The problem of Capitalism

No it's not: bringiton is saying ownership of land by individuals is tantamount to denial of others' rights.

 

You missed it? Post 942? (now on page 38: the pages are growing fast on this topic)
Tackle it if you will - are you afraid to try?

 

Er…. let's deal with the tax collectors first.
They are heading to heaven before the theologians? And what is it that tax collectors do, other than "rendering onto Caesar that which is Caesar's"?

Now to Paine, who also said: " the world is my country, and my religion is to do good".

Unfortunately, Paine's enlightenment understanding of 'reality' is flawed by that era's (early 18th century) need to create a philosophy that can dismiss the concept of government by "the divine Right of the King".

Now, in order to ensure said government (ie one without monarchic rule) is compatible with individual liberty, proponents of classical liberalism (including Paine) had to invent "imprescriptible Rights" that exist in Nature - an obvious nonsense (see my post 942).

So he - like you - thought that individuals, acting in their own interests, would also be acting in the community's interests.

[He died long before the civil war of course, so he was not forced to face the limits of his political philosophy: self-interestedness
is a two edged sword for community well-being and cohesion].

Hence unsurprisingly, Paine does demonstrate some contradictory stances, as you have already observed.....

As to your posts 1065 to 1070 (except 1067), you are making the same errors as Paine, re the "greedy hand of government'.

 

A LONELY DEATH

It's difficult in the US of far too many to employ the word "social" in a context other than "church social". Moreover, they think, in political terms, that there is no difference between the words "socialism" and "communism".

History Lesson:
*After WW2 the European governments were rebuilding themselves politically. They opted for a Social Democracy rather than the American republic-democracy. Whyzzat?
*Because they had a Communist Soviet Union glaring at them in the east of Europe. Which is why they asked the Yanks to "stick around".
*Moreover, whilst they may not have wanted the republic-democracy of the US, they certainly did not want communism either. So, they opted for Social Democracy that willingly takes into account that the market-economy remains "capitalist".
*But which assures the provision of major governmental allocations to social-programs thought necessary as primary objectives.

All that is history (after the demise of Communist Socialism) because in Eastern Europe (including Russia) most of the ex-communist countries (excluding Russia) have been admitted to the European Union. Also, they have willingly accepted "capitalism" as the financial foundation-stone of any national Market-economy as was decided at the inception of the European Union.

However, unlike the US (that spends almost half of its Discretionary Spending upon the DoD), the military-budgets of the EU are of secondary importance. The EU opted to orientate its major-spending towards National Healthcare Systems and Free Tertiary-Education. Whilst the US preferred (as a national-objective) to allocate its largest discretionary-funding to the DoD.

Supposedly to "save the world from Communism" - which died a lonely-death all-by-itself long, long ago...

 

The land itself cannot be provided by anyone, and neither has a valid property right to it. Yet the community and government are what makes any given location advantageous, as they are the ones providing the infrastructure and services, the schools, the police, the hospitals, etc. and therefore have more of a claim to the land's value than the individual landowner does; who clearly hasn't contributed anything in return for the land's value that's he's privileged to keep. (Is the tree on the land of the first real property I posted two pages ago worth the extra $10,000,000 that is taken in comparison to the second piece of real property? This is not difficult to grasp.) The landowner, as a landowner, is nothing but the father of WELFARE KINGS. Bringiton and I are against such free handouts.

JOHN STUART MILL:
"The ordinary progress of a society which increases in wealth, is at all times tending to augment the incomes of landlords; to give them both a greater amount and a greater proportion of the wealth of the community, independently of any trouble or outlay incurred by themselves."

WINSTON CHURCHILL:
"A portion, in some cases the whole, of every benefit which is laboriously acquired by the community is represented in the land value, and finds its way automatically into the landlord's pocket."
______________________________________________________________

In exchange for his exclusion rights on a piece of land, secured for him by government and the community, the landowner(-holder) should be required to pay the market rent for the advantages he's receiving and charging others for instead of just being gifted them, as he currently is; thus putting an unnecessary burden on society and also requiring the government having to tax industry and productivity to finance the provision of public infrastructure and services.

The denial of the natural liberty of the population by the securing of the individual landowners(-holders) exclusive tenure should be compensated either by each citizen having an exemption to get a certain amount of land (by value) for free, or a Citizen's Dividend, as I've seen some others suggest.

 

The outlined lot is listed at $14,000,000:


Is the single tree worth millions of dollars? If not, what is being charged for?

Answer the question.

 

LafayetteBis, if you haven't put me on ignore yet:

If land owning is not always monopoly, and there is competition and innovation; then why don't land prices go down?

Why does price/gb of storage capacity go DOWN:



While land prices go UP? (Is anyone really going to demand a graphic for that?)

You claimed to teach economics classes. Maybe the vast amounts of knowledge you've accumulated can help me with this dilemma.

 

This is a georgist rant that has already been refuted. Land is owned, not merely possessed. You do not have a right to what I own. Just like I don’t have a right to anything you own. If you want my land, you have to make an offer to purchase it. If I reject your offer, you don’t get my land. This is reality.

 

It’s being charged the market value of that parcel. This is how free societies work. If you want that parcel, you have to pay for it. You have no right to it without owning it, or with the permission of the person who does.

 

WHAT is being charged for? Is the single tree worth millions?

 

"This is an abolitionist rant that has already been refuted. Slaves are owned, not merely possessed. You do not have a right to what I own. Just like I don't have a right to anything you own. If you want my slave, you have to make an offer to purchase it. If I reject your offer, you don't get my slave. This is reality."

The landowner holds society hostage; whatever he takes cannot ultimately come from anywhere but production, which the landowner, as a landowner, clearly doesn't contribute to. The land was already there.

