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

If that meant anything, which it doesn't, it would be wrong.

 

My nomination for Unconscious Self-Refutation of the Month.

You're lying. I have simply identified, in clear, dispassionate English, evils that any normal person would react emotionally to.

"Old age poverty"? Why would there be any threat of old age poverty?

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: government forcibly takes the rightful earned income of the productive and gives it to landowners in return for nothing, before the people who earned it even have a chance to save it for their old age. Ordinary working people, being far more intelligent than stupid, lying apologists for landowner privilege, understand that if you are forced to choose between being a poor victim and a rich thief, thief is better.

Yes, the disgraceful spectacle of "modern economics": employers get rent; workers get rent; but landowners don't get any rent we need concern ourselves with.

??? BWAHAHAHAAA!! This, from the pathetic, lying boob who claims homeowners' economic outcomes are worse than tenants' economic outcomes??

ROTFL!!!

That you're claiming the landless are less economically exploited than homeowners shows you regard your readers as being even less intelligent than yourself.

I say homeowners end up better off than the landless. You say the landless end up better off than homeowners. Everyone reading this knows my statement is economic reality and yours is a stupid lie, including you.

No, of course he doesn't. Stop telling such stupid lies. All he shows is that if you ignore assets, it's possible to lie that rich retirees with modest incomes who own real estate are "poor." And your "modern economics" extols such despicable, cretinous lying as the acme of sagacity.

Sure: the bigger the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners, the higher the poverty rate and the more desperate people are to avoid taking the vow of perpetual poverty forced on the landless.

I'm not the one stupidly claiming the landless are better off than homeowners, pal. You are.

The privileged are not as desperately dependent on wages as the landless. So?

Nope. It's only economic rent by a definition contrived to call returns to labor and capital rent, but not the return to land. It is a definition that was concocted by the founders of modern neoclassical economics specifically to prevent identification or knowledge of the fact that the return to land is a return obtained in return for zero (0) contribution to production -- i.e., by stealing.

<yawn> I know that song, Reiver, because every stupid, evil, lying sack of $#!+ sings the same one: if I don't own land, I'm envious of those who do; if I do own land, I'm a hypocrite. Thanks for proving you are right at home among the foulest, most dishonest and despicable filth ever to have polluted the earth with their existence.

Thanks for refuting yourself again.

Please present your evidence that facts of objective reality become less true proportionally to how long those who identified them have been dead. You can start by showing that Pythagoras's Theorem no longer holds. Either that, or just admit that you are a stupid, lying apologist for greed, privilege, injustice and evil.

<yawn> Like your empirically established phenomenon that homeowners are poorer than the landless...?

ROTFL!!

<yawn> Speaking of ridiculous statements, you say homeowners are worse off than the landless (and have provided no evidence for that claim). I say the landless are worse off than homeowners. I am objectively correct. You are full of $#!+.

You again refute yourself.

But unlike Georgists such as Fred Foldvary, Kemeny has proved himself and his theories unable to make any accurate predictions.

Refuted above.

No, of course they didn't.

LOL! ONLY the Georgists consistently predicted it, because only the Georgists understood it was all based on land speculation.

It is indisputable fact proved by economic outcome.

Underpayment is payment less than the free market value of the contribution to production. Calling the payment for a contribution to production "economic rent" because its free market value is more than you think it should be may be the method of your "modern" economics, but it is idiotic and dishonest.

Other, that is, than observing and identifying the fact that homeowners are better off than the landless...

LOL! OTC, I have proved I understand it far better than you and fools like Kemeny et al.: old age poverty risk is created by government stealing the earnings of the working landless through income tax, sales tax, VAT, etc. before they have a chance to save them, and giving the money to landowners in return for nothing; it is self-evident -- and frankly only a lying idiot could refuse to know it -- that stealing from the landless and giving the money to landowners makes landowning a more attractive proposition than landlessness, with its vow of perpetual poverty.

I'm sure they do. So? I have no control over what they do.

<yawn>

LOL! You're the one who always has to run away from facts and/or hide them behind a smokescreen of self-important blather.

I'm sure slave owning served a similar role....

You always have to deny even the most self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, such as that land is one of the means of production.

 

No need to get your knickers in a twist. I’ve merely agreed with you. Georgists, to try and grab some credibility, should always deny that they are Georgists. Makes sense!

