Do you have the right to say that a “rich” person isn’t paying enough taxes?

Wasn't part of the argument about means of production?

 

There was no argument, just Reiver being stupid and dishonest. I pointed out the indisputable fact of objective physical reality that a house does not constitute "the means of production," and he instantly went into his Worst Person in the World routine and denied it.

 

Crikey, you can't even be consistent in what you typed! You stated that every home owner controlled 'some' of the means of production. We've since used simple labour economics to show how cretinous that view really is.

Learn some labour economics! You'd leave the folly of Georgism quick smart!

 

This is not unusual on this list. But some posts are very good.
.

 

You need to read his script more closely! He's made a statement and since backtracked because his position was shown to be nonsensical.

 

It seems, to me, that most means of production (whether land or house) should not hinder upward social mobility to be considered truer forms of means of production in our modern political-economy.

Agricultural subsidies are one example that has allowed only two percent to do what twenty-five percent were doing before; as a form of social mobility.

 

Whereas you are very consistent: everything you type is a lie.

Which is indisputably true: the part that helps produce his accommodation.

Lie. You showed no such thing. My statement remains indisputably true.

You again prove your dishonesty. There has never been any relation between what I said and Georgism. None.

 

No, what ONE homeowner owns is just a microscopic sliver of the means of production, but what homeowners collectively own is about 2/3 of the land used to produce accommodation. That is a substantial fraction of the means of production, and that fact is reflected in the better long-term financial condition of homeowners over renters who had the same total income.

No, Reiver erroneously believes he has something interesting to say.

Reiver has a neurological condition that makes him howl at the moon and run in circles biting his hindquarters whenever I post.

 

I have not backtracked. You are flat-out lying about what I plainly wrote, as usual.

 

Again, you show contempt for basic economics. Home ownership reduces labour mobility and therefore negatively impacts on reservation wages and therefore income potential. You've confused yourself with reference to wealth (even then its dodgy as countries with higher poverty tend to have higher home ownership, reflecting the impact of the welfare state and the utilisation of self-insurance), using that to make quite idiotic statement over the control of the means of production.

Land obsessing for you!

 

Land is part of the means of production, but an owner-occupied house (i.e., the structure) is a consumption good in the consumer's hands, and thus not a part of the means of production.

That is Reiver's stupid error. Whether ownership of an item hinders upward social mobility is absolutely irrelevant to whether it is used in production. Consider a tannery in feudal Japan: to be associated with it in any way was proof of low caste.

Agricultural subsidies have no such effect, as proved by the similar declines in farm employment in advanced industrialized countries where they are small or non-existent, like Canada, and the retention of significant farm labor in countries where the subsidies are even larger, like Japan. Agricultural subsidies mainly just increase the rent of agricultural land.

 

Wrong! I've referred to how home ownership increases underpayment (by reducing reservation wages). You're saying "its partial control of the means of production despite it actually increasing exploitation of labour". Zero logic!

 

Is there any reason to quibble over a house that may be on some land?

 

This has happened to several threads. Roy L makes a claim, Reiver demands evidence. Roy provides something, Reiver says it doesn't support his argument, Roy says it does and calls Reiver a liar and off we go.

Would you expect a market socialist and a single taxer to agree? One his focused on land, the other on labor.

 

Its very simple here. Would partial control of the means of production lead to an increase in exploitation? No need to answer really; its obvious!

 

It depends on how the "partial control" is implemented. The results depend on what is done, not on the name of that initiative, as always."
.

 

Show me one situation where partial control, shifting the focus away from standard reference to employer behaviour, leads to greater labour underpayment?

 

To be fair, and hopefully I'm characterizing Roy's argument correctly. But if the fact that we own land or real estate also means that we own some portion of the means of production, then potentially yes, as we've discussed previously this decreases mobility and as a result can lead to greater exploitation.

I'm not sure I believe though that owning real estate necessarily equates to owning "a portion of the means of production"

 

That's because its utter nonsense! Its not of much a surprise that its societies with greater working poverty problems that typically have higher home ownership.

 

That perspective was likely more relative when production of any type would require greater swaths of land, our move towards a digital economy and the ability to house greater numbers of people on smaller amounts of land makes the single tax seem pretty out dated to me.

 

Careful now, the Georgists will blow a gasket!

In all seriousness, we get an example of how- by ignoring the labour market- inappropriate conclusion is made. Its quite common of course. The libertarian that ignores the theory of the firm, for example, will find it difficult to escape accusations of utopianism

 

I'm certain a merciless attack is coming forthwith.

I suppose the same can be said of the labor economists that fails to incorporate behaviorism and the emotional baggage that comes along with employment.

Libertarians? Are you now using that term as a synonym for Austrians? The lack of a theory of the firm has always been the criticism you've levied against the Austrians, the Libertarians were just "snake oil peddlers".

 

In our US case, it is a simple moral failure to bear true witness to our own laws, even with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge of allegiance to our own republic, as a form of moral absolutism.