The problem of Capitalism

You're backtracking now? Shame!

Crikey, getting you to derive a coherent argument is next to impossible. I'm asking how the lives of the landless and slaves differed. We already know that slaves had a higher life expectancy. Perhaps you think the landless just died out of choice?

Discussing? Hahaha! You don't discuss. You don't give argument. You've given nothing but rant. I've stated the obvious: there was no difference in outcome (neither had choice; both were forced into labour), except that slaves had higher life expectancy. You can't offer any genuine counter.

 

And how would Georgism, or bringiton's version of Georgism, change that situation? The poor would only be changing landlords, not their economic condition.

 

The interesting aspect of Geoism is that it gets significant support from both the left and the right. That arguably reflects how justice is ultimately at its spine. The problem I have with it is that it purely focuses on land. That is undoubtedly a critical element. We do automatically see inequalities of opportunity with current land ownership. However, just like the land value tax, it quickly lost traction. Whilst it continues to be vital for environmental economics, there needs to be a general switch to labour exploitation to derive a full understanding of how inequalities and inefficiencies go hand in hand.

 

You'll will need to explain your meaning for me to understand your reply.

In my experience, it is the concern over inefficiency and inequality that has brought us neoliberalism. It is very much debatable if efficiency has increased under neoliberalism. Inequality and inequality of opportunity has most definitely increased under neoliberalism. I can't see how Georgism could overcome the effects of neoliberalism. Private land ownership with minimal land ownership taxes would achieve better results in combating inequality.

 

Which bit?

Not quite. While it did start with a market fundamentalist approach to economics, it was soon taken on-board by centrists looking to utilise the median voter model. The negative impact of equity and efficiency was known pretty much immediately. It was ignored (e.g. use of private-public initiatives to speed up infrastructure investments for electoral gain, despite the long term costs for the taxpayer).

It cannot as its based on sham economics such as supply-side theory. Its real aim was to legitimise greater income inequality.

You're confusing my points. I've used neoliberalism to attack centrists (and to demonstrate that they really adopted extreme views which attacked both efficiency and equity). Georgists weren't part of that at all. They'd naturally see the stupidity of concepts such as trickle down. The problem, however, is that they don't focus on the need for more radical change (such as the need for worker ownership)

Any use of land tax is Georgist in tone. There is nothing wrong with that. However, it won't be sufficient. I'd personally go for a gradual switch to local co-operatives controlling land usage.

 

Xi Jinping would beg to differ. Maybe they saw an opportunity to put China back on the world stage and solve its chronic internal problems. They had massive resources in cheap labor and minerals. We had a massive consumer appetite. They opened the doors and the mechanism of capitalism enabled the spectacular growth that followed. Although capitalists and entrepreneurs are permitted they are only 'tolerated' by the state for as long as it suits them. Give China credit, they ended up getting more out of it than we did. They may have been new to the game but they played it well.

 

You're oh so diligent in providing no credible counter. Why are you so scared to answer my diddy question. How does the result differ? How are the landless any better off? Why was their life expectancy lower than slaves?

 

This is actually progress! You can't show that the landless were better off than slaves. Next question: Were they worse off?

 

We're comparing the outcomes. You've basically agreed that the landless were worse off than slaves....

 

Let's finish your logic. You think the landless were worse off than slaves. Does that therefore mean that, for the people concerned, land ownership was worse than human ownership?

 

Yep, you've concluded that the landless were actually worse off and therefore determined that owning a human isn't as bad.

Personally I'd say, given the outcomes are so similar, they're on a par. Hey ho!

 

Come now. We are referring to the comparison of outcomes. You admit that the landless had worse outcomes which ensured lower life expectancy?

Try not to struggle so. You're looking desperate.

 

The poor generally have lower life expectancy, being landless is not the only reason.
Not all landowners are wealthy.

 

I'm making a direct comparison which demonstrates how they haven't thought things through. Essentially they have to admit being landless was historically worse...

 

Erik Voorhees speaks the truth...

 

Even though the landless were worse off?

You've repeatedly said naff all. Its people like you that gave Trump a free ride!

 

comparing owning land to owning a human is an invalid comparison.

I've repeatedly pointed out reality.

 

Comparing results isn't. You don't care that the landless had lower life expectancy then?

You're repeatedly advertised the irrelevance of centrism

 

You're a centrist, you post nothing. Here's the question you avoided: You don't care that the landless had lower life expectancy then?

 

I’ve repeatedly pointed out comparing owning a human owning land is invalid. That will never stop being true.

 

Again, the centrist hides (as is their way). Here's the question: You don't care that the landless had lower life expectancy then?

 

You seem confused. I am right here, pounding you over the head with reality. That is by definition not hiding. You are just upset that I won’t permit you to deflect away from the topic being discussed.

 

You're clearly trolling. Again, here's the question: You don't care that the landless had lower life expectancy then?

 

What I’m clearly doing is pointing out comparing owning land to owning a human is an invalid comparison. Your deflections don’t change that. Sorry.

 

Life expectancy is only one measure of quality of life, slavery is another measure. Others may choose differently, but I would not trade my freedom for a few years of longevity.

I chose to own land, it is not a freedom I have been denied...yet.