You may want to try and justify the emotive rant. I don’t see the point myself. I’d much prefer an attempt at valid use of economics. Perhaps you Georgists could all get together and try and think up something? Relying on Henry just doesn’t seem fair. His irrelevance isn’t his fault. It is a mere consequence of history. Crikey, we couldn’t expect him to understand neo-liberalism and the impact on the welfare state and home ownership.

Bit obvious really! The nature of the age-income profile.

This is just repetition of your land humph. Consider Britain. Why does she have higher poverty rates compared to other countries? We have to refer to the wage distribution and how, despite a relatively successful welfare state, inequalities reflect numerous labour market criteria: higher underpayment (e.g. the long term consequences of weak collective bargaining and minimum wage protection), a low skilled equilibrium (e.g. demand focused on product with low income elasticity of demand), steeper hierarchical structures within firm organisation (e.g. reduced use of vocational training and evidence of certification for screening purposes) etc. The consequences for home ownership is obvious: as illustrated by the self-insurance analysis. It was of course further inflamed by a neo-liberalism that, through Thatcherism, severely limited social housing.

As usual you’re not replying to the comment. We both know that you cannot deny the consequences for the labour market mentioned: an increase in economic rents derived through labour exploitation. Your land rant just leads to a failure to explain economic outcome!

I’ve referred to the empirical facts. Home owners have been found to be more likely to suffer from mental illnesses than their renting counterparts (evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation). Home ownership is also found to hinder wages through the impact on reservation wages (evidence referenced from the abundant literature into the Oswald hypothesis, which originally argued that home ownership’s main effect was on the equilibrium unemployment rate). The problem for you is that I’ve referred to economic reality. It’s not something that you’ll be comfortable with as its just not consistent with the rant script!

Again you’re forced to ignore my comment. You know that you are guilty of an illogical position as you know that the evidence shows that home ownership provides a mechanism to increase economic rents through greater underpayment. Now the clever response would be to adapt and admit your silly error. Referring to ‘partial control of the means of production’ over housing tenure that is found to increase theft of labour value? Terribly tut-worthy!

Tell that to the Germans who have lower poverty and lower home ownership rates. We’ve already seen, for example, that over half of Britain’s poor are home owners. That result is effectively forced on them as they try to income smooth and ensure the problems associated with old age poverty are reduced (see, for example, the consequences of ‘fuel’ poverty on living standards and winter death rates)

Your replies lack any content or craft. That Burrows finds that over half of British poor are home owners is a matter of fact.

Again you show no understanding of reality, preferring to go into the emotional foot stamping. We have extensive empirical evidence that shows a direct relationship between home ownership and poverty risk. We have that evidence supported by sociological analysis and confirmed by economic analysis into aspects such as the life-cycle hypothesis.

Again you show no understanding of reality. Calling home owners ‘the privileged’ is nonsensical as we are also talking about the poor.

Payment below wages associated with productivity criteria is certainly economic rent. You needed to be born several hundred years ago. Your rant would have made some sense then. Today we know, through the theory of the firm and labour economics, that its production relations that drives inefficient economic rent.

A brilliant example of how reliant you are on emotive humping. You called home owners thieves. I don’t think you did that willingly. You are just so blinkered with your land rant and, when the discussion moved to the rationality of home ownership, you couldn’t help yourself. You’re your own worst enemy my dear chap!

Do you think economic relations are a constant? Crikey, I know you fellows don’t do economics but please at least blag a level of sense! Consider, for example, something as straight-forward as the boundaries of the firm. That has dramatically changed by the development of a managerial class capable of ensuring the exploitation of economies of scale. And the consequences of that change? A shift away from supply/demand to more institutionalist analysis. Changes which wouldn't be understood by the long time dead.

You state that, despite it either increasing equilibrium unemployment or underpayment (i.e. economic rents associated with exploitation of the worker), home ownership means those workers have ‘partial control of the means of production’. It continues to be illogical, but a jolly good example of how your land rant forces you to make ludicrous comment.

Its not an earth shattering comment: neo-liberalism has nothing to do with Georgism. Just had to say it again though as I know you will continue to deny the obvious as you try to snide your “I’m not a Georgist but I think Georgism explains the world” cobblers.

Kemeny predicted that home ownership and poverty rates are related. He was shown to be correct through empirical evidence. We both know that Georgists aren’t relevant to the debate. Crikey, as I've already told you, they make the crackpots abusing the Austrian tag look worldly!

No need to be childish. That the Austrians predicted it is a matter of fact. That the Marxists predicted it is a matter of fact.

