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

You replied to a post that referred to home ownership. Indeed, you quoted it. The empirical evidence shows that home ownership is associated with either increased unemployment or increased underpayment, making a mockery of your comment

 

In a more perfect "commune" a guy may get issued a girlfriend, for the good of the State.

 

No, your claim is not only false and illogical, but irrelevant. The residential land homeowners own is not the commercial or industrial land where they earn their wages. You know this. Therefore, your claim that ownership or control of the one implies control of the other is not only a mockery but a confession of stupidity and/or dishonesty.

 

In my opinion, it is disingenuous to claim progressive forms of taxation are unfair, under any form of Capitalism where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable.

 

I understood his argument. It makes sense to me.

 

You replied to a comment that referred directly to home owners. Perhaps you should be more precise? You're clearly using imprecision to try and make grand claim when you know you haven't got the knowledge to support it

 

So, it makes sense to you that by owning a bit of residential land in the location where one dwells, one then has control of much larger areas of commercial and/or industrial land and/or capital goods in a different location where one works?

No wonder I can't get through to you: you have no concept of logic, implication, causation, or what is relevant and irrelevant in economic relationships.

 

Let's cut through the desperate blagging. Here's the key exhange again:

That's an oops moment that only describes how Georgists, ignorant of the labour market, are prone to making very basic error. Home ownership, through its effects on mobility, can increase exploitation. A result quite alien to control of the means of production

 

That guy might not be happy with their selection. And she mightb not be happy with him as well.
.

 

It may depend on the amount, under our current regime, since those of your point of view tend to discount anything but federal income taxes in your point of view; in my opinion, that is a form of special pleading since income taxes are not the only taxes levied, even disproportionately on the less wealthy.

Why should anyone have any problem with economic forms of discrimination, under any form of Capitalism, where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable?

 

That wasn't what he was saying; he was referring to social and potentially upward mobility and the influence of home ownership.

 

In a more perfect commune, that may not be a problem; however, how does that compare to loveless marriages under any form of Capitalism.

 

Let's see how dishonest Reiver can be:

No, it is not. It simply reminds him of a fact he was trying to lie about. You are being dishonest, as you always have to be when fallaciously attacking me for identifying facts of economics that you find inconvenient to your false beliefs.

Please explain how identifying the indisputable fact that a homeowner only owns some of the means of production, not "the means of production" constitutes a "very basic error." Either that, or admit that you are just lying again.

No, that's just more stupid, dishonest garbage from you. You are now very stupidly and dishonestly claiming that exploitation of a laborer who owns a single share of corporate stock would be "quite alien to [his] control of the means of production." You will have to present some evidence for that claim, and be sure to include proper references.

 

Its a very basic point and describes the severity of the ignorance of the Georgist approach. You've ignored the labour market and how home ownership has been found to increase labour underpayment (exploitation in heterodox language). See the debate spawned by the Oswald hypothesis (with the rejection of the Oswald hypothesis leading to a conclusion that, rather than necessarily leading to an increase in the equilibrium unemployment rate, the mobility problems leads to a reservation wage deduction). To suggest that "owning some of the means of production" leads to increased exploitation in production is decidedly silly. The problem is that, as you only blindly follow Long Dead George, you've not been able to construct argument around economic rationality.

 

If that were only an error on your part (or the only error on your part), it might be forgivable. As it's indisputably deliberate dishonesty, I'll have to continue rubbing your nose in it. I have not mentioned any "Georgist approach" or said anything that could imply a Georgist approach could be relevant to what I said. That is just a fabrication on your part. I.e., a lie. That you always have to lie is fundamental to the requirement that you always evade facts.

Maybe I ignored them for the same reason I've ignored Borat, Bruno and Babar: their complete irrelevance to the point I made, about which you continue to lie and will always lie. You have no choice: you always have to lie and so you lie, and that is why you lie, because you lie.

How about instead of that, you see what I wrote and try to respond to it, rather than just always evading and changing the subject and lying?

Of course. And that is why you made it up.

No, the problem is that as you have to evade all facts, and have chosen always to find some excuse to slag Henry George even when his views have nothing to do with the matters at issue, you also always have to lie about what I have plainly written.

Reiver, you have very stupidly and dishonestly claimed that exploitation of a laborer who owns a single share of corporate stock would be "quite alien to [his] control of the means of production." You have not presented any evidence whatever for that claim, let alone proper references. You will need to do so before you can post in this forum again without admitting that you have made an utter @$$ of yourself. Again.

 

Yes, it clearly was. Either that, or he was just making up some stupid $#!+ to try to prove that any time he responds to anything I post, he has to be infinitely stupid and dishonest, which I wouldn't necessarily rule out.

Then why did he dishonestly pretend to be responding to -- even refuting! -- what I posted?

 

I know you like to downplay your Georgism, but to make a factor of production claim over an issue that increases underpayment was wonderful in showing just how backward thinking the Georgist approach really is.

I've referred directly to the Oswald hypothesis. Its actually easy to show the limitations of the approach (e.g. Oswald's original working paper wasn't published and the subsequent cross-country analysis into equilibrium unemployment effects is mixed). However, its also easy to show that the mixed results reflects potentially competing effects offered by the reservation wage choice. See, for example, Munch et al (2006, Are Homeowners Really More Unemployed?, Economic Journal, Vol. 116 Issue 514, pp. 991-1013)

 

You have again beautifully proved your deep and comprehensive dishonesty. The fact I identified had nothing to do with underpayment. That was just a typical attempt on your part to change the subject.

