The problem of Capitalism

Are you seeing a pattern? I'm not a Conservative, so maybe it's just James

And I am responding to your posts. This is me, responding to your posts.

 

And here's me .. responding to your post #1064. Did you miss it?

 

Ah... your post 1092; yes I did miss that, my apologies.

This is the part of my post #1064 that you replied to:

<<That's why Bernie Sanders can proudly announce to the electors he is a "social democrat". It's just that he must overcome instinctive greed (in all of us) and show that in fact everyone can be guaranteed above poverty participation in the community - this is the difficult bit for a social democrat.
BTW, democratic socialism is not 'communism'; a social democrat allows for "greed" to be satisfied, provided that greed has community benefits as well.>>

And your reply is:

-----

communism:

1. a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

--------------

First, how does my concept of 'above poverty' equate with 'equality of reward"? Above poverty means anywhere from above the poverty line, all the way up to Jeff Bezos.

Second, to your assertion that "communism is about equality of WORK" .

OK, so ...communism means equality of the contribution (ie work, according to ability), but not (according to you) equality of the distribution (ie reward, according to need).

See your error? Your assertion that communism is NOT also about equality of reward (that part in the definition called : "according to need" does not hold up.

In any case, can you now see that Bernie Sanders 'democratic socialism' is a different concept to communism? Bernie wants to operate within the capitalist, neoliberal 'invisible hand' competitive free market model.

If so, we can discuss your '5 points' listed in post 1099.
……..

Meanwhile, to keep the ball rolling ….Bernie also wants to fund free education, free health care and full above-poverty employment (with min. wage $15/hr) by means of a 'Wall Street Tax' (tax on financial transactions, most of which - in quantity of money terms - are bets placed by rich people, with no benefit for the real economy).

Now, I'm here to show that Bernie doesn't have to rely on taxes obtained from rich people.

Or as Professor Stephanie Kelton has wittily construed it:

"Money doesn't grow on rich people"

But that's another story.

 

And mine as well. This forum often gets "thick" with responses - especially from the thought-empty one-liners.

One can lose track because if you manipulate the software incorrectly, you can end up replying to the wrong post.

 

Quite so.

btw, I admire your efforts to raise awareness of democratic socialism in the US. Your explanation of the historical differences between the European and American experiences post WW2 are convincing - but ideologically blind people will reject such considerations, like Pavlov's dogs reacting to the word 'socialism' (excuse the mixing of metaphors).

But I remain dismayed by the reality of 10% unemployment in France, crumbling infrastructure in Germany and concerns about how to pay for aged pensions, political/economic dysfunction in Italy and low growth rates in the EU generally , which I consider are due to the capitalist, neoliberal 'invisible hand' competitive free market macroeconomic orthodoxy that you support, the evident shortcomings of which even the responsible social taxation regimes of said democratic socialism in the EU cannot overcome.

 

1) because you're describing 'income'. collectivism is not about income, it's about shared non-monetary resources (houses/land/crops/whatever) and shared work. subsistence is the goal, not income.

2) it can't mean distribution because there is nothing (ie, no money) to distribute. the point of the exercise is subsistence, not profit. income means profit, and therefore capitalism. and in a collective, 'according to need' is limited to age and infirmity. fully functional members are not able to 'need' more than anyone else.

3) I never said Bernie was a Socialist/Communist. He's nothing of the sort.

4) And how is Bernie going to compel full employment? At gunpoint? When you have a citizenry raised in the belief that work is optional, gunpoint is the only way you'll ever see full employment. Even then, some will still choose death.

 

Or .. people are getting lazier and lazier, and expecting Govt to carry them.

 

This exchange between rahl and myself is relevant:

rahl said:

My reply:

<<"People strive to improve themselves" is only the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to individual motivation.
You ignore the unconscious, predatory, instincts at play - witness the battles, both legal (in a court of law) AND actual physical murder - over competition to win market share, patents, copyright, intellectual property rights, etc, etc, for a more complete picture on " people striving to improve themselves"..….>>

[Note: both rahl and you conflate communism with Bernie Sanders' 'democratic socialism', but I explained your error in #1103].