Again, neo-liberalism has nothing to do with land. It is about the hegemony of the financial class. By referring to the current crisis you’ve only presented an explanation for the continued importance of the Marxists and the irrelevance of the Georgists: the Marxists have been able to understand how capitalism has evolved.

Partial ‘worker’ ownership of the means of production that leads to an increase in the theft of labour value? Still cretinous!

More than I think? More than what supply and demand predicts! I’ve known that you’ve hated economics since you stated that neoclassical economics was a conspiracy against your God, Henry. We’ve seen the consequences here: a complete ignorance of labour relations and therefore the dominant inefficiency within capitalism.

Tell that to the German wealthy and the British poor!

I stopped there. You don’t know Kemeny’s research. You’ve simply discounted him as he doesn’t fit within your emotionalism and your land rant script.

You don’t call them thieves to ensure hypocrisy doesn’t raise its ugly head? That would be unfortunate! Hypocrisy is so ugly

 

It was in reference to means of production and land and a dwelling that may be on that land.

 

Why do you believe that solving for a poverty of money in our money based markets would be bad for any private sector?

 

Thanks for confirming that your dishonest garbage is reliant on ignoring assets.

You can't even quote the material you purport to be answering, because it makes it too obvious that you aren't answering it.

High immigration of low-skilled people, and the total subservience of government, including Labour governments, to the idle, greedy, privileged, parasitic hereditary landed gentry and aristocracy.

No, we don't.

Or just agreeing to know the fact that ordinary working people, being far more intelligent than you, are able to understand that landlessness is effectively a vow of perpetual poverty.

?? BWAHAHAAHAAA!!!

This, from the lying nincompoop who can't even QUOTE the comments he purports to reply to??

Oh, but I do deny it, and have. And it is amusing that you claim I "can't explain" an economic outcome that CLEARLY DOESN'T HAPPEN: inferior economic condition of homeowners compared to the landless.

No, you've bloviatedl. The notion that homeowners are poor is simply cretinous. There's no other word for it. OK, maybe "absurd."

No, that "evidence" is just cretinous, dishonest garbage. Homeowners are merely more likely to be able to afford diagnosis of their mental illnesses.

<yawn> Every time you claim that homeowners are worse off than the landless, you refute yourself by stating absurdities.

You're lying and you know it. You are the one who can't even QUOTE what he claims to be answering, because it becomes too obvious that he isn't answering it.

I know no such thing. It's ridiculous, and the "evidence" for it is absurd and dishonest, like measuring wealth by income rather than wealth.

BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! Now who's talking about "theft," hmmmm? Talk about tut-worthy!

Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something responsive?

No, we haven't. I already refuted that stupid lie, remember?

It's not income smoothing at all. It's an attempt to get back some of the income that is stolen from them and given to landowners by becoming landowners.

No, it isn't, stop lying. It's merely a matter of defining wealthy retirees who own millions in real estate but have modest incomes as "poor."

If you call rich landlords with modest incomes "poor."

Stupid garbage unrelated to fact.

No, we are not. Stop lying.

No, it is not.

Garbage.

I identified the fact that you are totally reliant on dishonesty.

The facts that determine economic law have not changed.

The boundaries of the firm are not economic law. Silly attempt to evade the facts deleted.

<yawn> An intelligent eight-year-old is able to understand that control over some means of production that other workers could use does not imply any control over the means of production one uses oneself. You, however, have proved over and over again that you are not intelligent enough to understand that. I suspect that you will continue humiliating yourself by proving you cannot understand it.

You always have to prove the dishonesty and worthlessness of your "contributions." Always. For example:

See?

No, he didn't.

No, he wasn't.

Worthlessness confirmed again.

Garbage. All they predicted was that a financial crisis would happen sometime.

Which runs on land rent, because that is what borrowers usually pledge as security for loans.

The Marxists have shown they understand nothing, while the Georgists have shown they understand economics.

Thanks for reminding us that you are still not intelligent enough to understand what an intelligent eight-year-old can understand.

No, you are merely reliant on false assumptions about supply.

I hate evil, and the lying filth who make it possible by rationalizing and justifying it.

Marxist claptrap.

<yawn> Luxembourg, with a homeownership rate virtually the same as Britain's, is richer than Germany. Too bad.

I've read enough of his assumptions to know he's a typical fool.

ROTFL!!! You are the one with the anti-land tax script, Reiver.

Thanks for confirming your dishonesty again.

 

And your point would be...?

 

Why do you believe that constant strawman fallacies and loopy non sequiturs are interesting to anyone?

