patrick.net

Reality says

If all the value of using a piece of land is taxed away (or 85% of it), why would any private person want to pay any price to buy a piece of land?

You'd buy it because you can make money doing something with it.

Reality says

What happens when disaster happens and the land becomes unusable? or having its use value significantly reduced?

The tax would go down.

Reality says

How would bureaucrats be able to tell the changing use value when there isn't an active market buying and selling land?

I don't think that ever happens.

Reality says

When central bank changes interest rate, land value fluctuates dramatically, due to the change in discounted present value of future stream of cash using different interest rate; in that case, would bureaucrats' salaries fluctuate drastically too?

There should be no central bank. Interest rates should be set by the market alone.

Bureaucrats' salaries and number of bureaucrats should indeed be limited by the tax revenue available from the land value tax.

Let's take the DC swamp example. When it is a swamp, the land value is negligible, so almost no property tax. Every piece of land's title derives from the title of a larger piece of land before division, tracing all the way back to initial conquest. So let's assume someone owns that swamp, he builds some road on it; i.e. entirely improvement on his own land, so he and his helpers can move around and more people can live on it. However, because that's entirely improvement on his own land, there should not be any tax increase. Someone might be willing to pay more for the land but that's because of his improvement. Then he divides the parcel into two pieces, each with a road connecting to its border due to existing road that he built. Now the each of the two pieces of land is worth more than half of the original because there is road next to it? But that road was improvement built on the land before division! What I'm getting at is that, Henry George's concept of "land" is similar to the concept of "Unicorn," a figment of human imagination. Just because a concept exists in people's head doesn't mean it has a corresponding existence in reality. There is no such thing in reality as a piece of land without improvement. "Land" and "improvement" are always inter-related, and only "land with improvement" can be transacted; the very first improvement on a piece of land is actually "land survey," which was the professional occupation of George Washington, who became the richest man in America doing that job.

Patrick says

You always have incentive to build improvements on land under Georgism because improvements never raise your taxes, unlike under the current "property tax" system which does penalize you for improvements.

Yes, but what you are proposing is sales should be bases on land value only. They can't sell the house on it. Or at least, can't be compensated for the house.

This is why Georgist taxation formulas are calculated by the difference between improved land and unimproved land on the lot.

Reality says

So let's assume someone owns that swamp, he builds some road on it; i.e. entirely improvement on his own land

The normal situation is that the government builds the road with tax dollars, and the owners of land near the road reap the increase in land value caused by the road without any increase in taxes.

"Unimproved land" doesn't usually exist within 100 miles of any metropolitan center. Almost all land where the overwhelming majority of people live are heavily improved even if an empty lot: lot leveling, swamp-/river-/lake-filling etc.. Can't even have the land described in deed records to record the original transaction deed "creating" the particular piece of land without surveying, which is a very expensive process.

Reality says

Let's take the DC swamp example. When it is a swamp, the land value is negligible, so almost no property tax. Every piece of land's title derives from the title of a larger piece of land before division, tracing all the way back to initial conquest. So let's assume someone owns that swamp, he builds some road on it; i.e. entirely improvement on his own land, so he and his helpers can move around and more people can live on it. However, because that's entirely improvement on his own land, there should not be any tax increase. Someone might be willing to pay more for the land but that's because of his improvement. Then he divides the parcel into two pieces, each with a road connecting to its border due to existing road that he built. Now the each of the two pieces of land is worth more than half of the original because there is road next to it? But that road was improvement built on the land before division! What I'm getting at is that, Henry George's concept of "land" is like the concept of "Unicorn," a figment of human imagination. There is no such thing in reality as a piece of land without improvement. "Land" and "improvement" are always inter-related, and only "land with improvement" can be transacted; the very first improvement on a piece of land is actually "land survey," which was the professional occupation of George Washington, who became the richest man in America doing that job.

In the present day, this is nothing but an edge case. This argument is however highly pertinent to, say, cities under the sea, or Mars colonization, where "land" is created ex nihilo.

Every piece of land is fundamentally "created" ex-nihilo if we trace back in time far enough (not in terms of earth formation, but in terms of human work done to survey and divide up existing plots of land into smaller plots). The Georgist idea seems to assign zero value to parcel creation. If a government hires contractors to build roads, the money usually comes from taxing the property owners along the roads and from gasoline tax. Nowadays however, most new roads are built by developers, who not only have to build the road using money from home buyers in the development (or borrowed from bank to be paid back by the home buyers) but also have to form HOA's for road maintenance so that the town/city governments don't have to pay for the road maintenance.

