Thread: Fairness

Originally Posted by Reiver

However, you did cheat.

No, but you did just lie 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.

But that wouldn't be in a thread on this forum, which proves you lied again. As usual.

Butt can you avoid it when referring to economics?

Unlike you, I don't devote my life to avoiding, obscuring, dismissing, ignoring and lying about the elephant in the parlor.

There was nothing in the quote that you could dismiss.

More accurately, there was nothing that merited a response.

Even attempting to critique would tacitly attack your own non-economic position.

It is the refusal to know facts about land economics that is non-economic, indeed ANTI-economic.

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.

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.

As a socialist I have no time for such mindless morality tantrum.

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.

Take capitalism. Do I present argument against the social inequalities? Certainly!

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.

But the subsequent analysis is focused on the employer and employee, using modern economics to appreciate the links between efficiency and equity.

But more importantly, to evade the links between liberty, justice and prosperity.

I have no need to mindlessly call people liars and supporters of evil.

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.

Political economy deserves better!

How true!!

But of you, not me.

You'd love the world to be consistent with your 'its land, always about land' Georgist bubble.

It's not always about land, so you can stop lying.

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.

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, the error in thought was the assumption that massive, systematic injustice, if given sufficient rationalization by "modern" economics, would somehow not have destructive results.

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.

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.

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.

Because it runs on land rent.

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)

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.

I'm always happy to peruse Georgist offering.

You misspelled, "lie about," as proved by:

All the relevant stuff of course is within very specific areas of study, such as side shows within environmental economics.

See?

It can't be used to make any sound conclusion for equity concern in a modern economy.

The GFC proves you wrong.

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)

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.

That Marxism has been key for our understanding of capitalism is indisputable.

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.

Take something like unemployment and efficiency wages. The orthodox analysis involved has 'borrowed' heavily from Marxist output.

And consequently been completely wrong-headed and irrelevant.

This made me chuckle, particularly given the vibrancy in quantitative marxism.

Hee-hee. Yes, well, the quantitative theory of epicycles was certainly "vibrant" before Kepler...

I'm no Marxist. However, I would be a fool to ignore the political economy involved.

True: but you have many ways to be a fool without relying on Marxism to make you one.

In contrast, because you have nothing but the one dimensional Georgist dogma, you're inherently threatened by relevant schools of thought.

Hee-hee. "Marxism." "Relevant." Nope. I couldn't find a way to put them both in the same sentence.

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.

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.

You're just suffering from dissonance dear chap.

You're just projecting, dear chap.

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.

Lie. As usual.

Your position was lost once the single tax claims were blown out of the water.

Or more accurately, it might have been, if they ever had been.

Its obvious that any reasoned analysis into the modern economy will focus on the firm and the worker.

But will not dismiss, ignore, avoid, evade, ridicule, or lie about the crucial facts of economics and objective physical reality.

It is our understanding of the labour market that allows us to understand both efficiency and equity issues.

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.

Your dogma is obsolete, leading you to make ridiculous claims (such as your desperate attack on home ownership)

I didn't attack homeownership. You are merely 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

You know that I am not. You are just baldly lying again. As usual.

when, for example, there are dozens on the empirical consistency of the labour theory of value.

Yes, well, the labor theory of value is certainly consistent with the enormous value of raw land, which has had no labor input whatsoever....

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: it isn't.

Originally Posted by Roy L

No, but you did just lie again. As usual.

What a shame! I was hopinh you could prove me wrong and show a variation in your output that demonstrates a keen awareness of numerous economic issue. Instead you've kept to the one dimensional dodge where you repeatedly make cretinous 'you lie' bluster to avoid reality: your position is indeed wholly reliant on excessive grunt over land tax and subsequent mindless morality humph.

More accurately, there was nothing that merited a response.

I'm happy for you to make these vacuous responses. It is tacit acceptance that you cannot respond. This is of course because you're completely reliant on the Georgist irrelevance, making it impossible for you to consider any economic comment with a resemblance of objective critique.

It is the refusal to know facts about land economics that is non-economic, indeed ANTI-economic.

Its little snippets of obviousness, such as the impossibility of using land obsession to provide an explanation for labour market failure, which ensures that cannot enter any economic debate with the required reservation level of good sense.

Evil exists, and most of it is caused by government policies that "modern" economists have lied to excuse, rationalize and justify

There are two possibilities. Possibility 1: there is a conspiracy in economics such that, even though we are referring to mulktiple schools of thought, they all gang up on the Georgists to negate their importance. Possibility 2: internet Georgists are peddling garbage. Hmm, difficult one!

Being willing to know and to identify facts about evil may strike you as childish

The evil tag is typically used by those incapable of deriving a reasoned argument. It is a most immature attempt at bluster and, on this sub-forum, a means to avoid rational economic comment over efficiency and/or equity.

