The problem of Capitalism

Only if the good learn to master it. Which has happened since WW2 in Europe.

Capitalism is flourishing - the only thing wrong with it is that - like in the US - upper income-taxation is not sufficiently high to mitigate the Income Disparity as income-levels progress more highly in the scale.

Last time I looked, this was an Economics Forum. So, here's a bit of factual economics:


Yessiree! Uncle Sam is Number One again!

Curiously, though, the other countries compared have heavier Income Taxation. But that did not seem to make any great difference. Meaning what?

That even in countries where Muney-muney-muney is NOT PRIMORDIAL, there is still insufficient upper-income taxation ...

 

"His own rational interest"?

Problem: rational thinking - based on knowledge of "truth"/reality - is a function of the intellect.

Irrational thinking - and behaviour, such as violence - is based on ignorance of truth/reality, and is a function of instinct.

So "own rational interest" is hopelessly compromised, until such time as homo sapiens all have access to "truth".

That's why we need rule of law, to avoid anarchy.

That's the history of the human race from the beginning to the present.

See above.

Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe. HG Wells.

 

No, the private landowner. Unlike the private landowner, the state DOES provide the desirable services and infrastructure that create the land's value. The private landowner is merely privileged to take that value from the community that created it in return for doing and contributing exactly nothing.

 

I know perfectly well I have refuted it many times. Property in land, slaves, etc. is not based on anything but force, and is therefore just as validly overturned by force. Anyone -- and most importantly, the community -- therefore has an absolute right to take from you any property in land, slaves, etc. that you think you own.

Those who think they own others' rights to liberty, whether in the form of land, slaves, IP monopolies, or whatever, have never had a right to such "property."

If I tried, I would easily remove you, and you would be unable to stop me.

I have proved many times that it is perfectly valid, by the examples of the earth's atmosphere, the spring in the desert, Crusoe's island, etc. It is also absolutely necessary to understand that owning land is not only comparable, not only similar, but functionally equivalent to owning human beings in order to understand history, politics and economics:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war
broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky
home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old
negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God,
I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented
with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper
now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents
they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled
to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were
compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he
could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have
got all the work out of him they can."

From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885.

Do you understand, rahl? A person who ACTUALLY OWNED SLAVES just told you that owning land and owning human beings are functionally equivalent. The only thing that prevents landowners from treating the landless like slaves is massive government intervention in the economy to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners.

 

how does a Nazi Govt steal everyone's land without killing everyone??

 

You of course know it’s never been refuted. You’ve never had a right to someone else’s property. If you try and take mine, you will be quite easily stopped. Comparing owning a human to owning land is retarded.

 

why is the libcommie so afraid to present the best example of annual killing of millions by landowners?? What do we learn from the lying liberals fear??

 

I've taught the liberal many many times before that if an asset class earns above average returns, prices will go up until the returns are equalized. A 19 year old learns this in Finance 101. Embarrassing?.

 

yes obviously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why buy bonds if stocks return more??? Embarrassing??

Alarming as that possibility may be, new research suggests you need to take it seriously. Edward McQuarrie, a professor emeritus at the Leavey School of Business at Santa Clara University in California, has painstakingly reconstructed U.S. stock- and bond-market returns back to the late 1700s. Except for 40 of the past 220 years — 1942 through 1982 — stocks and bonds have produced essentially equal returns. (See chart below.)

 

so as the taxes, maintenance, repair and other landlord expenses go up the landlord lowers rents??? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?? Is any other conclusion possible?

 

so when I freely buy land from someone who is freely selling it I am actually stealing it? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance?

That would meet the definition of stealing only in your sad liberal tin foil hat world.

 

I can't agree that all the land in a nation should be owned by a monopolist government. I prefer that monopoly to be broken up and the land owned by millions of individuals.

 

No, the problem with capitalism is that you have to pay a rich person full market value just for PERMISSION to have a job. THAT'S WHY LAND COSTS SO MUCH in places where there are jobs. Hello?

 

That's like "freely" buying a slave from someone who is "freely" selling him. You're buying and selling OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, and they are NOT freely participating in or consenting to the transaction.

It was stolen originally, and whoever owns it is continuously stealing from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it. All private titles of landownership are based on nothing but forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.

I see why such claims are silly, disingenuous tripe.

Taking others' rights from them by force, without their consent: that's stealing, slavery, or landowning. Take your pick.

 

No. Shame on YOU, claiming to own others' liberty rights to sustain themselves using what nature provided for all.

Yet that is exactly what the landowner does to anyone who seeks to exercise his right to liberty to sustain himself as our remote ancestors did for millions of years. Seems you "forgot" that little detail...

 

You mean the eternal home of liars, cheats, thieves and tyrants.

But mostly, nothing for the productive, everything for the privileged.

 

When you have lived all your life with a lie, the truth does seem weird.

 

How did the original thieves steal it without killing everyone?

 

<yawn> Another of your miracles of non-responsiveness. Thank you for confirming that you have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted, you know it, and you have no answers.

 

The WHO estimates that 12-15M people per year are killed by poverty and related causes. Almost all of the victims are landless. Almost all could have survived if they had not had to pay landowners full market value just for PERMISSION to survive. Landowners therefore kill ~12M people -- two Holocausts -- per year.

<yawn> What do YOU learn from the fact that every time you cretinously accuse me of being "afraid" to post an argument, I immediately post that very argument?

 

No, you merely claimed it, and I proved you wrong as a matter of objective fact. Here's the proof again:

https://www.financialsamurai.com/annualized-returns-by-asset-class-from-1999-2018/

You have obviously never taken Finance 101, or you would have learned your silly talking point is nonsense.

 

Nope.

Because we can't foresee the future, and bond returns are safer.

No, because you are incapable of experiencing embarrassment no matter how thoroughly you humiliate yourself.

I don't see any chart below, and excluding four decades of massively greater returns on stocks is invalid, absurd, and disingenuous. "McQuarrie’s best guess, based on the entire period since 1793, is that the premium is just 1.7 annualized percentage points."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...will-shake-your-views-on-investing-2019-09-27

1.7%/yr is far from trivial. So you are just objectively wrong. Inevitably.

 

A tax on land is different from other expenses, as it does not affect supply. You just can't understand what that means.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

<sigh> No one can rightly own land, but government administers its possession and use in any case. You just want it to perform that function for the unearned profit of landowners at everyone else's expense.

Land is always inherently a monopoly no matter how many people own pieces of it, because its supply is fixed and does not respond to price. The land rent is the same whether it is all owned by one person or owned by millions of different people.

 

You are fully aware that you, not I, has been refuted.