Capitalism is economic tyranny Socialism is economic democracy.

How can China and HK prove the Geoist system is successful while having the the worlds most severe income inequality among the population
Dying to hear this

 

Republicans close their eyes to corporate greed

 

1) No private sector, you said. And capped profits for Govt owned everything. Good luck with that. You'll be bankrupt in no time, and everyone will starve.

2) What 'approved companies'? You said no private sector. And even if some were allowed, if there's no profit in it no one will bother. Again, enjoy your starvation.

3) Demanding everyone has cheap housing within 30 minutes of their job, is the most absurd idea you've put forward yet. Try doing that in a big city. Furthermore, the LUXURY comes in being close to work. No one is magically entitled to that just for existing, even if such a thing were actually possible (and it isn't, obviously).

 

ah, so it's not an actual physical phenomenon that we can identify, but rather a vague feeling u got.

Enjoy.

 

Trump tax cuts for the corps, his only major bill passed, citizens united, need I say more

 

Now this sounds like a contradiction.

Before u say "greedy Corporatism is what is gonna bring us down", and now u say "citizens united, need I say more". So which is it, corporate greed brings us down or do we got citizens united nothing else to say?

 

those are what republicans supported, both of them

 

That's easy: they don't:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

HK is #9, China #70. The USA is #48. Almost all of the 40 most unequal are poor capitalist countries in Africa and Latin America where privileged, parasitic private landowners dominate all aspects of government and the economy. Income inequality is high in HK because a lot of rich people want to live there because of the low taxes, and a lot of poor, unskilled workers from bastions of landowner privilege like the Philippines and Bangladesh want to live there to get access to better economic opportunity.

In wealth inequality, neither China nor HK makes the top 10, which are almost all in Africa:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wealth-inequality-by-country

There is no separate entry for HK, but China (38.5) is comfortably below the USA (41.4) in wealth inequality. Given that the top and bottom countries are at 63 and 24.6, a difference of 3 in China's favor is substantial.

The more important point, of course, is that inequality per se is not a valid measure of any economic system's success or failure. Increase in median income, nutritional status, healthy life expectancy, education, infant survival, and other measures of human development are far more important. On all these measures, despite their imperfections, China and HK prove the superiority of the geoist system over capitalism: though people in rich capitalist countries are still well off, they are not getting better off very fast if at all; and people in poor capitalist countries have almost all been staying poor.

Injustice is the problem, not inequality, and geoist systems are inherently far more just than capitalist ones.

 

That is just baldly false. The standard left wing swill is socialist, and I have showed why socialism is even worse than capitalism. You will search in vain for analysis like mine in any standard left wing socialist source.

So in effect, you admit that I demolished you, and you have no answers.

 

Greed inherently enters the equation in every case that privileges -- landowning, fractional reserve banking, IP monopolies, etc. -- are part of the equation.

Which is the point of privilege: others cannot compete.

They don't have to turn out any items at all if they own privileges, just charge producers the going rate for their legally required permission.

 

Thanks for making my point with your chart

 

ahh, had to do some research on "Citizens United". This is a lot of work to follow.

 

$$$ is free speech was all them, that is why so much money in politics now

 

China has a capitalist economy. Where have you been? Mao was replaced a long time ago. Nobody has proved anything to me. Sorry.

 

I don't think it does. I certainly don't.

 

No, that's just more absurd, anti-rational, and disingenuous garbage from you. Labor is powerless to produce anything at all without natural resources, including a location at which to labor. You know this. Why are you pretending that you do not? And in any but the most primitive conditions, labor must also use the products of previous labor: producer goods. You know that, too. The whole difference between capitalism and socialism is precisely in who owns the natural resources (which classical economics called, "land") and producer goods ("capital") that labor uses to produce goods and services.

More garbage. Until a few hundred years ago, no one ever "owned their innovations" -- and if they had, we would still be living in caves. Being able to use other people's ideas and discoveries freely has been crucial to human progress for millions of years, and it is the modern legal privilege of "owning" innovations that is the real tyranny.

