The problem of Capitalism

Some Hong Kong, please, where land isn't privately owned. This time with the full rental value being required as payment for the lease. The government acting as trustee (as bringiton said).

"Virtually all land in Hong Kong is leased or otherwise held from the Government of the HKSAR."
https://www.legco.gov.hk/research-p...1617ise07-land-tenure-system-in-hong-kong.htm

 

Answer: You don't make something yours by "mixing your labor" with it. You make something yours by purchasing it from someone.

 

Tell that to the Irish in the 19th century who had to give up the fruits of their labor in return for nothing, and had no more to eat than to keep them energetic enough to keep on working while the landlords took the food as rent payments. Then the potato crops started to fail and millions of Irish people starved to death. There was enough food being produced to keep them fed, but it was taken away from them without reciprocation; they apparently had no rights to the land and thus no property rights to the fruits of their labor and had to starve to death like the landless garbage they were, right?

 

I agree. "Mixing labor with land" is a silly concept anyways.

Buying is merely a way of obtaining ownership but CANNOT justify the ownership. Morally justifiable property rights CANNOT have as their basis that whatever is owned has been bought, as already proven in this thread by means of reductio ad absurdum. Remember?

 

Are you trying to say that they were slaves?

 

So anyone can use any land they choose any time they choose. That sounds like chaos.

 

Bollocks!

A monopoly can only be attained by a supplier in a market-economy. The fact that you buy a piece of land does not make you a MONOPOLIST. Just, perhaps, a homeowner.

Definition of "monopoly: "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service."

Wakey, wakey ...

 

Ignoratio elenchi fallacy. You claimed owning land and owning slaves are in no way similar. I gave you an example how they can be eerily similar with regards to the effect on the victims.

 

So who did actually own the land in Ireland?

 

Every piece of land has unique economically relevant properties. Most important of which is: LOCATION. Every landowner is the sole seller of his unique "commodity".

Please do.

 

The original question is irrelevant.

The pertinent "economic-question" is "what is the nature of Income Disparity in any economy?"

And, in the US, it is the worst of any developed nation. All other conclusion regarding a market-economy is not relevant. What is of capital-importance is how the wealth of the nation, which is developed communally, is shared amongst those who Demand goods&services. That share out cannot be equal for all, but neither must it be wholly unfair.

The device that economist apply to understand the comparative sharing is called the Gini Coefficient/Index. Which I have already posted in this discussion. (Here it is again.)

From Investopedia:

 

A mixture of Irish landlords and Anglo-Irish absentee landlords, if I remember correctly. It doesn't matter who owned it. Owning it is what made whoever owned it able to take the fruits of labor of the landless Irish without reciprocation (The land would be there anyways).

 

So they didn't provide land in exchange for rent paid, like any landlord?

 

More blah-bla-blah...

 

Nope. They didn't "provide" any land. They threatened to DENY them ACCESS to what was already there (land) and effectively turned the landless into their slaves by forcing to give them to give up all the food they produced above the subsistence level (cannot work them otherwise), if they desired to live. Then the potato crops started to fail, which was the landless most important source of sustenance, and they starved to death in the millions. There was more than enough food. But apparently the landlord who didn't provide the land had more rights to the fruits of the landless' labor than they themselves had.

 

How about you take people off your ignore list so that you can see who I'm quoting and responding to?

 

You are trying to employ a well-known and employed economic term in a context to which it was never intended.

Which happens all the time in the US when people think - as on TV - that language is just a game that can be played anyway intended so long as it's "amusing".

Except, in this case, you are mucking-about with a "science" called Economics 101 ... ....

 

So, in your opinion, who should control the land?

 

Some people MUST HAVE THE LAST WORD.

Gotzilla has had his. Does he feel better now ... ?

 

And so long as the IQ of the news anchors at Fox News remains at this chick's level, I think we will be stuck with that Gini disparity in the US for some time yet...

https://twitter.com/McGaucho/status/1166046941559570433?s=20

 

Which one? Is it "economic relevance", "commodity"? Doesn't change all that much. I can call [owning] land "service" (not denying access to the land, "providing" the land, or other such "services") instead of "commodity", if that's your issue. I'm not at fault for disingenuous definitions which pretend that everything can be a monopoly except for what CANNOT be increased in supply, like land, which should be the first thing which we refer to as "monopoly" when owned. Every piece of land is unique in location. It cannot be moved. Supply cannot be increased. It meets all the necessary criteria, for any rational person that is, to classify ownership of it as monopoly.

Did you know that there used to be land "patents"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_patent

You don't know where I'm from. You don't even know if I'm debating you in my native tongue.

 

If "economically relevant" was your issue; I never looked that term up. I rely on fluid thinking a lot and every now and then I notice I put together words that resemble an already defined term, which doesn't negate what I tried to communicate with the words.

So, if that was your issue, then it's just a simple misunderstanding.

 

"ROBINSON CRUSOE, as we all know, took Friday as his slave. Suppose, however, that instead of taking Friday as his slave, Robinson Crusoe had welcomed him as a man and a brother; had read him a Declaration of Independence, an Emancipation Proclamation and a Fifteenth Amendment, and informed him that he was a free and independent citizen, entitled to vote and hold office; but had at the same time also informed him that that particular island was his (Robinson Crusoe's) private and exclusive property. What would have been the difference? Since Friday could not fly up into the air nor swim off through the sea, since if he lived at all he must live on the island, he would have been in one case as much a slave as in the other. Crusoe's ownership of the island would be equivalent of his ownership of Friday." - Henry ...w




.

 

Nice dodge attempt. Thank you for admitting that you are unwilling to discuss the moral justification for property. Whatever is bought is morally rightfully owned. It gives quite a deep look into your moral compass, Longshot, so don't give us any more grief when we point out what your moral basis for property would justify.

 

If Uncle Sam Crusoe (or anybody's uncle) owned and administered all of the land the then the people would be slaves to government and dependent on government's benevolence.

Ido have some sympathy for your and @bringiton's ideas, I find your solutions worse than the current system of taxation.

As you say, each parcel of land has it's own unique qualities. Buyers/owners/renters are also unique and each have their unique desires and willingness to pay for land. This makes market value assessment extremely difficult and notoriously inaccurate. Fairness in taxation would be difficult.