The problem of Capitalism

I see; so the liberal is saying that as the govt taxes landlords more they lower rents more as it does not affect the supply of land?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??

 

No dear its not like that at all since everyone involved wants the transaction completed. The land does not object to being sold. OMG! see why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??

 

if bond returns are safer( they are not) then the safety adds to their value and people buy them because the safety factor equalizes the return in their minds. Sorry to rock your liberal goof world.

 

it is very very trivial when according to you there are vast differences in asset class ROI's. Bonds and land might return 1000% more in your tin foil hat goof world. Do you get it now??

 

more directly and importantly they were foodless and medical care less. See how easily you are defeated?

 

originally you occupied land the way an old lady occupies a seat on a bus. Any other very very easy questions??

 

total liberal BS nonsense of course. people build up always creating as much land as they need. The entire world could fit into a corner of Texas at Manhattan density. So embarrassing!

 

Meaning many non-house owners must pay expensive rents (relative to their income) for a place to live, where the jobs are.

Your solution?

 

Everyone in China is now privileged. They just switched to capitalism and thus eliminated 40% of the planets poverty after starving to death under libcommieism for 1000's of years. It was an instant transformation that only a liberal would be dumb enough to miss.

 

Yes (for the sake of the argument); and what happens when China's GDP is twice the size of the US?

Trump is claiming IP rights abuses by China; what happens when China's IP is (again) superior to the US?

(The Chinese invented paper and gunpowder when London and Paris were pigsties, and Chang'an was the largest city in the world; which means their capacity for IP innovation is at least the equivalent of the West's).

 

Fk. Who wants to live like a cave man, a nomad, or Indian? The useless and the worthless? Yup. As well as the homeless.

 

No one has right to the land I own. But if they want to take it by force, well, it will cost them, dear.

 

Silly, child. Don’t you know tricks are for...

 

I would rather that that millions of people administer the possession and use of land (i.e. own land) than one single entity (i.e. the state). I don't buy into your idea of the state owning all land.

 

So… All completely irrelevant to the issue, except where you would like to portray a stance…

Your getting warmer…

ergo, you expect others to pay your way thusly they will be rewarded after… Sounding more and more like Marxism to me…

LOL, No it is not. The value of money between nations is based entirely upon the demand for the currency. How that is determined, through a market based system or an authoritarian regime dictating, the value of currency has no direct relevance to resources. The currency within has direct correlation to the value determined by market pressures not resource distribution. Capitalism is not based on competition, it is based on supply and demand, the competition lays in determining who can meet the criteria of supply and demand…

I noticed you claimed to another that capitalism is a profit based system, How do you correlate that when you consider money to have no intrinsic value???

Your trying to mix two positions to support your hypothesis on the value of the orange. As stated the group has to universally value the orange while the individual can value to their desires…

Only when the resource is desired…

Irrelevant codswallop…

The court decided that the value of the walnut could not be measured buy the government because the value to the individual was exponential. In other words, the government could value the walnut dur to the universal price they attach but the walnut to the individual was whatever they felt and the government could not dictate that as universal value.

So the government could only tax the value of the walnut not the value of the house…

Now we see??? Me thinks not.

Honestly, I have been leading you along on this issue. You don’t seem to have worked it out but as I said previously, you clearly don’t understand the point raised. I have prodded and probed so and you didn’t disappoint. I thought many would have understood the cryptic nature of what was happening and I seriously thought you would cotton on. Since you didn’t here goes:

The point had NOTHING whatsoever to do with climate change, Co2 or anything else you want to dredge up… I said originally :

to which you accused me of subverting the conversation… However, the most noted point is that throughout this part of the conversation you demanding I agree with you and I should change my ways (or live the way you demand) while doing nothing yourself… You tell us you believe this and that yet you say…

So basically you saying you will never live the way you demand others to live because you have to get your own house in order to do so…

My point was nothing to do with the acts but the human nature and you proved me right. Not only that you tried to brow beat me into accepting your humanity while telling me you won’t do anything but you demand that I SHOULD do something.

Hey you’re the one trying to claim grammatical superiority not me. I put up with a lot more of your crap than you have from me…

I beg your pardon??? I am lying??? That is twice now your left wanting.

.

And still does not support your first claim…

Oh suddenly we see you notice the stupidity… Isn’t the government the creators of the law??? and isn’t the government the representatives of the people???

Of course they are corruptions… It matters not what they are designed to do or how they achieve results, they pure and simply corrupt the capitalist system for the desired affects supposedly supported by the people. Don’t deny truth, it is just a fact of life.

Which is subjective by nature… Really, we have covered this already. Your idea of what poverty is was clear demonstration.

You haven’t destroyed anything but possibly your own credibility here. I keep pointing out that your arguing the nature and failure of capitalism AFTER the event of universal value. You don’t seem to understand the very basis of capitalism and you want to claim your destroying ideology. Grow up…

No it isn’t. See above, I pointed out your wrong there and here as well…

Garbage, it is purely a system (from what you have stated) that rewards lazy ineffectual people for just demanding what others produce

 

You want the state to own all the land. That's pretty much the definition of communism.

 

Now, that’s even more odd, like you.

 

NATIONAL GUN-MURDER RATES

Wrong again. The state has the right to buy your land for purposes of automotive-traffic right-of-way.