And labor cannot be "owned" at all, as it does not exist except in the moment it is performed. What is rightly owned is the fruits of one's labor.

Clear?

No, socialism ends in famine, starvation or genocide because the productive are denied private ownership of both the producer goods they need to produce and the products their labor produces.

So everyone is free to exercise their natural individual right to liberty to survive and thrive, as they have been doing for millions of years. Right.

That will be news to all the great scientists, artists and innovators of history who never had any intellectual property in their ideas. As Boldrin and Levine demonstrated conclusively in "Against Intellectual Monopoly," patent monopolies stifle innovation. Real innovators want others to use and benefit from their ideas.

More garbage without evidence of fact or logic.

Yes they do.

Just as when you could own other people's rights to liberty with slave deeds, you could use your experience of being a slave to become a slave owner yourself. The fact that you can legally buy others' rights to liberty from their owners does not make you their rightful owner.

Clear?

Exactly. They don't understand the producer's contractual role -- his labor -- in deciding to produce a given product or service and implementing that decision by bringing the factors of production to bear.

It most certainly is: the landowner is legally entitled to charge others full market value merely for his permission for them to work, shop, access public services and infrastructure, etc. He contributes nothing, and others must hand over their wages to him. He is a legalized thief, plain and simple. How could his stealing from people not impoverish them? We see the proof of it every day: homelessness is landlessness.

GARBAGE. Landowners have been starving landless working people to death for thousands of years, since long before skills ever changed or workers had to adapt. Read "Progress and Poverty" and get a clue.

More garbage. Capitalism -- private landowning -- starved billions of people to death before there was ever any such things as corporations.

That is baldly false. The privileged own others' rights to liberty, whether through slave deeds, land deeds, bank licenses, IP monopolies, or ownership of any other privilege that legally imposes a requirement to pay for the owner's permission to do what one would otherwise have been perfectly at liberty to do.

Refuted above.

 

Nope. Geoist. All land and natural resources are publicly owned. That is by definition not capitalism, which requires private ownership of the means of production: producer goods and natural resources.

Where have you been?

China ceased to be socialist a few years after the reforms of Deng Xiaoping. It has since then been geoist, roughly on the HK model.

Yes I have. And I just proved something else to you, above. You just refuse to know facts when you realize that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

 

Making a profit enters the equation.

And yet they do. Look around.

] This makes no sense.

 

So, no top level government control, and no market control? How the hell is an economy going to function.

In effect you admit that your reading comprehension is as shaky as your economic comprehension.

 

Sorry, but this reads like some woke junior high school kid's Plan for the World. Try reading something with some basis in fact and logic, like Progress and Poverty, instead of whatever silly Marxist tripe you've been wallowing in. You could do a lot worse than reading all my posts in this forum to get an idea of what reasoned and informed opinion looks like.

 

Profit is just revenue less expenses, and has no economic meaning. It can be earned by productive contribution or just taken by legalized stealing.

Not unless they pay the privileged who own their rights to liberty for permission.

True, but that is how it works: if you want to produce anything, you have to pay the privileged who own your rights to liberty for permission.

Look around.

 

Capitalism is best
But, it does require controls.
Controls against monopolies, and market manipulation
which defeat the values of a free market system.

Did I type slow enough for y'all?


Moi

​

 

No, public administration of what is rightly public -- mostly natural resources, natural monopolies, and democratically chosen public services and infrastructure -- and private administration of what is rightly private: mostly the fruits of private labor.

Better than under capitalism -- and far better than under socialism. See HK and China.

I scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal. So, no.

 

Capitalism is by definition inherently incompatible with a free market.
Proof:
Capitalism by definition requires private ownership of the means of production: natural resources and producer goods.
Private ownership of natural resources inherently removes everyone else's liberty rights to use those resources, forcing them to subsidize the resource owners by paying them just for permission to do what they would otherwise have been perfectly at liberty to do.
Forced subsidies by definition cannot exist in a free market.
Q.E.D.

 

I believe you misread my words.
Although I am not a very good author.