 

The age-income profile will necessarily lead to discussion of assets. Bit obvious really. You ignore the economic reality in order to make ridiculous claims over the means of production and to call your friends and family ‘thieves’. Its emotionalism run riot!

You’ve got nothing to say. It about repeating dead Georgism in order to ignore modern economics. You of course admit that as you attack modern economics as some sort of conspiracy against your Henry saviour.

Again you show your contempt for economic reality. Empirical evidence shows that immigrants, excluding the Irish, are on average at least as well educated as the native born. Every time you try to refer to the modern economy you make such basic error! Best stick to your script, especially as you’ve only proved that you can’t reply to the labour economic analysis utilised.

You put-down like a 5 year old. I’m surprised you haven’t referred to how your daddy is bigger than mine! Back to the comment that you can’t dismiss: home ownership in Britain is a self-insurance mechanism in a regime characterised by high working poverty.

Over half of the British poor are homeowners. That’s a mere reference to the objective facts. That you can’t appreciate that merely reflects your contempt for economic reality

It doesn’t agree with your simple-minded script, but it is a finding that you can’t dismiss. Childish tantrum doesn’t count dear chap!

Again you can’t respond to the quote: Home ownership is also found to hinder wages through the impact on reservation wages (evidence referenced from the abundant literature into the Oswald hypothesis, which originally argued that home ownership’s main effect was on the equilibrium unemployment rate). The problem for you is that I’ve referred to economic reality. It’s not something that you’ll be comfortable with as its just not consistent with the rant script!

You know the evidence shows that home ownership provides a mechanism to increase economic rents through greater underpayment. To suggest otherwise you’d have to confirm Oswald’s hypothesis. Go ahead and try!

The fellow who has referred to the modern economy correctly, ensuring appropriate use of empirical evidence that successfully supports labour theory.

I’ve maintained consistency: reference to the empirical evidence that shows home ownership and poverty are related. Germany has lower poverty and lower home ownership rates. Calling British poor ‘thieves’ because they are also home owners is stupid dogma run amok.

It’s merely fact. If you want to condemn the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as part of your conspiracy theory then go ahead. I personally prefer that you intellectually critique but I appreciate you can’t do that.

That home ownership is used as part of the lifecycle hypothesis is again simple a matter of fact. You again demonstrate that you are clueless over the reality of economic behaviour.

We can use subjective poverty, relative poverty or absolute poverty methodologies. All confirm that your position is cretinous!

Try and respond to the quotes: we have extensive empirical evidence that shows a direct relationship between home ownership and poverty risk.

The boundaries of the firm have substantially changed and ensured that the likes of Henry would be clueless about economic relations today. Again the obvious seems to confuse you no end!

An intelligent 8 year old wouldn’t argue that worker partial control of the means of production would increase economic rents through labour exploitation. Crikey, even a right winger would realise the stupidity of arguing that it would

You continue to reply with zero content and only provide a childish response because you can’t dispute the economic reality: home ownership and poverty rates are related.

Wrong again. Marxists, together with the other heterodox schools, all predicted crisis because of neo-liberalism

The idea that the financial sector ‘runs of land rent’ is in your top 10 of ridiculous statements. Again your dogma has led you to a stupid conclusion

Georgists aren’t even a credible political economic school of thought. Again, just factual!

Let’s have some content here. In form me what false assumptions about labour supply I am making here! You’re going to dodge or say something ridiculous!

Your approach is like Catholicism minus any logic.

Cretinous reply! Reference to labour relations and the sources of inefficiency isn’t Marxist specific. Crikey, it includes the neoclassical school!

You’ll find some variation in home ownership rates, as we’d expect with the multiple sources of housing preference. I’d expect, for example, the US to have higher home ownership because of her high poverty. However, the relationship between poverty and home ownership cannot be disputed. You can test it yourself by running a regression in Excel

Childish rant again! And that’s all you have...

 

It is relevant to the topic; are you sure you really have an argument and not just propaganda and rhetoric, with no real solutions?

 

Already happened: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_Mikhail_Gorbachev_(1990)

When you can get dozens of leading economists (including four Nobel laureates) to sign onto your stupid economic system… then maybe I’ll look at it. Till then the geoist solution stands supreme.

 

Again you show the standard non-economic behaviour of the internet Georgist. A 1990 letter for a crippled country? Crikey. Now try and provide me with a journal article. I asked the other fellow and he referenced something appallingly dull incapable of supporting his dogma. Can you do better? Reference me an academic article that celebrates your position!

