There has been a bit of mention of land value taxation in the press recently, though not in any coherent way. In an article in the Guardian a couple of days ago, Prem Sikka, Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex, said, amongst other things, that, "A land value tax should be levied that so that when house and office values increase due to adjacent road, rail and public investment some of the gains are shared with the taxpayer."

It is not clear precisely what Prem Sikka is proposing, but if it is a one-off hit to collect the increases in the selling price of land following investment in infrastructure, it is not what we have in mind. There are many ways of imposing a land value tax. Most of them are unfair, harmful, complex and difficult to administer.

The Tax Justice Network (TJN) is an international consortium of organisations which claim to be concerned about injustices in the tax system. Their main focus has been on tax havens. It should not be difficult to understand that if taxation is levied on people and moveables, then they will move if they can to reduce their tax liability. But suggest to TJN - as many LVT advocates have - that a shift to land value taxation will largely get rid of the problem that they are so concerned about, and the response will be, "we disagree: land value taxes have a role, but only as part of a broader tax system."

People in Britain are literally taxed to death. See the latest from Renegade Economist

In another video in the Renegade Economist series, banker James Robertson makes a scathing criticism of Britain's banking system. He also says a few things about the taxation of land, which those familiar with the theory will realise are not quite right, but these are peripheral to his main message.

It seems as if the world's political leaders are determined to avoid examining the role of the land market in causing the boom/bust, which every day shows signs of being even worse than that of the early 1930s. The technique is to keep on finding excuses and scapegoats. The latest target is tax havens.

Former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has defended his policies against an increasing number of critics who argue they are largely responsible for the current financial and economic crisis. Greenspan, who chaired the US central bank between 1987 and the beginning of 2006, said in today's Wall Street Journal that keeping the so-called federal-funds rate - or overnight lending rate between banks - at historically low levels between 2001 and 2006 should not be blamed for the credit and housing bubble. According to Greenspan, the glut of savings built up by emerging market economies, particularly China, played a much bigger role than the Federal Reserve. By investing much of the savings into bond markets, the former Fed chairman argues, these economies helped keep long-term interest rates - key to the cost of mortgages for US homeowners - at a dangerously low level.

Greenspan is wrong.

Before the Khadi of an Eastern city there came from the desert two torn and bruised travellers.