The problem of Capitalism

<yawn> I'm not here to do your homework assignments for you. You merely made a claim you can't support, and are now disingenuously trying to get me to support it for you. Again.

Absolutely. Justice is not something that can be determined by the vote of some local "socialist people's committee" you fancy yourself the chair of, sorry. You just want to retain private landowner privilege -- injustice in land tenure and taxation of the productive -- by recasting the parasitic private landowner as a "co-operative."

No. They can only decide, democratically, how their government will address matters of public policy. They may make good decisions, they may make bad ones, but they are not competent to redefine justice to suit their -- let alone your -- personal preferences.

Obviously what you really intend here is that YOU will be able to determine and decide for them by exercising some sort of local political power in the "socialist people's committee." That about right?

See? You have to advocate landowner privilege and parasitism. You have no choice.

Of course it isn't "their land." Land can never rightly be owned, as that deprives others of their liberty rights to use it without just compensation. What the people of a local community have is the right to administer, through their democratically responsible institutions, possession and use of the land within that jurisdiction in trust to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to use it. That is only achievable through market allocation, not the political allocation you favor because you believe you will be able to manipulate the "socialist people's committee" for your own unearned profit and call it "their decision."

But I've demolished it, even though I am not a Georgist.

Wrong again. Stealing is still evil even if everyone does it. As long as people are being forcibly deprived of their liberty right to use land without just compensation, evil is being done to them no matter how much you rationalize it as "their decision" about "their land."

No, I reject them.

Wrong again. Of course I can advocate justice, because mere "devolution" of landowner privilege to a "local community" for political redistribution is not justice, let alone justice "by definition." You are merely claiming that the word, "justice" means something that it in fact does not mean. We could charitably call that a "terminological inexactitude" -- except that such rhetorical conceits are your stock in trade.

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

I'm not the one advocating exercise of political power by the chair of some local "socialist people's committee" to abrogate people's rights without just compensation. You are.

Huh?? What a load of nonsense. The definition of land cannot be altered at will by some local "socialist people's committee" you like to fancy yourself the chair of.

As long as they make just (market) compensation to those whom they thus deprive of their liberty right to use that land.

Yet you presume to tell us that only you know how possession and use of land can be administered in the public interest...

But only by wild coincidence, as there is no provision in your anti-economic "solution" for either market allocation or just compensation, nor any mechanism for doing away with unjust and economically harmful taxes on economic activity.

So so false, absurd, and disingenuous! Again.

"Pareto efficiency"?? Really? That's the best you can do?

But as we know, that is self-evidently not justice, as there is no mechanism whereby the local community that happens to control a valuable resource will compensate non-members it deprives of their liberty to use it.

Yes, of course it does. People have an individual right to use land. They don't have an individual right to dispose of the local government's revenue.

Not from uncompensated abrogation of its members' equal individual rights to liberty, it isn't.

An admirably accurate assessment of what follows:

See?

When location subsidy repayment (LSR) is mated with a universal individual exemption (UIE).

Disproved many times. Nationalization and devolved control do nothing to ensure either efficiency or equity: political allocation by the local "socialist people's committee" will not be as efficient as market allocation under LSR, and lack of just compensation for abrogation of individual liberty rights via a UIE (or, second best, a CD/UBI) ensures inequity.

LSR + UIE can be called many things, but "conservative" is not one of them.

IMO what they've learned is that they can't persuade either the Marxist/socialist left or the neoclassical/capitalist right to be honest, and that is frustrating. It's natural to feel a little disgruntled when you can clearly see how the other sides' lies murder millions of innocent people every year. How do you feel about the two Holocausts per year caused by anti-geoist lies?

Well, it's true that children are typically more honest than people who cite peer-reviewed economic journals.

We know that claim is objectively false. The BC government's Pigovian carbon tax, for example, is self-evidently progressive as its revenue is redistributed to the people in inverse relation to their incomes.

What an eloquent confession of the reason for your disgraceful conduct.

Of those schools of thought. Not of the facts those schools purport to understand. Comparing religions also improves knowledge -- but only of religions, not of facts. The schools of economic "thought" you favor have a relation to fact similar to that of religions.

Right: you only need to evade the indisputable facts about land which I identify.

Which is presumably why you are so obsessed with it that you use the word more often than anyone else on this forum.

Land is not labor. You don't seem altogether clear on that point, which might be why you shriek, "Georgism!" whenever anyone mentions any facts about land.

I have proved it is you who hates justice, which is why you are constantly trying to redefine it.

You are the one who has "Georgist blah, blah, blah Georgist" on infinite loop, not me.

No, we've established that that is objectively false. Efficiency can't be achieved by allocating land according to the arbitrary whims of some "socialist people's committee" rather than market bidding, and equity is impossible without just compensation for the forcible removal of people's rights to liberty by exclusive tenure.

Uh-huh. Sorta like the perfect knowledge possessed by the members of your local community's "socialist people's committee"...? As usual, you are completely reliant on absurd and invalid redefinitions of economic concepts.