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.

Just noise and hogwash again! As a socialist I merely need to focus on employer and employee. Understanding the positive relationship between efficiency and equity (distinct from the orthodox belief in a simple reverse relationship) is key. In no way does that confuse capital and land. We do, however, have to refer to problems (such as underpayment) that you cannot explain. Understanding how the firm generates economic rents through inefficient underpayment is always going to be beyond your 'its evil' land rant.

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.

Avoid any comment over taxes. Stick to foot stamping over the war on drugs. You might come across as more reasoned.

But virtually all issues related to public revenue, poverty, stagnation, etc. ARE about land

But only you think that! And of course you then make ridiculous statement, such as your previous accusation that home owners were thieves (despite the desire for home ownership increasing with the risk of poverty)

You have the gall to accuse ME of hiding from theory?!?!!? You devote your entire existence to hiding from self-evident and indisputable FACTS.

Peddling a land rant that ignores modern economics isn't about celebrating facts. At best its an example of dissonance. At worst its cultism, using a dogma to coerce an one dimensional morality preach.

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.

It would refer, for example, how dynamoc comparative advantage is not automatically delivered.

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 integral for our understanding of capitalism is just matter of fact. As I mentioned, even the orthodox economist has to 'borrow' from Marxist analysis to understand empirical phenomena such as mass unemployment.

Hee-hee. "Marxism." "Relevant." Nope. I couldn't find a way to put them both in the same sentence.

Your post has included more immature remark than normal. Its becoming difficult to respond to anything! Try and at least blag argument

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.

Again you've already shown that, when referring to land, you cannot entertain the available labour economics. We saw that with the Oswald hypothesis, used to indicate how an equilibrium unemployment rate can be increasedd by the immobility created through the transaction costs associated with owner occupation.

I didn't attack homeownership.

Crikey, do we have to directly quote you again? The cat is out of the bag. You've made the comments. Yoube tried to backtrack of course. When we do get you to provide something alien to the Georgist script you're prone to ridiculous remark.

Yes, well, the labor theory of value is certainly consistent with the enormous value of raw land

Why do you think that, whilst there are multiple papers providing empirical support for the labour theory of the value, you're reliant on one paper that admits that Georgists have all run off to talk about rather minor issues?

Originally Posted by Reiver

There are two possibilities.

Blatant false dichotomy fallacy.

Possibility 1: there is a conspiracy in economics such that, even though we are referring to mulktiple schools of thought, they all gang up on the Georgists to negate their importance.

No conspiracy is required for a group of people with a common interest to act in that common interest. Someone who pretends to economic sophistication should certainly have known that.

The evil tag is typically used by those incapable of deriving a reasoned argument.

I don't know if that is true or not; but even if it is, it does not mean evil does not exist.

It is a most immature attempt at bluster and, on this sub-forum, a means to avoid rational economic comment over efficiency and/or equity.

ROTFL!! You are the one avoiding rational economic comment, sorry.

As a socialist I merely need to focus on employer and employee.

Right. You need to delete all relevant facts about land. So that is what you do.

Understanding the positive relationship between efficiency and equity (distinct from the orthodox belief in a simple reverse relationship) is key.

Right. And you have made yourself permanently incapable of understanding it by refusing to know there is a negative relationship between equity and institutional arrangements that deprive people of their rights without just compensation in order to enable private appropriation of publicly created value.

In no way does that confuse capital and land.

Right. Socialists confuse capital and land when they refuse to know the fact that the capitalist provides capital but the landowner does not provide land.

We do, however, have to refer to problems (such as underpayment) that you cannot explain.

No, you're just lying again. Underpayment is fully explained by the operation of the Law of Rent, combined with the effects of removal of the right to liberty and private appropriation of publicly created land value.

Understanding how the firm generates economic rents through inefficient underpayment is always going to be beyond your 'its evil' land rant.

Understanding how the firm is enabled to do that is always going to be beyond your capacity as long as you refuse to know that landowner privilege forcibly deprives the worker of alternatives.

But only you think that!

That's clearly just another lie; and even if it weren't, it would be an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

And of course you then make ridiculous statement, such as your previous accusation that home owners were thieves (despite the desire for home ownership increasing with the risk of poverty)

You again lie about what I plainly wrote, in order to maintain your anti-fact prance.

Peddling a land rant that ignores modern economics isn't about celebrating facts.

Actually, that is exactly what it is. See Steve Keen, "Debunking Economics, the Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences."

It would refer, for example, how dynamoc comparative advantage is not automatically delivered.

LOL! And of course ignore landowner privilege...

That Marxism has been integral for our understanding of capitalism is just matter of fact.

