single header

If you want to comment online, use the Reply form following this commentary.


Howell Hurst 2020 Presidential Election, American News, Defense Spending, Defining Trump, Economy & Finance, People, People Politics, Poverty, Presidential Election, Trump






 Report Nr. 7



Real Estate Innovation Cont’d

I misstated something in my last report.  There are not 12 Billion habitable parcels of land in America. Mountains, deserts, and other portions of our country are, of course, not easily able to support homes and life, and must be deleted.

I’ve seen national homeless estimates between 600,000 and one million. Assume there are one million. Without affecting parks and sanctuaries, there are easily sufficient Federal, State, and Local government land parcels in America to permit the creation of total citizen ownership of U.S. real estate.

The initial thrust of my proposal is that Federal, State, and Local land could and should be made available to those not now owning land. First, for the Homeless. Those already owning property should not be provided new inexpensive land for them to continue to speculate with. Renter ownership could be addressed after all Homeless have been put under roofs.

We should create two markets of real estate ownership. One could remain open market speculative. The new land should be solely personal housing. It should be a marketplace where only inhabiting homeowners may buy and sell. A reasonable gradual profit limit could be legally imposed to prohibit extensive speculation.

Many small towns have been adversely affected by the 20thCentury American corporate destruction of small businesses that drew most of our population to large cities. Thomas Jefferson’s original concept that America create many smaller towns distributed nationwide has been ignored by the profit interests of corporations.

It is eminently rational that America redesign this city domination by creating collaboration between the corporate world and government to redistribute our population throughout our geographic territory

If we concurrently assessed the product and service needs of the world’s many emerging markets we could in these smaller new communities create many specialized factories, thereby providing many new jobs. This would involve redesigning and rebuilding forgotten small towns, and building totally new small towns.

If these were carefully located adjacent to Federal, State, and Locally-owned government land, we would be able to combine new focused service and product industries with new partial ownership by now non-real-estate-owning citizens.

This would combine new jobs with comprehensive landownership: a rational move. This would require a similar and expanded form of collaborative corporate and government planning and execution that Germany, for example, has successfully accomplished.

It does not require we establish a Socialist economy.

Rather, it requires we implement sophisticated marketing of new U.S. specialized manufacturing entities to internationally emerging countries’ consumers. And it requires a well-planned collaboration added to our profit system: a carefully-designed social support mechanism for both our corporate structure and our entire population.

Sophisticated marketing is something America is expert in. We would, however, be compelled by such a plan to require several new disciplines of American-based corporations to accomplish it.

American corporations would be required by law to collaborate with Governments. They would be required by law to factor into all their planning the preservation and expansion of jobs. They would be required to share available human work, not deny it to ten percent of the workforce in order to enhance their profits.

American corporation management should be required to share ownership with workers. It has repeatedly been proven that ownership-shared businesses work more efficiently and profitably. Why has this not happened? Why not enact it by law?

The obstacle to these rational moves are the wealthy, who now own and control most all corporations. Predominantly, their loyalties are solely to profits, not to all of the American people.

I am not against corporations or the wealthy. I am against their focusing solely on profit to the detriment of ten percent of the American people. Changing the rules of corporate ownership though new laws that require positive financial consequences for the last ten percent of Americans is what I am proposing.

I contend that common sense restructuring of corporations to rationally include partial ownership by all American workers would strengthen capitalism. I contend  that government conveyance to non-landed Americans of United States land ownership would help retain and strengthen capitalism while supporting it with enhanced financial social benefits for all Americans.

How would we finance this concept?

By government cost sharing and tax benefits for collaborating corporations, and by reducing massively expensive cost over-runs of defense contractors through extremely more stringent control over new weapons programs – particularly irrational nuclear proposals now on the table by the Trump administration.

Would corporations be required to collaborate with government to create comprehensive new job training to make the inclusion of new workers feasible?

Yes, it would.

Might it require a national vote: a plebiscite? Quite possibly.

Until next time,


Return to Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.