Now, You say people are getting lazier and lazier (which is empirically ridiculous) to explain why people might be accepting (government intervention) in the 'invisible hand' neoliberal economy, while rahl says people strive to improve themselves, which is why (government intervention) wont work.
Obviously neither of these arguments is correct; there is no evidence whatsoever for "increasing laziness"; OTOH rahl is ignorant of the effects of unconscious motivation, as explained above.

Time for a bit of comic relief:

https://twitter.com/McGaucho/status/1166046941559570433?s=20

 

Correct.

You are still erroneously equating my "above poverty participation" scenario with "collectivism" and "communism". In any case, subsistence is not the goal of any modern post-industrial economic system (and indeed Soviet Communism itself raised Russia out of subsistence poverty, to become a world power which launched the space age, leading the capitalist west).

Refuted above. The exercise is not subsistence.
But more importantly, your conflation of "money" and "resources" is very telling and very wrong (the two are very different, as explained in MMT, which is another story ….so lets move on)

Neither did I.
In fact, Bernie describes himself as a democratic socialist....I hope you are now capable of understanding what Bernie means when he describes himself as such (which is in fact something like the description of the Danish system, in the clip linked in my previous post).

And so there we have it, ladies and gentlemen, death or capitalism, there is no other way!

[I love the way Conservatives (which you claim not to be) turn black into white; eg, "above poverty participation" means "compulsion at gunpoint"...)

But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt (that you don't actually have the tendencies of a Pinochet or a Franco, or any of the other murderous R/W dictators in history).

There is another way. The resources do exist to eradicate poverty AND permit people to "strive to improve themselves".

Especially in this age of advancing AI, IT, automation and hence almost unlimited productivity; the era of 'resource scarcity' (ie a scarcity which prevevts universal prosperous development) is rapidly receding into the dustbin of history.

 

1) I'm not talking about nations/states, I'm talking about collectives. And yes - the goal is subsistence, not profit. You can refute it all you like, but you'll still be wrong.

2) I have conflated nothing. I made the clear distinction between money and resources. No clue why you twisted that .. weird.

3) YOU were attempting to 'correct' me by saying Bernie isn't a Communist. YOU evidently imagine that everyone thinks he is. YOU were wrong. Again.

4) I'm a socialist. A commie, to many. You're barking up the wrong tree .. big time.

5) I'm not a conservative.

6) Yes, the resources do exist to eradicate FIRST WORLD poverty. They're available as we speak, for anyone sufficiently motivated to access them.

 

That's neat.. you introduce 'nation states'.. and 'collectives'..into the argument, which I have neither posited nor denied: the topic is 'the problem of capitalism' which is an economic system

I don't know of any economic system ever conceived for which that is the goal.

You said: <<"it can't mean distribution because there is nothing (ie, no money) to distribute">>

On the contrary, there are always resources in any system, even one with out money (eg barter) , and even in a subsistence economy. (eg food). Hence your statement: "nothing = no money" is wrong.

This is what I said way back in post #1064 (which you said you read):

<<"That's why Bernie Sanders can proudly announce to the electors he is a "social democrat". It's just that he must overcome instinctive greed (in all of us) and show that in fact everyone can be guaranteed above poverty participation in the community - this is the difficult bit for a social democrat.

BTW, democratic socialism is not 'communism'; a social democrat allows for "greed" to be satisfied, provided that greed has community benefits as well">>.

And yet, many posts later, you asked (in your post #1099) "what is democratic socialism"?

Refuted above.

Well, now we both know that Bernie sees himself as a 'democratic socialist', working within the capitalist, neoliberal, 'invisible hand', competitive free market model, but with social programs he wants to fund with a financial transaction tax.

Bernie has made his position clear. Now it's time to make your position clear....aa a "non-conservative socialist."..

Please explain...we know you are not communist, and we know you did not know what Bernie Sanders means by "social democracy".