Once again we can see here land being transacted would be land+improvement if anyone buys a building lot in that development, and the landowner ends up being taxed for improvement.

I admit I need to read more about Georgism. I'm certain all these issues have been discussed to death, but I don't yet know the details.

The fundamentals are clear to me though.

- Land value is primarily driven by the density of people living nearby.
- No one created land, so no one has the right to profit from merely owning land.
- Taxing work and commerce discourage work and commerce. We want the opposite of that.
- Taxing land does not discourage land production, because there isn't any. (Barring edge cases.)
- Land cannot be moved or hidden like other forms of wealth can, so a land tax is efficient that way.
- Eliminating income tax and sales tax also eliminates a massive paperwork burden, benefitting the economy.
- Land records are public, so everyone should be able to see all taxes paid under a Georgist system.
- Hong Kong has a partial land value tax, and it works well there.

Hongkong was/is a disaster as far as housing is concerned: the average housing unit floor area is 430sqft, and the average price is 23x median income.

IMHO, Georgism is a tool for extracting maximum rent from inhabitants of an area for merely existing to subsidize globalist traders/bankers. Under the government land auctions at extremely high prices (as a way of funding government through land sales, i.e. Georgism), the oligopolistic developers were used as a conduit for sucking home-buyers and renters dry and send the money out to the global banking system. Even then, eventually they had to introduce income tax, welfare, subsidized housing, etc. before handing it back to the communists to let them kill bank account holders (and prevent too many people cashing out of the housing value bubble). It's not at all a sustainable system.

Reality says

Hongkong was/is a disaster as far as housing is concerned: the average housing unit floor area is 430sqft, and the average price is 23x median income.

IMHO, Georgism is a tool for extracting maximum rent from inhabitants of an area for merely existing to subsidize globalist traders/bankers. Under the government land auctions at extremely high prices, the oligopolistic developers are used as a conduit for sucking home-buyers and renters dry and send the money out to the global banking system.

Then communism came, and well we all see where that's headed.

Misc says

Then communism came, and well we all see where that's headed.

Exactly. Those are unsustainable systems that eventually have to be handed over to Communists / Nazis to kill bank account holders and prevent the people trapped in the bubbles from cashing out.

Reality says

Georgism is a tool for extracting maximum rent from inhabitants of an area for merely existing to subsidize globalist traders/bankers.

That's about as wrong as it is possible to be, imho.

The globalist traders and bankers hate Georgism with a white-hot passion, because it directly threatens their unjustified extraction of rents from the rest of us.

They have spent literally more than 100 years suppressing Georgism for this very reason.

Patrick says

- No one created land, so no one has the right to profit from merely owning land.

This is not true in the case where, as been pointed out, swampland has been drained, or in the case of San Francisco, where the bay was dredged and new land created ex nihilo. This, as I pointed out, is an edge case, and is not applicable to 99+% of land. For that 99+% of viable land that always existed, Georgism is completely appropriate AFAIC.

- Land value is primarily driven by the density of people living nearby.

"Land value" is primarily driven by cash flow the difference between what the owner can generate vs. what the tax is, discounted by current/expected interest rate into a "present value." Population density in Oakland is likely higher than posh parts of SFBA, but the land value is lower; if rent collection is stopped altogether either due to regulation or crime, local land value may well fall to Detroit level regardless population density.

- No one created land, so no one has the right to profit from merely owning land.

No one created atoms either, then how can anyone have the right to profit from owning anything? The answer is that everything we own (or worth owning) is an amalgamation of what is available from nature and what is the result of human labor. Georgist entirely natural "land" doesn't exist as a transactable item. Every piece of land that can be transacted has at least been surveyed, and in 90+% cases have been improved through leveling, filling, draining, fenced, etc.. Denying those improvements in land transactions (even with no house sitting on it) is like saying every word in a novel is from a public domain dictionary of common vocabulary therefore the person arranging the words into a presentable form should have no right to sell copyright; or the person selling an apple has no right to collect money because apple just grows on trees and both the atoms in the apple and the water making the apple grow come from the sky. Beyond surveying (or paying for the survey by previous owner), owners of even empty land plot serve a very important function of maintaining land (e.g. thinning over-growth, flood prevention, keeping vagrants off land, keeping dumping away from land, etc..; on top of paying property tax for years and mortgage too if borrowing money)

- Taxing work and commerce discourage work and commerce. We want the opposite of that.