There is a difference between not being omniscient and not being honest...

You are makin' $#!+ up again. I stated the fact that conflating land with producer goods is Marxist, whether you call them both "the means of production" or "capital." That's one concept, not "neoclassical concepts."

Evil is deliberate abrogation of others' rights with intent to inflict injustice. A local land co-operative that deprives others of their liberty rights to use land without making just compensation does exactly that, as does a trade union exercising its legal privilege of depriving the employer and non-members of their liberty to enter into voluntary contracts.

Says the guy who claims market bidding is no more efficient than the whims of some local "socialist people's committee"!

<yawn> How horrid it must be to be you...

 

Hahahaha, you're fooling no one with your dodge. I know all about how socialism adjusted. The belief that the Walrasian Auctioneer could somehow be replaced by the planner was rejected. Instead, focus of the political economy was on feasible forms. These broke down into anarchist and market socialist forms, the latter providing a bridge between Marxism and Austrian Economics (which admittedly will be completely alien to the monist comprehension stakes).

As usual, you have nothing credible to say.

This again only demonstrates your conservatism and how easy it is to make you give ridiculous outburst. Of course, internet Georgism is by definition childish. Emotional outbursts, when confronted with economics, are guaranteed.

We have the need to eliminate resource leakage from the local community. We know that is a constant threat. Resource exploitation can decimate any real gains from trade. With devolved public ownership we guarantee its avoidance. Value of land remains with the local community. Despite that, you cant help with your emotional whine and call the local community 'parasitic'. Tut tut.

What utter rot, merely showing how you treat your fellow man with contempt. Now if I was referring to government and public good provision, you'd have a point (but still derive cretinous conclusion). Its certainly the case that government failure is likely. That will reflect asymmetric information (e.g. moral hazard of undersupplying PPE equipment to healthcare) or good old fashioned knowledge deficiency. Of course this isn't an argument against public good delivery. Its an argument for accountability.

We don't have that here. The local cooperative has one objective: ensuring that land value benefits the local community. We could model that with some objective function, but why bother? Its up to the local community to decide how land is utilised.

Hahahaha, this is a pathetic effort. I've repeatedly said that its naff all to do with me. I can't determine what the local community will do. Of course I have no power here to coerce. Local accountability is an easy proposition. There is then no asymmetric information problems.

Only you could call everyone parasites. Quite ridiculous.

Inane ramble. Through devolved public ownership we, by definition, eliminate any claims about private ownership (and then inheritance). Resource always benefit the local community.

Internet Georgism always observes the same script: 1. Land obsess; 2. Emotional rant calling folk evil; 3. Reject the term Georgism, thinking the term Geoist makes them look less backward; 4. Repeat, endlessly.

No one is stopped in anything. Right to roam, for example, is guaranteed. Resource value is secured such that everyone benefits. You're only confirming what I already know. Your emotional language is a smoke screen for lack of actual economic content. When confronted with a radical transformation, you still cant successfully adapt the script.

Hahahaha, look at you scrambling to misrepresent. This isn't political redistribution. This is the obvious: the local community should benefit from local resource. They should be in total control to use their land however they deem fit. Now this would help local communities (e.g. rural geographies often have higher poverty). However, you don't really care about Average Joe. They can be discriminated against and underpaid. You'll just stick two fingers up and carry on

Hahahaha, this isn't actually socialism. That refers to worker control and ownership. This is really an anarchist perspective. We have no right to inform a local community how to use their land. I couldn't demand, for example, that they develop through some kack notion of cost benefit analysis. All control goes to the locals.

Hahahaha, I loved this. Even now you're trying to build a sub-script to endlessly repeat. Indeed, the rest of your post can be ignored for that very reason.

I did, however, find one aspect amusing. You stated: "The BC government's Pigovian carbon tax, for example, is self-evidently progressive as its revenue is redistributed to the people in inverse relation to their incomes". This was exceedingly ignorant, confirming how you apply Econ 101 without any understanding. Regressivity of these types of tax refers to tax burden. Does a fuel tax represent a greater portion of a poor man's income than a rich man's? Almost certainly. Now you can refer to tax earmarking. A regressive tax can be used to correct market power and then, via earmarking, somehow benefit the targeted poor. You'd be reliant on two factors. First, a government capable of efficiently determining marginal external costs. Second, a trustworthy government that guarantees benevolent revenue use. We know that's as likely as internet Georgism breaking its script! Pigovian taxes, for example, rarely operate. They are instead seen as hidden taxes that can be used to reduce other taxes, such as corporation tax and income tax progressivity, as part of electoral aim.

The interesting aspect here is offered by the Coase Theorem. Naively used, that shows how the market can solve these problems and government taxation can be avoided. We know that typically is not the case, given we really are referring to the importance of transaction costs and the difficulties in bargaining. No such problem exists here. The devolved local community has clear property rights. So you don't just want to call local people 'parasitic' and 'evil'; you also want to pretend that a nanny government knows better