That's a good point. Poverty results in unsustainable population growth, and so the 3rd world might not be able to bring about eradication of poverty (ie above poverty participation in the economy) immediately - but 1st world assistance can help eradicate 3rd world poverty, initially.

Ah--- there's that famous motivation problem again, as seen through the eyes of Conservatives (eg, people are lazy - which is nonsense: or they strive to improve themselves, which is correct- but the reality of our unconscious competitive instincts must be managed within rule of law, to avoid anarchy (hence the Anarchy delusion of Libertarianism)

btw if it smells like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, but --- as I said - feel free to explain your own ideology, and hence why you are not a 'Conservative".

 

Assuming the same tax rate on land value, the owner of the ~$14,000,000 lot would pay more, obviously; and he should, as he is getting much more from the community whether he himself decides to make use of the lot or not.

 

The design of the sweater and/or the trademark value. This is an irrelevant evasion. The sweater wouldn't exist if it weren't made: the land WOULD. You're not really getting in anyone's way when you produce sweaters that some idiots wish to pay $600 for so that they feel like they are extravagant, posh, or hipster or whatever. If they want to waste their money buying Jordan sneakers, then I have no problem allowing them to do so however stupid it may be.

Land is essential, necessary, and cannot be lived without. Being in fixed supply (cannot be increased) means that the land can only be worth whatever it allows to let the owner take from those who wish to make use of it. You automatically get in other people's way. If you want convenient access to society, you have to pay the landowner for it who's not the one contributing the societal benefits conveniently available near his location.

This is NOT difficult to grasp.

 

What a predictable evasion. What qualities does the land have that will get its owner millions of $ at sale other than the convenient location? The single tree? It's obvious to anyone who has a brain cell network with more than two cells that the owner of that lot does not truly earn (in the sense of making a contribution) millions of $.

Building a bike means I have to design it, plan for its production, etc. The producer is the one that produces the bike and gives it its qualities that give people the incentive to spend their money on it. By being able to make money for making bikes, it encourages me to continue to build more bikes as long as there is a demand for it. This arrangement enriches society.

Land is not produced. It's obviously lot merely a way for him to make loads of money by charging others for access to what the government (infrastructure and services) and the community (restaurants, shops, social opportunities...) provide. This arrangement does not encourage wealth production. It's pure TAKING. And because of this TAKING, production has to be unnecessarily burdened with taxes on income, sales, etc.

 

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.[/QUOTE]

Nope. Doesn't result in the same thing at all. With the (rental) value of the land being recovered, there would not need to be taxes on income and sales, for example. This would leave people more of their earned money and increase abundance of goods and services. That makes society a better and more convenient place to live. Admittedly, people would still be paying the rental value of the land as they are now, but it would now be used for societal benefit instead of giving the landowner money for contributing nothing.

Eliminating the property tax on the improvements (buildings, for example) would also have long term effects on the abundance of improvement; meaning cheaper prices for the same improvement or higher quality for the same price. Recovering the (rental) value of the land would also mean that prices for the land itself fall close down to zero, because land will lost its investment value in the sense of free handouts. People no longer have to have to pay extortionate prices (many years of income) and hope they can pay off the loan after they had to run to the bank to be able to afford it.

 

Uh, directly answering your question isn’t an evasion, lol. What is being charged, is the market value for the land. If you want that parcel, you have to make an offer to the owner. If they reject it, you can’t have it. This is reality. You have no right to another’s property.

 

What gives the lot the qualities that give people the incentive to spend so much money on it? Who's contributing them?

Pointing out that something currently is considered property is neither an argument for it being morally justifiable nor for it being economically sensible (only the lazy landowner benefits).

 

The market

Already established both.

 

Potential buyers merely judge how advantageous its qualities with regards to location and natural advantages are. The market doesn't create those qualities. That's like saying that somebody who buys a Picasso for $100,000,000 after winning the auction is the one who painted the Picasso. That's OBVIOUSLY ABSURD.

