How are we going into a recession if the people have money?

Because they're always the same 'commons' fantasy.

You forget that I have NO issues with land ownership, and champion every 'common man' who pursues property.

 

bringiton, it seems like you constantly bring up the Henry George argument.

I am not saying your argument is invalid. In fact I think your argument is very worthy of discussion, and even deserves its own thread.

But you just constantly seem to want to argue about it in every economics thread discussion.

Wouldn't it be better etiquette to start a separate thread about it, and just link back to that thread in every other thread where you want to bring it up?

Otherwise it seems like you are constantly bringing up something off topic (even if all economic theories and beliefs are ultimately very much intertwined and dependent on each other) and derailing the discussion off on an impossibly long tangent.

If you want to be able to carry out a meaningful economic discussion, I suggest that you heed my advice.

 

It is indisputably not a fantasy. It is an indisputable fact of objective physical reality that all land was at one time unowned and common, and that none of it has never validly become private property because that implies everyone else's pre-existing natural individual liberty rights to use that land being forcibly stripped from them by legal fiat and made into landowners' private property. You may indeed favor the forcible removal of people's rights to liberty, and their legal conversion into others' private property -- i.e., slavery -- but that just proves you favor evil. There is nothing you can ever do or say or believe that can alter that fact.

I am well aware of it.

Right: you champion every common man who pursues property in others' rights to liberty via land deeds just as your intellectual and moral forebears championed every common man who pursued property in others' rights to liberty via slave deeds. The only difference is that they favored forcibly removing people's individual rights to liberty one person at a time, you favor removing them one right at a time.

 

No, I identify relevant facts of objective physical reality and their logical implications, some of which Henry George also identified and explained. George was perhaps more eloquent, but I go farther and deeper than he did while being (I flatter myself) clearer and more concise.

Yes, and it has had many threads on many forums. The result is always the same: those who oppose justice in taxation and land tenure arrangements are demolished and humiliated for their fallacious, absurd, disingenuous and evil tripe, and leave.

No, that is false. I identify the relevant facts of objective physical reality on a case-by-case basis. It just happens that facts regarding land tenure and taxation arrangements are very often relevant -- even crucial -- to topics that might seem unrelated to those unacquainted with the facts of economics.

No, because that would not make it clear how the facts are relevant to each specific thread and post I respond to.

No. Your "argument" is logically equivalent to someone objecting to discussions of public health in the 19th century being "derailed" by explanations of the Germ Theory of Infectious Disease: it was in fact those who refused to integrate germ theory into such discussions who were guilty of irrelevancy -- and the deaths of millions.

I will continue to identify the relevant facts of economics and objective physical reality as and when they are pertinent to the discussion.

 

No, I think you go beyond that.

It would be one thing if you simply brought up the fact that germs were the cause of infections, and then provided a link to another thread if anyone wanted more details or wanted to debate you about that.

Isn't there some way you could bring up this issue in a thread in only one or two sentences, and then just provide a link to another thread?

 

what, cause I don't want the world economy to crash, I do not want people alive today to suffer that, do you?

we have no idea if the world would be better years down the road after a crash, could be much worse

 

if one wants the world economy to crash, and claims I don't care about people of the future if I don't want the economy to crash, I want guarantees it will be better

 

If we'd thought that way throughout history, we'd still be in the stone age.

 

When has ANY new idea ever come with a guarantee?

What universe are you inhabiting, FA?

 

I champion every small man owning his own small piece of property. Property is sole bulwark small people have against complete disenfranchisement. It's the only thing standing between us and total dependence upon an elite controlling agency.

You on the other hand, favour taking that last bulwark from him, and pressing him into dependence upon a totalitarian state. You can only have that state's interests in mind in so doing .. because it sure isn't in the interests of the small man.

 

we would be in the stone age if we destroyed every economy always thinking the next one would be better

 

what is the new idea, I only hear it will be better if we destroy the world economy

 

NO new ideas come with guarantees. It's an absurdity to expect it, so clearly it's merely an excuse to do nothing.

 

No, we'd be in the stone age because we refused to try anything new.

 

What you want doesn't matter. Nothing about the future can be guaranteed -- except the fallaciousness, absurdity and dishonesty of rationalizations for greed, privilege and injustice, of course.

 

When was there ever a guarantee that trying something new wouldn't make things worse?

 

No you don't. You can't. It's a logical contradiction. The moment land can be privately owned, it starts moving into fewer and fewer hands, leaving more and more small men landless. This process is a mathematical certainty inherent in private landowning, and nothing you can ever say, do, or believe can ever alter that fact. It has happened over and over again, throughout history, every single time land has been privately owned.

Not property in land, it isn't. Property in land guarantees their complete disenfranchisement because it forcibly removes their individual rights to liberty, thus their options, and thus their bargaining power, and legally entitles rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners to take everything from them just for permission to live.

Because you and your ilk have done away with everything else that stood there: our rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of our labor, which you stripped us of in favor of the legal entitlement of landowners to take everything from everyone else in return for nothing but their permission to use what would otherwise be available to use. If you had not forcibly stripped everyone of their individual rights and given them to landowners as their private property, our rights would stand between us and total dependence on an elite controlling agency consisting of landowners. But you hate the natural individual rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of our labor because they are not compatible with landowner privilege, whose preservation is your highest and only real priority. You eagerly sacrifice your own children and grandchildren on the altar of landowner greed, privilege and parasitism.

No, that is just false, absurd, and disingenuous bull$#!+ with no basis in fact or logic. The only reason you think property in land is the last bulwark against tyranny is because YOUR FALSE AND EVIL BELIEFS HAVE DESTROYED all the other bulwarks, thus laying all humanity on your sacrificial altar of private landowner parasitism. It is YOU and your false, vicious, and evil beliefs that have forced the small man into dependence on the totalitarian landowning elite.

Such false, absurd, evil, and disingenuous filth... You offer no evidence for such claims, nor will you ever be doing so.

Disgraceful.

 

Exactly my point. Our friend wants us to avoid new ideas in case it makes people uncomfortable.

 

Did you flounce out of the room after you angrily typed that last 'disgraceful!'? I had a mental image of you doing that

 

Land can't move itself. People have to CHOOSE to sell it, and CHOOSE not to buy more.

Your argument is legless.

 

If it works, it's worth it.

I see. So, just take a quiet, accommodating tack, hope people find the time and willingness to go and read (and understand) another thread about a theory they aren't really interested in, and not concern myself that they will very likely ignore the other thread, and millions will consequently go on dying needlessly...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

Sure, if I was content for millions of innocent people to consequently go on dying needlessly every year, in perpetuity just because no one had the temerity to persistently rub some lying apologists for privilege's noses in the relevant facts.

 

Beneath contempt.

 

Did you just flounce again?

 

But privilege can -- and does -- reliably move its ownership into the hands of the privileged. See how that works?

And when through the vicissitudes of life they inevitably do, those who already own the most land automatically have the most money to buy it with. See how that works?

They don't choose to have less money to buy it with than those who have the most land. That's just more vicious, evil, and disingenuous blame-the-victim filth from you. The institution of private landowning forcibly took their money from them and gave it to landowners because they had to pay landowners full market value just for permission to work, shop, access desirable public services and infrastructure, participate in the community, etc. -- in short, to live.

See how that works?

No, I just comprehensively and conclusively demolished your false, absurd, and disingenuous filth. That will continue to happen every time you presume to dispute with me.

 

Careful: your cognitive dissonance, and your desperation to avoid knowing the facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil, are becoming palpable.