No, it's just your false opinion.

As I mentioned, even the orthodox economist has to 'borrow' from Marxist analysis to understand empirical phenomena such as mass unemployment.

ROTFL!!! Exactly. The orthodox "modern" economist has to copy Marxist errors in order to delete the fact that mass unemployment is caused by forcible removal of the workers' liberty to access the available alternatives without paying both a landowner's extortion demands and taxes that bear on his production.

Again you've already shown that, when referring to land, you cannot entertain the available labour economics.

I've refuted fallacious and dishonest labor "economics" that relies on anti-fact prance.

We saw that with the Oswald hypothesis, used to indicate how an equilibrium unemployment rate can be increasedd by the immobility created through the transaction costs associated with owner occupation.

And you accuse me of obsessing over sideshows!!

ROTFL!!

Crikey, do we have to directly quote you again?

<yawn> You could, if you wanted me to prove you lied again.

The cat is out of the bag.

Indeed.

You've made the comments.

I've made lots of comments. Just not the ones you claim I've made.

Why do you think that, whilst there are multiple papers providing empirical support for the labour theory of the value,

Even though it was conclusively refuted by Jevons well over a century ago...

you're reliant on one paper

You're reliant on lying. That is normal, routine, and expected.

that admits that Georgists have all run off to talk about rather minor issues?

Now you're even lying about what that paper plainly said.

You are such a complete waste of electricity.

Originally Posted by Roy L

No conspiracy is required for a group of people with a common interest to act in that common interest. Someone who pretends to economic sophistication should certainly have known that.

The only common interest is the attempt to understand economic outcome. That interest of course makes the Georgist land grunt look decidedly child-like. In reality you require a conspiracy or you have to admit that you're poorly read on the subject. Pick one!

Now you've again posted nothing but one liner grunt. I'll ask you again (and please at least try and provide coherent argument this time): why are you reliant on this one paper (which makes valid remarks like "many modern champions of Georgist ideas have withdrawn into a corner, confining themselves to modifying the existing local property tax by exempting businesses") and why is the empirical evidence into the LVT so much more extensive? Is this part of the conspiracy that you need to dodge from all modern economic analysis?

Originally Posted by Reiver

The only common interest is the attempt to understand economic outcome.

Objectively wrong. The interest of the privileged is clearly to PREVENT understanding of economic outcome. And that is what you are here to do.

That interest of course makes the Georgist land grunt look decidedly child-like.

Your infantile whimpering and content-free foot stamping does not impress.

In reality you require a conspiracy or you have to admit that you're poorly read on the subject. Pick one!

In reality, one of the things we know about conspiracies is that there have been more conspiracies than we know about. I don't "require a conspiracy," that is just another stupid lie on your part, nor am I poorly read on the subject. I just don't believe everything I read merely because it appeared in a journal of "modern" economics.

Now you've again posted nothing but one liner grunt.

You again whimper like a little girl, stamp your foot, and avoid content.

I'll ask you again (and please at least try and provide coherent argument this time): why are you reliant on this one paper

Why do you always have to lie? Please try to answer this time. I know you wish to evade your invariable dishonesty, but it is tiresome.

(which makes valid remarks like "many modern champions of Georgist ideas have withdrawn into a corner, confining themselves to modifying the existing local property tax by exempting businesses") and why is the empirical evidence into the LVT so much more extensive? Is this part of the conspiracy that you need to dodge from all modern economic analysis?

It is "modern" economic "analysis" that needs to dodge from all facts about land, as you have proved so very conclusively.

One liner attempt at dodge (and a poor one at that, even for your usual efforts): compared to this one paper (which admittedly makes valid remarks like "many modern champions of Georgist ideas have withdrawn into a corner, confining themselves to modifying the existing local property tax by exempting businesses"), why is the empirical evidence into the LVT so much more extensive?

Please answer the question!

Originally Posted by Reiver

why is the empirical evidence into the LVT so much more extensive?

Please answer the question!

Because its successes are so many and varied, obviously.

Originally Posted by Roy L

Because its successes are so many and varied, obviously.

And why have so 'many modern champions of Georgist ideas...withdrawn into a corner, confining themselves to modifying the existing local property tax by exempting businesses'?

Originally Posted by Reiver

And why have so 'many modern champions of Georgist ideas...withdrawn into a corner, confining themselves to modifying the existing local property tax by exempting businesses'?

I don't know. Ask them. My guess: they are not actually Georgists or even geoists, but co-opted political tools like the idiots at the Lincoln Institute.

Originally Posted by Roy L

I don't know. Ask them. My guess: they are not actually Georgists or even geoists, but co-opted political tools like the idiots at the Lincoln Institute.

So there aren't many 'actual Georgists' about? Bit obvious that though!