But that wouldn't be in a thread on this forum, which proves you lied again. As usual.You'd be able to avoid land tax when, say, talking about the monthly rainfall to Auntie Mildred and her passion for pygmy goats.
Unlike you, I don't devote my life to avoiding, obscuring, dismissing, ignoring and lying about the elephant in the parlor.Butt can you avoid it when referring to economics?
More accurately, there was nothing that merited a response.There was nothing in the quote that you could dismiss.
It is the refusal to know facts about land economics that is non-economic, indeed ANTI-economic.Even attempting to critique would tacitly attack your own non-economic position.
Evil exists, and most of it is caused by government policies that "modern" economists have lied to excuse, rationalize and justify. "Modern" economics's pretense of being descriptive and not normative is therefore an absurd, outrageous lie. Being willing to know and to identify facts about evil may strike you as childish, but I suspect you actually know you are serving the greatest evil that has ever existed -- forcible removal of the right to liberty through appropriation of natural resources as property -- and your consistent dishonesty whenever facts about land economics are mentioned is simply a psychological defense mechanism deployed to allow you not to commit suicide.You don't like modern economics because it renders your position as more than obsolete; it comes across as child-like as you emotively rant about evil this and evil that.
More accurately, as a socialist you have to pretend capital is land in order to justify stealing capital (and the consequent mega-deaths). That requires refusing to know the fact that land is different from capital.As a socialist I have no time for such mindless morality tantrum.
But refuse to know their cause -- forcible removal of people's opportunity to produce without supporting a greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning overclass -- and therefore their remedy.Take capitalism. Do I present argument against the social inequalities? Certainly!
But more importantly, to evade the links between liberty, justice and prosperity.But the subsequent analysis is focused on the employer and employee, using modern economics to appreciate the links between efficiency and equity.
It's not mindless: that is in fact what those who oppose liberty, justice and truth literally are. Systematic, institutionalized evil cannot exist without them. I strongly urge you to watch, "Judgment at Nuremberg" and try to learn the lesson it has for you.I have no need to mindlessly call people liars and supporters of evil.
How true!!Political economy deserves better!
But of you, not me.
It's not always about land, so you can stop lying.You'd love the world to be consistent with your 'its land, always about land' Georgist bubble.
Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you can't.
The evil and insane "war on drugs" is not about land. The outrageous system of IP monopolies is not about land. The absurd privilege of private banksters to create money in order to charge interest on it is (mostly) not about land.
See how easily I prove you lied?
But virtually all issues related to public revenue, poverty, stagnation, etc. ARE about land, because one must pay a landowner for access to the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical resources nature provides.
No, the error in thought was the assumption that massive, systematic injustice, if given sufficient rationalization by "modern" economics, would somehow not have destructive results.Neo-liberalism has created instabilities and conditions consistent for financial crisis. The error in thought was the belief that it was somehow specific to the developing world (e.g. Debt crisis).
No, it most certainly has not. It has only shown how institutions designed forcibly to remove people's rights to liberty without just compensation have (unsurprisingly) reduced economic well-being.We can show how neo-liberalism has created a result inconsistent with the Ricardian approach to trade: e.g. Even the World Bank has shown how trade has actually reduced economic well-being of Sub-Saharan countries.
Because it runs on land rent.However, as shown by the current crisis (and predicted by both institutionalist analysis and Marxism), the instabilities are much more widespread. The problem is simple: profit opportunity for the financial class is related to increased instability.
ROTLF!! You have the gall to accuse ME of hiding from theory?!?!!? You devote your entire existence to hiding from self-evident and indisputable FACTS.The invisible hand then no longer operates. We instead have the profit motive creating shock and then (as understood by the theory of the firm that you hide from, the problems can be magnified by stagflation)
You misspelled, "lie about," as proved by:I'm always happy to peruse Georgist offering.
See?All the relevant stuff of course is within very specific areas of study, such as side shows within environmental economics.
The GFC proves you wrong.It can't be used to make any sound conclusion for equity concern in a modern economy.
It will be interesting to see how the theory of the firm explains the levels of inequality in places like Pakistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe.We instead have to refer to the political economic study of all economic agents (and includes the likes of the theory of the firm that you hide from)
No, such claims are just absurd. Marxism has never offered any analysis that improved understanding of capitalism, because it is founded on the lie that capital is economically the same as land.That Marxism has been key for our understanding of capitalism is indisputable.
And consequently been completely wrong-headed and irrelevant.Take something like unemployment and efficiency wages. The orthodox analysis involved has 'borrowed' heavily from Marxist output.
Hee-hee. Yes, well, the quantitative theory of epicycles was certainly "vibrant" before Kepler...This made me chuckle, particularly given the vibrancy in quantitative marxism.
True: but you have many ways to be a fool without relying on Marxism to make you one.I'm no Marxist. However, I would be a fool to ignore the political economy involved.
Hee-hee. "Marxism." "Relevant." Nope. I couldn't find a way to put them both in the same sentence.In contrast, because you have nothing but the one dimensional Georgist dogma, you're inherently threatened by relevant schools of thought.
LOL! Yes, I'm sure the "Coasian shift" to claiming that all economic problems are caused by not making everything into private property would churn its legs frantically at all facts of land economics.Of course any knowledge of institutionalism (be it the critique of neoclassical economics or the Coasian shift towards transaction costs) would kick the land obsession in the knackers.
You're just projecting, dear chap.You're just suffering from dissonance dear chap.
Lie. As usual.This sums up the cretinous nature of internet Georgism. There is no understanding of economic relations (here the need for labour economics), there is only emotiveness to footstamp over land. Hell and fire preachers come across as more reasoned.
Or more accurately, it might have been, if they ever had been.Your position was lost once the single tax claims were blown out of the water.
But will not dismiss, ignore, avoid, evade, ridicule, or lie about the crucial facts of economics and objective physical reality.Its obvious that any reasoned analysis into the modern economy will focus on the firm and the worker.
It is impossible to understand the labor market while dismissing, ignoring and evading the fact that the laborer is forcibly deprived of the opportunity to support himself, his family, or society without first supporting a greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning elite.It is our understanding of the labour market that allows us to understand both efficiency and equity issues.
I didn't attack homeownership. You are merely lying again. As usual.Your dogma is obsolete, leading you to make ridiculous claims (such as your desperate attack on home ownership)
You know that I am not. You are just baldly lying again. As usual."Many modern champions of Georgist ideas have withdrawn into a corner, confining themselves to modifying the existing local property tax by exempting businesses"? I can agree with that. Its amusing to me that you're completely reliant on this one paper
Yes, well, the labor theory of value is certainly consistent with the enormous value of raw land, which has had no labor input whatsoever....when, for example, there are dozens on the empirical consistency of the labour theory of value.
Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: it isn't.