I agree that taxing work should be avoided. Some of the tax on work however is couched in terms of insurance (e.g. social security tax). Regarding taxing commerce, that is quite a different issue when the topic is international commerce: there seems to be a trend pushing the world towards non-local economy, making every region dependent on imports from far places in order to survive. The official reason cited used to be preventing wars . . . however, recent experience seems to indicate the real game is round-robin starvation / freezing of different regions so the banksters can kill bank account holders easily and keep their money or promised pension / annuity etc.. That's why I think federal tax on imports to compensate the social impact of destroying local producers is quite fair.

- Taxing land does not discourage land production, because there isn't any. (Barring edge cases.)

Transactable land is created by human effort, and even most new roads are built by developers (who expect to be paid by home buyers). A Georgist tax system would make housing much much more expensive, literally sucking dry the middle class and working class . . . all for what? to subsidize the globalists and banksters in the name of "free trade"? Look at that century-old cartoon (early in this thread) of Henry George riding on the horse named "Free Trade," it's quite clear by now that George was promoted by the globalists and international bankers, whose game is a locust-like operation sucking each region dry and moving on. That is not justice by any stretch of imagination. Today it's the hapless citizens of Hong Kong, Ukraine and Israel; tomorrow can be us!

- Land cannot be moved or hidden like other forms of wealth can, so a land tax is efficient that way.

Land can not be moved, but assessing value of Georgist "land" (as opposed to transactable land with human improvement already included) is not only difficult but impossible.

- Eliminating income tax and sales tax also eliminates a massive paperwork burden, benefitting the economy.

The impossible task of deriving Georgist "land" value (different from transactable land with human improvement already included) can be extremely labor intensive, politically driven and highly corrupt.

- Land records are public, so everyone should be able to see all taxes paid under a Georgist system.

The amount of property tax disputes are already mushrooming when the rates are 1-2%; if it's raised to near full use value (i.e. somewhere 5-10% current land price, but will change to nearly 100% of land value if a Georgist tax is introduced as land value drops towards zero; see my answer to the first line above, and see the miles of abandoned Detroit homes for real life example what it's like when annual tax due approaches rent), it will be chaos and very little tax will be collected.

The globalist traders and bankers hate Georgism with a white-hot passion,

The outposts they build all over the world seem to embrace Georgist tax systems: HK and Dubai through a land auction system (i.e. eventually the outpost will be handed over to barbarians, in order to remove the liabilities/account-holders after the international banking cartel operation leaves), Singapore through a 10% property tax system, etc..

Then in that 19th century cartoon of Henry George as St. George slaying the dragon (also posted early in this thread), the horse he rides on is named "Free Trade."

The globalists were pushing Georgism as a way for replacing tariffs.

That Georgism sounds familiar:

A Duke owns a whole county in England.
Each person who has a home or a shop on the Duke's land pays rent to the Duke. Every shopkeeper, thatched hut owner, farmer, or blacksmith, et al, pays rent based on the size and value of the plot under the house or business.

No, it's exactly the opposite.

The Duke has to pay a land value tax which completely eliminates his unjustified land rents.

Reality says

Oakland is likely higher than posh parts of SFBA, but the land value is lower

OK, it's more like the "dollar density", but the point remains that the value of land is proportional to the number of people around.

Reality says

No one created atoms either, then how can anyone have the right to profit from owning anything?

You have the right to profit from the work you do, and that profit should be entirely untaxed to encourage productive work.

But you do not have the right to profit from merely owning land, because you did not produce it. (Again, barring the edge case of created land.)

Patrick says

No, it's exactly the opposite.

The Duke has to pay a land value tax which completely eliminates his unjustified land rents.

No, substitute government for the Duke. The government has taken over the role of collecting rents under the same system used by the Duke.

That Duke was literally the county government. In the long run, the cost of maintaining bureaucrats and retired bureaucrats in the same county is likely much higher than what the Duke collected.