You cannot Not Permit it. Those who live by the gun, will die by the gun.

You're choice, and in the US your chances of an early-death by gun-related murder are Damn Good! With this current media-rave of gun-manslaughter movies one would have thought the US had regressed to the good-ole-days of the Mafia (1950s?)

And how did it happen? Easily. Hollywood promoted it, and your local TV-station provided the cinematic-shat to your television.

Let's not forget however the statistical evidence. From here (2016, but actual rates are apparently an earlier-date series). From the NCBI here: Violent Death Rates: The US Compared with Other High-income OECD Countries - excerpt:

'Nuff said? Probably not ...

NB: The above figures report gun-rate deaths of all kinds. It does not distinguish rates between suicide or hunting accidents or personally motivated murder.

 

My stance being: eradication of poverty and universal participation, according to ability.
(see Article 25 UNUDHR). All perfectly achievable, given the amazing productive capacity of industry, where the problem is over-capacity and lack of effective demand.

And you are getting colder...stop living in the past. Currency issuing governments are constrained by real resources, NOT 'money'.

The person working in the local library, or whatever, is a necessary cog in the local community. Manufacturing jobs are on the way out, as automation takes over. Stop equating production of …(even crap) with creation of value.

Disproved by the fact that nations often deliberately attempt to devalue their own currency, to gain an export advantage, an indication of trade policy failure.

No. The currency has value according to the nation's achievement, via sustainable development of available resources.

Following the theory of the "invisible hand", as if a stable, free community can ever function without policy direction.

When I contribute to society, I'm seeking access to desirable goods and services, not money which is intrinsically worthless.

Fact remains the orange is food, which ought not be valued solely by supply and demand (another story)

Nice housing, good food, access to transport are always desired.

No, it's actually key to the whole debate. I'll state it again, so you can attempt to address it:

" Proof that money has no intrinsic value: if humans had a sharing instinct, instead of a selfish instinct, then resources (in the form of desirable goods and services - regardless of money value - could be developed and deployed without the need for money at all".

But this court case only has relevance if government actually needs to collect taxes in order to spend. It does not (see MMT).

OK, now is the time to close this part of the debate.

1. AGW climate change may or may not be true.

2. Fact: we must exit the filthy fossil industry ASAP, for scientifically measured health and environment concerns. Note: all the major vehicle manufacturers are abandoning petrol and diesel for this reason.

Good news: the transition to clean green is a matter of resource availability (including research) and deployment, not quantity of 'money' in the world. Every nation can immediately begin transferring jobs and equipment, from fossil to green, funded by central bank money creation - as opposed to money (credit) creation in private banks, when they write loans to creditworthy customers. So you don't have to panic about your own bank account...

??? I said universal above poverty participation is the goal - perfectly achievable.

No, it's simply a matter of following the science, as outlined above. As for human nature, I have noted again and again the trap of mistaking unconscious self interest for rational thought.

The difficulty arises because "the people" are not necessarily cognisant of reality, hence the irrational Left-Right divide.

We have regulations applying to numerous activities in capitalism BECAUSE of self-interested human instincts.

Sorry, that's a fact whether you call the regulations corruptions or not.

I said: rights arise from the sense/awareness of justice which is unique to the human species.

Not subjective.

Only humans, as a species say, eg: "that's not fair". That's objective. However, what is considered to be "fair" in any specific case is of course subjective. That's why we have rule of law.

You are merely insisting your conception of capitalism, namely, 'value' creation determined *entirely* within an "invisible hand", competitive, 'free' market system - without "corruptions" - is the correct form. Most of the world disagrees.

[Post abridged (login failed) but covered above.]

I will repeat:

Self-interested competition is a reflection of our animal natures, not our informed intellects.
If understood, we can make amazing progress.

 

Thank you for admitting, again, that you have not refuted and cannot refute a single sentence I have written. That's why you always CLAIM to have refuted me, but never actually DO refute me.

 

No, I said such a tax cannot affect the rent as the supply is fixed (and it doesn't affect demand). When you can't refute anything I have written -- and you can't -- try not to just make $#!+ up and disingenuously attribute it to me.

<yawn> I am the one proving your utter innocence of economics, son. A little gratitude would be in order.

 

No, the people whose rights to liberty the buyer and seller are trading never agreed to the forcible removal of those rights and their conversion into landowners' property so that the buyer and seller could trade them.

<sigh> The land is not the people whose rights to liberty the buyer and seller are trading. All who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land are. As you know perfectly well, because I have explained it to you, very clearly and patiently, dozens of times.

I see why you have to make silly $#!+ up.

 

Yes, in fact, they are. They are both less variable -- MUCH less variable -- and less likely to be lost as principal.

That's right: people's perception of the difference in safety creates a difference in return. So the price does not move to equalize returns. That proves me right and you wrong. As always. Inevitably.

You aren't even aware that you just proved yourself wrong again. How sad.

 

But you of course know that your georgist bullshit has been refuted. It’s been shown to be workable, and been shown to be contrary to thousands of years of human nature.

 

I didn't say "vast." You just made that up. Like most of what you attribute to me.

Bond returns are lower than most assets, land returns higher.

Do you?? A 1.7% difference in annual return adds up to 1000% difference in value in ~140 years.