What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Kode, Aug 19, 2018.

  1. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    .
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  2. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because I enjoy rubbing your capitalist nose in your own doings so much more.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A poor churlish dodge. It was a genuine question. I suppose your inability to refer to left wing economics, and complete reliance on supply side economics, would engineer a cognitive dissonance. That would account for the dodge ;)
     
  4. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    We are talking about the economic role of the landowner, not the individual who may be in that role. Each individual or company that owns land may also be a house owner, a factory owner, a building owner, a producer, a sports team owner, a farmer...

    It's specifically about the effect of landowning. As the land would be there anyways, the "economic" role of the landowner can only be one of deprivation, blackmail, and parasitism, at least as soon as the land has any value. It's not all that difficult to understand, which makes it all the more frustrating when it is rejected. Take the red pill already.

    At the risk of being called a "Georgist" by Reiver, few people have put it as well as Henry George:
    "It is true that all valuable things have the quality of enabling their owner to obtain labor or the produce of labor in return for them or for their use. But with things that are themselves the produce of labor such transactions involve an exchange—the giving of an equivalent of labor-produce in return for labor or its produce. Land, however, is not the produce of labor, it existed before man was, and, therefore, when the ownership of land can command labor or the products of labor, the transaction, though in form it may be an exchange, is in reality an appropriation. The power which the ownership of valuable land gives, is that of getting human service without giving human service, a power essentially the same as that power of appropriation which resides in the ownership of slaves. It is not a power of exchange, but a power of blackmail..."

    When you have a state granted privilege of excluding everyone else in the community from the land that would exist anyways, with its value being a result of the efforts of an entire community (as is always the case), then you should pay for enjoying that privilege instead of additionally expecting to be rewarded for it. The value of land should be retained for public purpose for the community that creates it. Everything else is ****ing bullshit and akin to slavery.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The importance of land cannot be denied. However, to obsess over land and ignore the various sources of rent is not credible. It leads to silly comment like bringiton thinking it's perfectly normal to be a billionaire with two super yachts. It also shows zero understanding of socialism. The Diggers could focus on land during the days of Oliver Cromwell. Today there has to be focus on the labour market.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  6. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    You are misconstruing bringiton's posts. He has to referred to other sources of economic rent such as intellectual property monopolies and bankster privilege.

    The claim is not that land is the only problem. The claim is that it's the big one. And its value proves that it hasn't lost importance.

    I notice that in some of the posts of the disingenuous type, people seem to pretend that we are talking about soil and dirt, as if land is only relevant to agriculture. It's value is much higher higher per unit of area in an urban as compared to a rural setting. It's clearly and irrefutably not an agricultural problem confined to "the diggers" in "the days of Oliver Cromwell".
     
  7. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    That's an untruth. bringiton didn't claim that "it's perfectly normal to be a billionaire with two super yachts".

    bringiton's claim is that even in a civilization without rent seeking opportunities, there could still be somebody able to afford super yachts.

    Let's talk a bit about statistics. I claim that the probability of an occurrence that would in isolation be considered improbable.......is actually rather high.

    When there are 1,000,000 possible unlikely occurrences each with a chance of 1/1,000,000 of happening in a scenario, then the chance that one of them happens is not all that bad. In fact, if we had lots of these scenarios, we'd average about one unlikely occurrence per scenario.

    So, yeah, maybe there is a fellow with a 1/1000 intellect and/or 1/1000 drive and/or 1/1000 or even 1/100,000 luck able to buy himself a super yacht without having unjustly harmed anyone in the process through rent seeking.

    PS: I have absolutely no background in statistics or mathematics. But I'm certain that I wrote is logical.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  8. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    It's not about what the privileged rich have in splendor and wealth. It's about how they got it. As a matter of fact, it's not even about the privileged rich, or the rich, or the splendor and wealth itself. It's about the privilege. If somebody made good money without privilege and without inflicting unjust harm on others in the process, then I couldn't care less. Good for him. Well done. Enjoy life. I'm not some miserable and envious person.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  9. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I'm mad at the slave owner because he enslaves other humans. Not because he has a mansion, can afford the most expensive wine, has a price winning steed, his own personal chef, and so on.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  10. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    The problem is not that somebody has a mansion, can afford the most expensive wine, has a price winning steed, his own personal chef, and so on. The problem is if he enslaves other human beings.
     