The communist approach gets even more expensive: instead of letting locals elect/select people to fill those bureaucratic positions, they would assign officials from a central roster far away from the county, to ensure the officials' absolute loyalty to the central government, so the officials would literally starve locals to death in order to take their food to the central government for export (aka Holodomor in the USSR under Stalin and Great-Leap-Forward in Maoist China).

Reality says

Regarding taxing commerce, that is quite a different issue when the topic is international commerce: there seems to be a trend pushing the world towards non-local economy, making every region dependent on imports from far places in order to survive.

I agree. Georgism is about an individual nation's tax system. Once you cross borders, you cannot assume the same rules apply. So many arguments for Georgism include an argument for tariffs.

Reality says

A Georgist tax system would make housing much much more expensive, literally sucking dry the middle class and working class

The overall tax burden should be lower under Georgism, because there would be no income tax or sales tax, or the systems involved to collect them.

You would also have the easy ability to adjust how much tax you pay by using less land, or less valuable land.

Reality says

The impossible task of deriving Georgist "land" value (different from transactable land with human improvement already included) can be extremely labor intensive, politically driven and highly corrupt.

I asked a Georgist about this at a meeting in SF, and his solution is that the tax should not be set by any bureaucrat, but simply bid on, letting the market determine the tax rate. That was Ingo Bischoff, who died recently:

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/exclusive-interviews/anthony-wile-ingo-bischoff-on-why-a-land-tax-is-good-what-austrians-don39t-understand-about-real-bills-and-the-enduring-popularity-of-henry-george/

You have the right to profit from the work you do, and that profit should be entirely untaxed to encourage productive work.

In order for an artist to profit from displaying his sculpture or paint, he is also taking up the atoms that make up the sculpture or paint. He did not create those atoms.

But you do not have the right to profit from merely owning land, because you did not produce it. (Again, barring the edge case of created land.)

The current owner paid the previous owner, who (after some recursive steps) paid for the original case of whoever created the land. If the current owner surveys and divides his land into two pieces, then he literally is the creator of at least one of the parcels. What is property right if we can not have ownership over what we paid for?

Reality says

Land can not be moved, but assessing value of Georgist "land" (as opposed to transactable land with human improvement already included) is not only difficult but impossible.

It's simple if you just let people bid on it.

Reality says

see the miles of abandoned Detroit homes for real life example what it's like when annual tax due approaches rent

Detroit home abandonment is from the insanely high levels of violent crime and nothing else.

They would be bidding on the improvement in addition to the Georgist theoretical land. Without original survey, they would have nothing to bid on. Without years of defense against vagrants and trash dumpers, once again they would have nothing to bid on. That's assuming there is no structure sitting on the land, and no filling, leveling or draining of any kind (90+% of land in transactions have those physical improvements even when no building structure is present).

Reality says

Hongkong was/is a disaster as far as housing is concerned: the average housing unit floor area is 430sqft, and the average price is 23x median income.

Hong Kong has/had a much lower income tax rate than we do because so much of their revenue comes from the land tax instead.

This led to the explosion in commerce which makes Hong Kong so desirable as a place to live.

Violence drives out rent-paying renters and owner-occupants, but owners (who are not residents) abandon the place because tax being too high relative to rent cash flow.

Hong Kong was prosperous because it was the sole trading post between a closed communist China and the western world. The communist regime literally bought medicine and necessary industrial material through Hong Kong while the regime was fighting UN/Americans in Korea; the sanction-busters made good money on both sides. Millions of refugees fleeing communist oppression also provided the labor force for 1950's-70's small electronics manufacturing. The post-1980's financialization of Hong Kong might have been attractive to international hot money seeking relative tax haven (and almost guaranteed ability to buy and then sell condos for profit if getting out early enough), it's not a model we in the US can embrace as a country unless you are planning on moving somewhere else in a few decades when the bubble bursts and let communists take over the US (which may well be a valid description of what's happening now! LOL!)

HK, Dubai and Singapore show that a Georgist tax system would not result in workers retaining more of their income as disposable income every month. In a Georgist high housing cost system, the government (and the banksters) get another two trounches of middle class income through the housing value bubble/bust, and financing. The housing market becomes a giant pyramid scheme that everyone is forced into paying, and enjoy much worse housing conditions. Moving into ever higher high rises (in order to reduce per unit land use) also brings significant safety risks in case of fire or planes flying off-course. Notice, despite HK average housing unit floor area is 430sqft, most of HK land is not developed! Thanks to Georgist land restrictions/high prices.