No, there was no relationship to any "Georgist approach." That's just a typical fabrication on your part -- basically a stupid lie. You made it up in order to contrive an opportunity gratuitously to slag Henry George when I had not mentioned Henry George or anything related to his ideas. You're busted, Reiver. I'm not sure there is any clearer way to explain that to you.

Yes, you've been very diligently trying to evade the facts and change the subject. As usual.

Reiver, you have very stupidly and dishonestly claimed that exploitation of a laborer who owns a single share of corporate stock would be "quite alien to [his] control of the means of production." You have not presented any evidence whatever for that claim, let alone proper references. Until you do, each message that you post to this forum exponentially increases the proof of your dishonesty.

 

You neatly destroy your whole attempt at argument. That you haven't referred to underpayment is the very point. You've ignore the nature of production and how exploitation is delivered. Its of course your standard approach when delivering the Georgist land rant. However, its even worse here as you've come out with a remark that makes no sense and is quite alien to the evidence. Your dogma has let you down again!

I've referred to labour theory and the empirical evidence in support. That will be inconsistent with your approach: make unsupportable claims and say 'you lie' a lot to hide from the truth.

This is a quite random reply and I'll take that as evidence that you've even realisd the stupidity of the 'home ownership is partial control of the means of production' whinge. I've referred directly to evidence that proves my point: Oswald's unemployment hypothesis doesn't take into account that, given the reduced labour mobility created by housing tenure, workers can react by reducing reservation wages. So home ownership can indeed engineer greater exploitation, making the original comment astoundingly simplistic and completely alien to economic realiity. Gerogism for you!

 

Because it may have some impact on upward social mobility for some people.

 

Non sequitur. I never said or implied that it didn't or couldn't. I made a simple and indisputably correct factual observation, and Reiver immediately went into Infinitely Stupid and Dishonest in Order to Slag All Facts About Land Mode, as he always does when responding to anything I post.

 

You neatly prove that you will stoop to any dishonesty whatever -- the one invariable characteristic of all apologists for greed, privilege and evil.

Correct. It proves you were deliberately lying when you claimed I had made an error. You deliberately chose to tell a lie, and you have been lying ever since.

I ignored them because they were not the subject of -- were not even related to -- my statement. You know this. You merely deliberately chose to lie about it.

Which is also something you made up.

Don't you understand what it means when you ALWAYS HAVE TO LIE?

It not only makes sense, it is indisputably true.

Please explain how my observation that a house is not the means of production constitutes being let down by a dogma. And try not to make your response too obviously stupid and dishonest.

No, you have provided no evidence whatever. Every message you post without doing so, therefore, expands, exponentially, the proof of your total dishonesty and the complete futility of reading your posts. There is simply no content in what you say, and never has been.

BWAHAHHAHAAAA!! What a sweet little fallacy: tell nothing but lies, and then pretend to be offended when you are called on them.

The truth is that I didn't make an unsupportable claim, and you know it, so stop lying. That is why you have not offered any evidence against my statement, and never will: it is self-evidently and indisputably correct as a matter of objective physical fact.

You now have exactly two choices, Reiver: you can provide evidence -- and don't forget the full reference to peer-reviewed research -- that the land under a home was not used in the home's production, or you can admit that you are an infinitely stupid, dishonest, subhuman, lying sack of $#!+. Failure to do the first will constitute doing the second. And you will not be doing the first.

That is not evidence that supports or is even relevant to your "point," let alone proving it.

Oh, it was simplistic, I'll grant you that. Deliberately. In fact, it was just about the simplest, most obvious and indisputable economic fact imaginable. Which makes it all the more disgraceful, despicable and sickening that you demonstrated your infinite dishonesty by taking issue with it.

 

This is emotive clap-trap. You’ve simply ignored the nature of the labour market and how it impacts on labour outcome. Your obsession with land has ensured an inability to craft relevant argument, thereby leading to these emotional tirades as you hide from economic reality.

A very poor attempt at hiding from content! We have you making ridiculous claims over the means of production despite home ownership leading to greater economic rents for employers. The naivety of your position, based purely on Long Dead George, is in full display.

Get it right now. You made a statement over home ownership that is inconsistent with economic reality. As you have no understanding of the labour market you haven’t appreciated that housing tenure is associated with underpayment and therefore further growth opportunity in economic rents. Your obsession with land has ensured that you have overlooked the consequences of labour mobility and how it impacts on unemployment and/or wage compensation. To therefore refer to the means of production, when we’re referring to production relations that increases employer power, is ridiculous.

That you’re reliant on Georgist land rant is undeniable. In this example we see the consequences of that obsessive use: a failure to consider the labour market and its impact on production relations.

This amused me. It would seem that you have now realized the error of your postion. I'd congratulate you. That we can use economics to get through to the most restricted Georgists shows the power of the economic argument.

Tut tut, how easily you fib! I’ve provided empirical evidence. It’s also empirical evidence that directly supports my argument, something that you always struggle with as your rant is oh so old fashioned.

Already achieved! The article referenced demonstrates the difficulty with the Oswald Hypothesis, with the impact of home ownership on reservation wages rather than equilibrium unemployment rates. End result? Economic rents created through housing tenure!

I’ll go through it slowly for you. Here’s the comment again:

You thought you’d get away with that nonsense but we’ve now seen that economic theory predicts that housing tenure will impact on production relations through its effect on labour mobility. We’ve also seen that the evidence, as supported by a peer reviewed empirical study, supports that premise by showing the impact on reservation wages (which fall as the home owner attempts to avoid transaction costs from moving by maximizing the acceptable ‘local’ job opportunities).

We’ve shown all the standard tactics of internet Goergists on here: obsession with land (such that basic error over economic outcome is made), ignorance of economic analysis and emotive reaction as part of a dodge routine.