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He stated that result can occur without rent. Therefore he is saying it is perfectly normal. Please try and follow simple conversations. By supporting land-obsession, and ignoring all other conversation over rent, you'd be making yourself look as foolish as him.

    A ludicrous claim. And that was demonstrated when he tried to defend it by saying it could be via the financial sector, with returns- by definition- rent drive.

    It was ramble. The trouble with Georgist wannabes is that they allow their land obsession to get in the way of any logical thought. The existence of billionaires is, by definition, prove of economic rent. I even gave an example, Phillip Green, to demonstrate how billionaires benefit from exploiting labour.
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, he's made vague comment which is consistent with maintaining rant about land. Where is his understanding of discrimination, a source of rent? He's said its unimportant. Where is his understanding of monopsony? He's said its unimportant by bogusly calling it Marxist? Where is his understanding of the labour market? He doesn't have one. He just has land rant and bile when confronted with reality: just like LVT, Georgism is of only minor importance.

    Try replacing tax with LVT. Good luck. If it was so importan, you'd be crowing about your solution.

    You notice very little. The point is that whilst the Diggers were quite correct, the nature of the economy has dramatically shifted. The idea that you can refer to economic rent and injustices without reference to capital-labour relations is quite cretinous. Crikey, the title of the thread should be a big clue to you!
     
    Idahojunebug77 likes this.
  13. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    He stated that while it was unlikely for any individual, it would not at all be that unlikely that some incredibly lucky fellow could emerge for whom everything just fell into place.

    That's not a claim that "it's perfectly normal to be a billionaire with two super yachts", which is disingenuous garbage you fabricated, hoping to manipulate readers.

    bringiton: "The amount of money available in the financial markets practically guarantees that someone will be astute and lucky enough to accumulate that much without collecting rent."

    bringiton: "I said that if the rent were removed from the financial markets, there would very likely still be enough money on the table and enough variation in participants' skill and luck to produce a few winners capable of buying a $170M super-yacht."

    That's not a claim that "it's perfectly normal to be a billionaire with two super yachts". That's nothing but dishonest, manipulative nonsense designed to deceive the reader.

    Please try not fabricating statements that were not made.

    "By supporting slavery-obsession,..."

    You mean idiotic Marxist fairy tales where everything related to financial markets probably reflexively labelled to be unjust, involuntary and purely parasitic?

    My own knowledge of financial markets is insufficient to elaborate on the possibility it happening without rent being available therein. But having read quite a few of bringiton's posts, I'm willing to hear him out.

    Yes, we are illogically "obsessing" over 15-20% of the GDP of advanced Western economies being taken by landowning in return for nothing.

    And it's not only about what is taken, it's also about the economic burden our system of land tenure imposes on the economy. It causes a reduction of the abundance of privately produced goods and services and government provided infrastructure and services.

    Fixing our system of land tenure would go a long way into improving the human condition. Your socialist nonsense is probably unjust, convoluted, and bureaucratically complicated -- nothing but a cesspool for abuse and corruption.

    It's definitely a good indicator in our the current system and you probably won't be able to find one single billionaire who has not benefited from economic rent. That's not the same as it being "by definition, prove of economic rent". You seem to struggle with causal relationships.

    I notice that you have a tendency to post little economic thought in your own words to demonstrate actual understanding of the issues.

    Your modus operandi when you get challenged is to refer to "Phillip Green" or say "see Socialist Rubbish Vol. 4", and then oftentimes don't even bother to quote the relevant content, expecting us to do the work for you.

