the land, farmed it, cultivated it, and made nice contributions to society! But somewhere along the line chances are somebody sold it to a developer. Good for them! I'd rather live in a nice home with a jacuzzi and a garage than a teepee!
By the way, another premise of this little paragraph was that the Europeans did buy the land -- they paid for it in blood -- and that this original payment was the standard that, in straying from, allowed for future inflation.
Pennsylvania (where I live) originally belonged to one man --William Penn -- hence the name of the state which translates to "Penn's woods." I think the King gave it to him because he liked his father. I'll bet he got the whole state for less than the price of a single condo in a suburban highrise. (though paying for improvements -- i.e scalps--- might have been costly!) And I have no reason to believe that his descendants still don't own every square foot of land in the state. Unless of course they turned out to be drunken, gambling degenerates.
> Then you go on a little defensive tiff about the superiority of the white man! Good for you!
< firstly, it wasn't defensive. secondly, the fact that the superior technology advancements happened to be on the side of "the white man" is incidental. it is the "superior technology advancements" that is the main point, not the fact that it was on the side of "the white man". and i think Claire did a pretty good job of stating that.
> I guess the other half held onto the land, farmed it, cultivated it, and made nice contributions to society!
< so the new owners of the land sold by the "degenerates" didn't farm and cultivate? is the selling of the land that you're complaining about?
I haven't seen you for awhile, and I might've even missed you.
I see that you're carrying on the good fight of being an instigator. It is good because it helps to generate discussion.
>>"Then you go on a little defensive tiff about the superiority of the white man! Good for you!
Just having a little fun Claire."
Nice style, Adam-- put out a little bit of nasty innuendo, and then pass it off as a joke. You do the same thing in your original post. The overt message (I think) is about the changing values of property, but It feels like you're actually using it to make a statement about the illegitimacy of European ownership of America. Why don't you just come right out and say things?
Oh, and Adam, don't take offense. I'm just having a little fun. :-)
I re-read your post a couple of times, and I am having a hard time understanding your point.
It's the same land... Is that your point? The price has gone from the lives of several Indians to millions of dollars? So this post is about the changing price of a piece of land? First of all my definition of buying something does not include taking posession of it by killing the owners. That's theft, actually. Secondly, when you say you paid for something in blood, it usually means the blood of your own soldiers, otherwise what do you mean by "paid"? If I understand correctly, you are comparing the "price" in the blood of the indians and the price in US dollars. Well it's apples and oranges as far as I am concerned, because you are comparing theft (where theft occured) to legitimate purchase.
Were you making a broader point about the changes in the value of a piece of land? It seems obvious to me that since the supply of land is limited, the value of a piece of land changes depending on the demand for it. As the population increases and becomes more prosperous (or as demand is artificially increased by government intervention), demand will rise, and land prices will rise as well.
>>"By the way, another premise of this little paragraph was that the Europeans did buy the land -- they paid for it in blood -- and that this original payment was the standard that, in straying from, allowed for future inflation."
Maybe I'm a bit dense. I don't understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting that the rising cost of land is due to the fact that people now buy and sell land for money, instead of killing people for it?
That is a very dismal view of our heritage. You make it sound like European settlers have brought little of value to this continent. In fact the reverse is true. Do you think the standard of living that the 300 million Americans of today enjoy would have been possible without the influence of European science and culture? The concept of private property, rule of law, medicine, even something as basic as agriculture... can you imagine all of us surviving, let alone thriving, without these things? There is no way that hunter-gatherer culture and technology could fulfill and exceed the basic needs of so many people. Of course, if you don't like people much you might see this as a good thing...
There is no doubt that Europeans conquered and killed Native Americans, and it is tragic that it was so violent, but it was inevitable that Europeans would take over one way or another. If the original Americans had been advanced enough in their culture and technology, maybe they could have prevailed. Unfortunately for them, they were sitting on some prime real estate with no means to defend it. Ideally the Europeans should have bought the land, rather than stolen it. Regardless, the transfer of land from Natives to Europeans would have happened sooner or later, given the superiority of European culture and technology.
http://www.republicoflakotah.com/index.htm
The Natives taught the settlers the concept of FREEDOM. After several generations living together. the minds of these European migrants began to wrap around the concept of individual sovereignty.
Now in the 21st century the Real Americans still have something to teach us. FREEDOM is not just a word, it is a responsibility.
Have the courage to be responsible
I'd like to hear more about this perspective. Something tells me some of these Europeans may have had a passing knowledge of freedom based upon exposure to Continental philosophers of the Enlightenment. So is the Native version of FREEDOM unique to the world? Can you help me understand the difference?
Come on dude, the natives of this continent were far more collectivist than the Europeans they came in contact with. Part of the reason they were nowhere near as advanced.
your house is built on --- that probably had a few owners as well -- each of them charging more for the same piece of land ---at some point it has to collapse
You have just described how I feel about the purchase of my house. The banks have made so much money off of this house its not even funny. Over a period of 27 years, I am this house fourth owner.
The Eye of G_d is watching us