 

In my opinion, the wealthy should pay more in taxes if there is any official poverty in our republic. It could be considered a market based metric in our political economy, and to better ensure that public policy schemes do not become boondoggles and generational forms theft.

 

Again you cannot refute the facts, so you lie, sneer, dismiss, lie, ignore, ridicule and lie.

<yawn> As always, you demand credible citations of recognized top economists, but when given them, you contrive some pretext for claiming they don't count.

A crippled country is more likely to be willing to listen to solutions. Unfortunately the XSSR didn't listen to the geoist solution proposed by the FOUR Nobel laureate economists and dozens of other eminent western economists -- who stated explicitly that geoists are absolutely and indisputably right and lying anti-geoist liars are absolutely and indisputably wrong, stupid, dishonest and evil -- and instead embraced the nostrums of your precious "modern economics," suffered the exact collapse into fascist kleptocracy the geoist economists were warming them against in that letter, and are still mired in it to this day.

<yawn> Why are you pretending that the relevant facts of economics have not been known for hundreds of years, and therefore are not eligible for publication in academic journals? You might as well ask for a journal article testifying that demand is inversely related to price.

I.e., you had to pretend it somehow didn't count.

Here is an academic article in a peer-reviewed journal that does exactly that:

http://econjwatch.org/articles/geo-rent-a-plea-to-public-economists

You will of course, and inevitably, now contrive some pretext for claiming it doesn't count.

 

1st off, no one hates people who live of the government tit more than working poor people who do not. Not only do we have to eat ramon everyday of the week, paying all our bills on the scraps we make, we end the year finding out we owe the IRS and state taxes because we weren't the ones selfish enough to have kids we couldn't afford.

Imagine being in that boat. Watching these people who had kids they couldn't afford, get help with housing, utilities, food stamps, WIC, and then once a year getting a check from 2k-6k. While you owe 800 after making the same 20k and paying all your own bills, food, to rent, to power. Listening to them talk about all the things they are going to buy with their huge check, nothing to do with their kids. While you have yet another excuse why you will eat ramon for another 2 months, saving all excess dollars to pay the trillion dollar federal reserve. Or of course, go to federal prison and get raped for a few years.

Now on top of that, anytime you are on a medium such as this, you hear nothing but those with more, generalizing all working poor as worthless. Pieces of (*)(*)(*)(*) who are ruining the country. People who have no work ethic. No self worth. People with million dollar opportunities left and right and choose to turn them down out of some need to ruin the country for good, decent noble "people with more".

Let me tell you something, partner. I hate everyone.

 

Shush now, you've had your chance. I'm not going to pre-judge the fellow and suggest he's just going to ape the sub-catholic emotionalism that your argument is completely reliant on. He might be able to come out with something useful!

 

But not responsive to the post.

Can't you read?

 

Except that assets are explicitly ignored.

You are lying again. I am not the one who is ignoring economic reality by defining poverty without reference to assets. You are.

You can call hatred of evil emotionalism if you like. Too bad there wasn't more of it before all the great evils that have been committed through simple lack of opposition.

Then why do you always have to lie about what I say?

No, it's to remind readers that modern economics ignores facts about land.

You validate that idea every time you lie to slander him and those who understand his ideas.

Too bad that is irrelevant to the point even if it were true, which it is not. Phony qualifications are not education, sorry.

I have refuted it, stop lying.

I have refuted it, so stop lying: given one is forced to choose, it's simple self-defense to make oneself the beneficiary of theft rather than its victim.

Nope. Poor people don't own real estate, sorry.

No, it merely proves your reliance on the stupid lie that only income can relieve poverty, not assets.

<yawn> Economic reality: contrary to your repeated lies, affluent homeowners with modest incomes are not poor.
<repetition of same lie deleted>

You mean the laughable, lying nincompoop who so absurdly insists that the landless are more affluent than homeowners?

You have indeed: you have been wrong about everything.

Inversely.

As usual, your generalization is based on one or fewer data points.

Calling affluent retired landlords "poor" is an outrageous lie.

I have proved it isn't.

I already have, stop lying.

No, you're lying again. It's only your deliberate misinterpretation of the fact that people buy land in order to participate in the theft of which the landless are pure victims.

Just not one that measures wealth by wealth rather than income.

As predicted by the geoist analysis of the unrequited transfer of wealth from producers to landowners via taxation. It's just that that risk of poverty is borne by the landless, not the homeowners (unless the latter foolishly get themselves too far into debt buying land near the peak of a land boom).