@Patrick,

Just came across this from Sam Altman, and I thought of you and Henry George. I think you will love his proposal.

This may come as a surprise to some, but I’m all for it if it works. As I previously mentioned, we are only on this earth for a brief moment. I just want my stay to be as enjoyable as possible rather than being a wage slave. 😂

Here’s my belief. The establishment will not allow it to happen. They hate Trump; they hate Elon; and they will hate Sam Altman. The wealthy and powerful people will not allow for their control to be taken away and assets to be taxed away.

Have fun reading.

https://moores.samaltman.com/

Eman says

Patrick,

Just came across this from Sam Altman, and I thought of you and Henry George. I think you will love his proposal.

This may come as a surprise to some, but I’m all for it if it works. As I previously mentioned, we are only on this earth for a brief moment. I just want my stay to be as enjoyable as possible rather than being a wage slave. 😂

Here’s my belief. The establishment will not allow it to happen. They hate Trump; they hate Elon; and they will hate Sam Altman. The wealthy and powerful people will not allow for their control to be taken away and assets to be taxed away.

Have fun reading.

https://moores.samaltman.com/

Ghostwritten. Probably AI written. And he totally ignores the Apportionment Clause problem. But most Georgists do.

But pretty good.

This part sums it all up:

Even more power will shift from labor to capital. If public policy doesn’t adapt accordingly, most people will end up worse off than they are today

Vyrdism is more of an answer than Georgism, at this point.

https://futuristech.info/posts/opinion-why-i-am-pro-vyrdism-and-not-pro-universal-basic-income-ubi

Eman says

Just came across this from Sam Altman

This reminds me of "Picnic on Nearside" by John Varley. It has a collection of stories that take place in a future similar to what Sam Altman describes.

I still like Georgism, but I'm horrified by UBI, which will definitely be used to starve people who object to total state control over their lives.

Vyrdism sounds interesting, but what is it exactly?

Patrick says

I still like Georgism, but I'm horrified by UBI, which will definitely be used to starve people who object to total state control over their lives.

Vyrdism sounds interesting, but what is it exactly?

Article gets into depth about it.

But basically, you to take something like UBI, pool it with others in a cooperative that invests and utilize productive assets - automated as possible. Or invest in it directly.

UBI— fine, all's well. I'm all for it. Then automation cleans up the rest. That means that your only source of income is UBI.

The State doles that out, so you always have to be cool with the State, lest they take away your UBI. The State has always been run by the bourgeoisie— those with wealth— so it's by their own grace that you're actually paid. "Unconditional" is the worst possible word to describe basic income. Your life is now reduced to whatever the State and those who own the State decide it's worth.

If you do anything they don't like, they'll take it away. That's why "unconditional" is the worst possible word to use— nothing is unconditional. It's a blatant lie to get people to sign onto it.

The only way UBI would "empower" people would be if the people used it to empower themselves, particularly by pooling capital to buy ownership of the machines. UBI by itself doesn't empower anyone. It actually makes you even less empowered because you're now dependent on a central body.

See how people can get fired over something they said on Facebook? Imagine a situation similar to that, except even worse. If you hold the wrong opinions, buy the wrong things, say the wrong things, who knows, there goes your "unconditional" basic income.

Think of it this way: What would you call it if I were a heavily automated nation's richest man and I gave out money to everyone in that nation every month? All goods and capital go through me first, and I pay out as I see fit. Everyone gets a certain amount of money.

You wouldn't call that "basic income". You'd call that an autocratic dictatorship. If I find you did something wrong, I could punish you by withholding your income.

If I tell you to do something, and you don't do it, I punish you by taking away your income.

If I tell you to support me, and you support the opposition, I punish you by taking away your income.

If I tell you that 2+2=5 and you tell me it equals 4, I punish you by taking away your income.

What can you do to resist? Nothing. That income was your last hope to survive, and you blew it.

"But what if we haven't automated everything yet and I can still work?"

Oh, joys! Because now I can turn you into a debt-slave.

I give you basic income, and you disobey my laws, social order, and will? I take away your basic income— then demand you pay me back, with interest. You now have even less money than you started with. You don't pay me on time, I raise the interest rates. You're now indebted to me.