Answer the question:

Is the market paying millions of $ for the tree? What gives the land it's qualities that make it worth paying millions of $ for?

 

Exclusive use gives the land it's value. The landowner is not required to kill anyone for possession or kill anyone to secure possession, property taxes pay for that security.

 

What is the landowner getting from the community that is not paid for by property taxes or user fees?

 

If exclusive use was what made the lot that expensive, then every privately owned lot in the US of the same size would be just as expensive. Not every lot that size is listed at millions of $.
___________________________________________________________________________
"A gentleman comes to town to build a factory and he chose a female realtor. He described to the realtor the exact size of the piece of land he needs to build his factory.

She said, "Come with me; I have got exactly that size piece of land." They get into the automobile and drive down the freeway, and drive off the freeway onto a local road, drive off the local road onto a country road, drive off the country road onto a dirt track, and in the middle of nowhere they get out of the automobile, and walk for 10 minutes through marsh, bog, bushes, and eventually they get to this site. She said "here you are, this site is for sale, it is $10,000."

The factory builder looks around and asks, "Is that the only access, or is there a nice highway on the other side of the field?"

She said, "No, that's the only access."

He said "Have you got any energy coming to the site? Gas? Water? Sewage" Cable?"

She said, "No, there is none of that out here."

He said, "Are there any housing estates just beyond the horizon with a local bus service?"

She said, "No buses, no trains, no local housing estates." She said, "You don't look very happy."

He said, "I am not. I want to build a factory, but I have to bring raw materials in, bring in capital equipment, I have got to employ people, and I have to get my finished goods away from the factory. I even sell some of my products at the factory gate, so how are my workers and suppliers and my customers going to get here, and how do I get the finished goods away?"

She said, "Don't worry. I have got another site, so come with me." So they walk 10 minutes back to the automobile, and drive back towards the center of town and half way through in the suburbs they stop at this site, and she said, "Now this site here on the left is for sale. It is exactly the same size as the first site I showed you. It has got cable, it has got energy, it has water, it has sewage, it has good bus service, there is little crime because the police are up and down all the time, there is a train station, there is a big housing estate, there is a hospital and there is a school. The road is well made up and looked after by the local authority and it is well lit."

He said, "Yes, this is more like it, and I will pay $10,000 for this."

She said, "Hold on, this is a good area. The cost is $110,000."

He said, "but you told me it is the same size."

She said, "It is the same size, but look at all these wonderful services."

He scratched his head a bit and said, "Yeah, you are right, it is worth $110,000 to me. Who do I make the check payable to? The bus company, the police department, the fire brigade, housing authority, people that run the hospital, the school board?"

She said, "No, you don't pay any of those. You pay it to the gentleman who is selling you the land."

He thought a minute, and then he said, "I've got it, he keeps the $10,000 and the $100,000 goes to all these agencies."

She said, "No, not at all. The landowner is retiring to Florida, and your check is going to be his pension."

"So how do you pay for all these wonderful services?"

"Well, we wait until you build your factory and charge you a property tax and when you employ staff, you have to pay an employee tax, and when you sell your goods we charge a sales tax."

He said, "That is not fair. I am paying twice. I am paying once for this many to go to Florida, and again I am paying for all these agencies.

 

Cute story if not entirely accurate. The amenities the factory owner desires are provided by the landowners in the community, including the current landowner with property for sale, via their property taxes.

The story does raise some challenges to the rent recovery theory. By itself land has little value, it is the improvements to the land that make it valuable. Water, electricity, sewer, police and fire protection, roads, schools, community swimming pools, libraries, those are all mostly fundeded by the community of landowers paying property tax on homes, apartments, businesses. Without long term exclusive use those improvements may not have ever been built and never taxed.

 

I've shown you obvious examples many times.

<yawn> You've tried that crap on me many times, too. You claim I'm afraid to do something, and then I do it right in your face.

 

It happened rarely.

Huh? The example you just gave proved me right and you wrong: being "free" to buy your right to liberty from someone else is the kind of "freedom" slaves have.. Hello?