Yes, he'd know better.

Lie.

And I know how (the poverty risk is borne by the landless, not the homeowners) and why (government takes from producers and gives to landowners) they are related, and you don't. Simple.

Saying a crisis will happen at some point in the future is not a prediction. It's astrology.

It is fact.

Dismissal and ridicule are not refutation. Again, just factual!

You assume a privilege of getting income without earning it does not affect the labor supply curve, making the landed wiling to accept lower wages the landless can't survive on.

Neoclassical economics shares the Marxist error of conflating land and capital.

Thank you for agreeing your claims are false and stupid.

And you'd be wrong, inevitably. High home ownership in the USA is because of the historically recent wide availability of cheap land, the same effect as seen in Canada, Australia and New Zealand with their much lower poverty rates.

Sure there is a relationship between home ownership and poverty: the bigger the subsidy to landowning, the more poverty there is, and the more important it is to make yourself one of the landed perpetrators rather than one of the landless victims.

Bit obvious really. You just have to refuse to know it.

 

I noticed you didn't have an argument or a real point.

 

By definition, they’re not (as it leads to an understanding of wealth and changes to our understanding of income, be it through the lifecycle hypothesis or the variation permanent income hypothesis.

Assets are naturally considered in poverty analysis. Again you show your innocence!

By being overly emotional and insisting on rant any resemblance of sense in your argument is lost. You might want to work on that! Entertainment value can include content!

We’ve already seen your ridiculous statements over conspiracy theory. Back to reality though! You’re simply out-of-date and made redundant by Henry’s gravestone date.

Again you show that you don’t know what you’re talking. For an example the empirical study by Shields and Price (1998, The earnings of male immigrants in England: evidence from the quarterly LSF, Applied Economics, Vol. 30 pp.1157-68 ):

"All the immigrant groups and the non-white native born employees have undergone more years of education than white native born workers, except for the Irish (who have an equivalent amount of education)."

Burrows proves you wrong. We have two aspects. First, most poor are home owners. Second, as poverty risk increases we also see home ownership rates increase.

I laughed at this one. You’re right that affluent homeowners aren’t poor. However, poor homeowners certainly are! One should of course acknowledge that its quite standard to include housing costs in equivalence scales and therefore the poverty methodology.

Nope. Take all European and North American countries! You’ll find a significant relationship between poverty and home ownership rates.

Suggesting the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is part of some conspiracy theory is cretinous to the extreme.

Here’s an example of the available analysis into the issue:

http://ideas.repec.org/p/crr/crrwps/wp2006-16.html

You’ve nearly caught up here! Home ownership is a vital aspect of hedging against poverty risk. It’s great to see you learning

The analysis directly refers to how neo-liberalism generates greater instabilities and therefore the probability of crisis. All proved correct!

I don’t need to ridicule. The emotionalism and the conspiracy theorising does that for me!

This is drivel. Labour supply informs us of how two goods are traded: leisure and consumption. If you wanted to attack the analysis you’d refer to the assumption that work is neutral. But at least you didn’t dodge. Congrats!

The problem for you is that both schools are more capable of understanding empirical phenomena as they understand the importance of labour. You do not and therefore you have nothing.

I’ve merely made reference to housing demand. You’d think a Georgist would have at least bothered with understanding the determinants of demand!

Try to follow! The US, compared to some European countries with lower poverty rates, has a relatively low home ownership rate. Does that disprove that there is a relationship between home ownership and poverty? Nope. It just informs us that there are other features and that- whilst a simple regression would demonstrate a significant relationship- we could include multiple variables

Great to see you copying me. Perhaps you’ll eventually refer to some economics!

 

Because you didn't say anything one could respond to.

 

In my opinion, the wealthy should be taxed at wartime rates, even during times of wars on abstractions, merely to ensure those public policies do not become boondoggles and generational forms of theft.

And, because it may be easier to manipulate any electorate of the United States, if they can claim to be in official poverty.

 

Who is "us"? You got a frog in your pocket or something?

Maybe YOU should worry more about your own life and less about what someone else is making in the marketplace. Maybe YOU should accept the fact that only markets can equitably and optimally price goods and services, and that any attempt to circumvent this organic process will result in the misallocation of scarce resources.

An infantile argument to be sure.

 

The hell you wouldn't. You have absolutely no rational or consistent way of determining how much compensation participants in the market should make. Only an egomaniac would actually think they have the requisite knowledge for setting prices in the market.