Definition of house banking

We are familiar with the concept of land banking whereby a person holds land not for its use but in the hope that it will serve as a good investment. They own the asset (in this case land) not because they need it for any particular purpose - even to utilise in business - but instead for its resale value. They hold the land because they can use it to raise funds (liquidity) at a later date. The same can be true of house banking whereby a person owns a house not entirely to use it for living but instead so that they will be able to sell it to other people in the future. This means that the house is not being fully utilised to its best potential and people in the economy who would be able to derive good use from it are being denied. Ideally people should only take the amount of housing they require and perhaps a bit extra for comfort. They should not seek to own as much of the housing stock as possible because then other people are being denied the ability to live in their own home.

The future will be difficult for people without land

If you have land you will be immune from the problems of the increasing automation of labour. But if you do not have land then because of the advancement of technology it is possible that you will not be able to find a job. (Only people with their own land will be certain to be able to make an income.) For you then the political arrangement known as Capitalism doesn't work because the robots have replaced your only commodity. The robots will destroy Capitalism for those who do not have their own land. Capitalism in the traditional sense (in contrast to Agriculturalism) requires people being able to sell their labour which means that the advancement of technology will put an end to Capitalism in this form. There will be no capitalist jobs because of the robots. Only farmers will survive in the future.

The singularity isn't a problem for people with land

For people with land the coming 'singularity' of technology is something there is no reason to fear. But for those without land the singularity will perhaps be bad news because it will put them out of work without the means to sustain themselves. The singularity will be bad news for workers who will find it increasingly hard to stay in work... because their work will now be being done by robots. For those with land there is nothing to fear in the singularity.

Farmers only will survive the automation of labour

In the future the degree of industrial automation will reach such an advanced state that it will be very difficult to find work. There will be robots who will be able to do almost every type of manual work so labour in the traditional sense will be almost obsolete. This means that it will be very difficult for people to find work which will be able to support their living expenses. The only certain way to be immune from this process is if you are the owner of land which is able to sustain you. The landed (farmers) will be able to survive the increasing automation of the workplace but everyone else will find it difficult. The robots will put most workers out of a job which means only the farmers will survive in the traditional sense... and a greater and greater proportion of the population will return to the land. Only farmers are immune from the technological automation of the workplace. Without a farm people will find it hard to survive due to the increasing automation and industrialisation of the workplace. The robots will replace all jobs which are not like owning a farm. The robots will put everyone but farmers out of a job. Only the robots (and farmers) will be employed in the future. The robots will replace everyone who is not a farmer.

We have a right to work if we have our own land

Land ownership means that we have the ability to work at all times. If we have our own land and the willingness to work then we can always produce food (if anyone can). So to have land is to have the right to work. If we do not have our own land then we must seek employment from those who desire our labour... but we can be refused. If we have no land then we rely on the employment market to produce food which means we do not have a right to produce food (assuming we have the willingness to work). If we have the willingness to work then to be without land means we have no right to work. If we have our own land then we have a right to work.

Land ownership is criminal if there is no ceiling

To be able to own an unlimited amount of land is detrimental to the rest of society and as a consequence it is detrimental to the owner themselves. If we own an excessive extent of land then we exclude the rest of the population from that land by definition... land is finite. So we are causing hardship for other people if we own an excessive amount of land. An analogy can be drawn with another scarce resource which is water in a desert. If we take all the water for ourselves and exclude other people from having access to the water we have done harm to our environment. It is best if we claim to own a piece of land or other natural and scarce resource that we do not take too much of it otherwise we will be damaging to the rest of the population and as a result... ultimately damaging to ourselves. If we desire to claim (exclusive access to) land then we have an obligation to make sure none of the owners has too much land. If we want to own land then for this not to be criminal requires that we impose a ceiling on the amount of land that an individual is able to own. If there is no such ceiling then it is possible that the system of land ownership in place is a criminal system.

A description of land hoarding

Land hoarding is a phenomenon (symptom) of enabling people to 'own' land at the discretion of the state. This means that when a land dispute arises between a land-owner and a trespasser or 'squatter' the state will intervene to determine who has the true claim. This means that land can be owned and then that land hoarding is possible. The obvious negative consequences of land hoarding are that people will find it difficult to get their own land and a place to live if all the land has been taken. To help prevent this type of land hoarding it is possible to place constraints on land ownership. We can do this by enabling a person to own up to a certain amount of land (measured in area or market value) but no more. If there is a limit on the amount of land it is possible for an individual to own (according to the state) then it will be easier for the rest of the population to get their own land. If there is no limit (or tax) then it is likely that (some) people will choose to hoard the land to the disadvantage of the rest of the population. To prevent land hoarding the state should impose a limit above which it is not possible for a person to own land. If there is not a limit on land ownership land hoarding will result.