That's why it should never be seen as an ends to itself. It's a means, and only ever should be a means. That's why I support Vyrdism and technostism.

Technostism is just the word that describes an automated society. A technostistic society is one that actively automates labor, and a technostist is a person who actively seeks automation.

I am a technostist— I want to automate away as many jobs as possible, and I will do whatever I can to make sure jobs are automated. I am also a Singularitarian and national-transhumanist, which means I want to keep humans as far away from any new jobs as well.

So it's obvious that Grade-IV Automation will unemploy a lot of people. That's why I'm a Vyrdist— I feel we should own that automation, have it do our drudgery and labor, profiting off the technotariat. I'd like to go further into what Vyrdism entails, but right now I'm just trying to point out the flaws in thinking UBI will save us— it won't. At best, it's a means to an end, and that end is, in fact, Vyrdism.

What did I mean up there by 'Grade-IV Automation?' I believe there are multiple grades of automation:

• Grade-I is tool usage in general, from hunter-gatherer/scavenger tech all the way up to the pre-industrial age.


• Grade-II is the usage of physical automation, such as looms, spinning jennies, and tractors. This is what the Luddites feared.


• Grade-III is the usage of digital automation, such as personal computers, calculators, robots, and basically anything we in the modern age take for granted. This age will last a bit longer into the future, though the latter ends of it have spooked quite a few people.


• Grade-IV is the usage of mental automation, and this is where things change. This is where we finally see artificial general intelligence, meaning that one of our tools has become capable of creating new tools on its own.

AI will become capable of learning new tasks much more quickly than humans and can instantly share its newfound knowledge with any number of other AI-capable machines connected to its network. It is with this advancement and Grade-IV automation that technostism, and thus Vyrdism, become possible (and indeed, naturally begin occurring).

Example:

Meet Joshua. Joshie-boy is an anarchist who's been working at McDonalds. He fought for a $15 minimum wage way back in the prehistoric year of 2016 and got his wish. In the futuristic space year of 2026, he got the pink slip— the manager of his chain replaced all the workers with machines to save money. Luckily, the USA passed an ordinance that made UBI the law of the land back in 2025. Conservatives and liberals came to a compromise that, as long as all other welfare schemes were dropped and many regulations were ended, UBI would be granted. So even though Josh is now unemployed, he's still receiving a paycheck. That's nice. Good for him. He's still going to find another job though, right?

Well, not really. He's decided that he does not like the bourgeoisie at all, and will now use his basic income grant to keep him afloat while he protests the Man and the free market. That's all well and good. His roommate begs him to join a worker cooperative down the lane— in fact, a technate. However, Josh resists, figuring that it's still just a part of the capitalist system.

So, when he attends a protest, the government notes this and disimburses his basic income. Now, not only is he not receiving a basic income, but he's also indebted to the State. And guess what— since machines are starting to take over all the jobs, there's no way for him to pay off this debt. He could go to school, educate himself, learn how to repair the machines and whatnot... except the machines are learning how to do that too, and much faster than he can.

Game over. He's now property of the State. The Karma Police will be coming to collect him and seize his assets; he'll be relocated to a debtor's camp to work off what he owes.

Whoops.

Compare this to if Josh had joined that technate, a bunch of people who owned their own droids and held shares in other technates. He receives a seed loan to introduce him to the technate, which his droids eventually pay off, ultimately welcoming him into the technate as a full fledged networker. Now his paycheck comes off of actual robotic labor. He can even purchase more droids for himself and increase his net worth. And it doesn't matter if the State takes away his basic income— that isn't even a hundredth of his total income.

It turns out this technate is part of a very large federation. Several networkers had used the basic income they received to buy droids or start businesses, which then joined the technate federation. Cooperatives also took advantage of this. 50 million Americans are part of the federation— they actually have power; they have control over their lives; they are living comfortably, if not better than ever. They don't have to answer to any central figure at the top. If they break a law, too bad, they still get their monies. The Worker Cooperative Federation succeeds in actually lifting millions out of poverty, while UBI succeeds in putting millions back in it.

It's the difference between wealth creation vs. wealth redistribution. Decentralization vs. centralization.

Basically in that example, you are a pimp who gets his hoes to generate money for you. Only the hoes are AI agents (physical or purely digital) of some sort. You join a cooperative much like medieval craftsmen and merchants joined guilds, to get economies of scale, political protection, etc.