If the landowner takes something without contribution, others are not getting something despite contribution; always at least somewhere down the line. Like the slave owner, the landowner believes he has a property right that entitles him to do so.

HENRY GEORGE:
"The only utility of private ownership of land as distinguished from possession is the evil utility of giving to the owner products of labor he does not earn. For until land will yield to its owner some return beyond that of the labor and capital he expends on it—that is to say, until by sale or rental he can without expenditure of labor obtain from it products of labor, ownership amounts to no more than security of possession, and has no value. Its importance and value begin only when, either in the present or prospectively, it will yield a revenue—that is to say, will enable the owner as owner to obtain products of labor without exertion on his part, and thus to enjoy the results of others’ labor."

 

What would I expect to pay in property taxes if were to purchase both. Would I pay more in property taxes for the $14,000,000 property or the $12 ,000?

 

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're asking here.

Meantime, whether property is leasehold or freehold, it amounts to the same thing in practice. Our pal Bringiton wants leasehold. He doesn't seem to realise that there are many current examples of that around the world (the UK has a lot of leasehold property, as does Hong Kong - two very different nations). It doesn't change a thing, obviously .. since they are operating in the same world we're operating in, the same way. There are still rich dudes 'buying' up lots of property, and poor people paying them rent to use it.

 

The degree of 'production' that goes into any commodity is utterly irrelevant. Some people pay x 10 for the brand name of a sweater that cost rougly the same to make as a sweater from Walmart. These things are decided by the consumer, and what people are prepared to pay only ocassionally reflects the work/materials that went into it. That Walmart sweater for example, is underpriced when you consider the work that went into it in China. There is no logic to any of it, because we're dealing with humans - not robots.

 

Yes, this is another argument collapser. They fail to factor in the work and risk that goes into the holding of investment property. My guess is that they themselves have probably rejected it because it's too much work and too much risk.

 

Even if he doesn't (just like the designer who puts his label on massively overpriced sweaters), as long as there are people willing to pay, who cares. The solution - if you don't care to pay the price: buy sweaters from Walmart, and buy your own land.

 

1) You misunderstand communism entirely, if you think it's about equality of reward (which you must, since you used the term 'above poverty'). Communism is about equality of WORK, not reward. It's the polar opposite of what the First World 'socialist' imagines it.

2) I'm well aware. See my 1) above.

 

Agree, but it's not liberalism. Liberals can be Left or Right.

These people are fake socialists and/or Progressives.

 

What is being charged for in a $600 sweater that cost only slightly more to make than the $10 walmart sweater?

 

My post covered several issues, including personal motivation, competition, and the concept of Rights

Here again is my observation re land (a Georgist rant, according to you):

(Land) has been (in the distant past) possessed, not owned, by groups or individuals. There is a difference, eg while hunter gatherer tribes possessed certain territories, individuals within the tribe did not own land in that territory, and indeed the territory was possessed only as long as the tribe was sufficiently strong enough to resist incursions by other tribes. (It helps if you are the 'chosen' people, and 'God" authorises genocide, to possess the land already occupied by other tribes...).

To which your reply is:

Note your original assertion was

Now your are saying land is owned NOW, (in the present era) not merely possessed.

See the difference? I have shown that in the past land was possessed, not owned. You skipped that reality, and jumped to the present.

OK, now sure enough land *is* owned by some individuals (probably since the invention of money, which is long after humans first appeared on the planet).

Then you get back to the issue of Rights with this statement:

Oh.... my mistake, you are not talking about 'natural Rights', but just about the laws relating to possession and ownership of property.

But then you go on:

Quite so.

But you are not entitled to dismiss my post as a 'Georgist rant', based on anything I have written. .

Nowhere have I asserted or denied the controversial Georgist proposition that land ownership is incompatible with individual Rights. I will let others argue that case.

​

 

The market value of the land. I already answered that.

 

It does not matter how many times you try to compare owning land to owning humans. It’s retarded every time you do.

 

1. Poverty rate c.12% (45 million citizens)

2. Poverty level:

<<"HHS issues poverty guidelines for each household size. For example, the poverty level for a household of four is an annual income of $25,750".>>>

Note also:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/few-americans-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-1000-emergency.html

"Only 39% of Americans have enough savings to cover a $1,000 emergency" [Bankrate data].

ie over half of Americans live with chronic financial insecurity.

This chronic financial insecurity has a devastating effect on physical and mental health. That's why Berne Sanders is promoting democratic socialism.

[Chronic financial insecurity in half the population; is this related to the madness of random mass shootings ravaging the US?
You may have to strengthen the 2nd amendment by actually mandating gun ownership...…..the Trump/Conservative solution to the problem....the rest of the world will watch with interest...]

 

1) $25k is more than enough to live on, and waaaay more than a poor Third Worlder can even dream of.

2) If those Americans without $1k for emergencies have spent that much in total on luxuries - fast food, alcohol, cigarettes, tattoos, hair stylists, new clothes, eating out, air conditioning, cars, iphones, tvs, vacations etc - then they can find $1k for emergencies.

3) Over half of Americans life with chronic financial MISMANAGEMENT.

4) Yes it does. Yet they keep doing it.

5) What is 'democratic socialism', please?

 

Ah.. crank, you are back.

I must say I'm seeing a debating pattern from Conservatives here: James M ignored my post #942; your ignored my post #1064 and rahl today has ignored my post #1095.

Respond to my post #1064 (on pg 43 of this thread), and then we can deal with your above 5 points - otherwise it's obvious you and the 2 posters identified above are simply here to spout ideology, not to debate it.