    What are you afraid of, Reiver?
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that was utterly ridiculous. You wake up one day and you're a billionaire? You can achieve it through the financial market, but that is by definition economic rent.

    Without rent, it is simply nonsensical to suggest that we can have a billionaire with 2 super yachts. That you don't realise that only informs me that you're as hypocritical as bringiton. You're not actually interested in removing rent. You're interesting in peddling a land obsessed snake oil.

    You forgot my quote where I directly utilise economic publication that describes capital gains as economic rent. Why are you misrepresenting?

    Please stop with the Georgist obsession that makes you as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike!

    Crikey, you're as random as the other fellow!

    Why don't you refer to the economic evidence that refers directly to how it is rent driven? This is all blindingly obvious mind you as, to acquire a billion and 2 super yachts, you would need to be indulging in extreme speculation.

    I have no problem with recognition that land ownership is important. I'm all for, for example, a co-operative system of land ownership. However, you and the other fellow are just using land to ignore valid application of economics. It is pathetic.

    Let's test your economics. Do you, like the other fellow, think we can ignore discrimination? Do you, like the other fellow, believe monopsony is a Marxist construct?

    Let's go back to LVT. Why can't it be used to solve our tax system? Think now!

    Cretinous effort. The idea that 'if we only listen to Georgism and we'd achieve utopia' is childish. Rents come in many forms. Georgism has long since been neglected to the sidelines, such as issue over sustainable growth. We just get crackpot obsession on here with people who know feck all economics.

    Hahahaha! I'm the only one referring to economics. Did you notice when bringiton rejected pluralism and suggested all economics is corrupted by 'capitalist and socialist lies'? Have a word with yourself!

    Philip Green is an example of the modern day rent seeker. You won't be able to understand him with Georgism. You won't be able to peddle some land rant to explain away his victims.

    Georgist ignorance becoming mainstream? Nope.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  15. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :banana:
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bingo! Full right wing house. Congrats.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2020
  17. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) The effect of landowning is exactly what any given landowner decides it will be. It's not determined by the state, nor even the landowner's neighbours. I own land which I share with familiars not able to purchase their own. I have neighbours who retain theirs exclusively for their own use. Yet other neighbours who use theirs to generate income. Etc etc. Taking it up by scale, the same rule applies. I know of a collective in which valuable and extensive property is held .. but it's ALL used for the sustenance of the members of the collective (and there are thousands of members). There is room for all iterations of property ownership .. and the importance of a good supply of rental properties cannot be overstated. There will always be people who choose not to own property - and they need to live somewhere.

    2) No one in the democratic First World is excluded from property ownership. That sort of discrimination hasn't been legal in decades.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2020
  18. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He cannot enslave other human beings, in the 21stC First World. It's literally impossible.

    All transactions of labour are voluntary.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is when we can celebrate the Georgists. They know that is extremely naive. God bless them for that!
     
  20. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet that is the legal and actual reality. All of it is choice.
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can deny economics as much as you want. I'd ask, why are you on this sub-forum?
     
  22. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not 'denying' anything. LEGALLY, all of us can choose whether they will seek rent, or retain private use. If you think there shouldn't be rent seeking, by all means .. go ahead and buy up a bunch of rental properties and give them to your friends and family gratis. Else be very glad that 'rent seekers' exist, so that your friends and family who choose not to own, have somewhere to live.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2020
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually you are. The one thing Georgists are correct on is how land ownership guarantees injustice. By ignoring it, just like the right wingers do, you are necessarily supporting a non-economic grunt. Crikey, even your supply side economic hero Friedman knew that!
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2020
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Aren't who?
    I didn't. I said landowning is evil and those who participate in it are participating in evil. Just as with slavery: it was never the case that all slave owners were evil -- Jefferson owned slaves, and Aristotle rationalized slavery, but I would not call either of them evil on that account. Jefferson knew he was participating in evil and spoke against it, and Aristotle didn't know any better. But all slave owners participated in evil, same as all landowners participate in evil.
     
  25. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Precisely.
     

Share This Page