+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 121

Thread: Poverty, Equality, and Capitalism

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taxpayer View Post
    Relative productivity. Flood the market with folks equally productive ... or pull from the resource pool folks equally productive -- the results are predictable.

    As far as forcing people to invest capital in folks who cannot even operate their personal expenses without a deficit... that seems a recipe for disaster. Not everyone is capable of effective capital management and assuming they are is dangerous. As demonstrated by the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.
    Ha ha, most people in the developed nations manage their personal expenses at a deficit. That is what mortgages and car loans, school loans and credit card debt is, psersonal deficit spending. It seems that quite a few are willing to invest large amounts of capital in these personal deficit spenders, more than they invest in government deficits.

    People are, for the most part, very effective capital managers at a personal level. You paint with the wrong brush with your insinuations about sub-prime borrowers since it was the lenders who were the more irresponsible party in that fiasco, hoodwinking both borrowers and investors.

    Given the trend towards greater automation in the future there will be less and less need for workers but no corresponding decline in the need for income. There are a few ways to resolve this problem, increase welfare, make work projects, war, genocide, pandemics etc. but none of these are really satisfactory resolutions to the real problem, which is income in a capitalist market economy with not enough real jobs.

    One answer would be to move from an employment income economy to an investment income economy. The consumer as investor as opposed to the consumer as worker. This, of course, would require a vast redistribution of capital shares, something which could be accomplished without undue disruption by a long term program of share purchases of corporate stock by the government. There would be no need for the government to gain a majority stake unless compelled by national interest or management malfeasance.

    The people/shareholders would receive a share of the dividends as income.

  2. Stand Taller and Look Better with the LUMOback Posture and Activity Coach. <LINK> Learn More Here! </LINK>

  3. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unrealist42 View Post
    Ha ha, most people in the developed nations manage their personal expenses at a deficit. That is what mortgages and car loans, school loans and credit card debt is, psersonal deficit spending.

    There is a difference between deficit and debt. Incurring a mortgage or car loan debt is not unreasonable, provided you don't continuously operate at a deficit. If you do... you go bankrupt.
    A man approaches you and says "gimme $100," you respond that you'd prefer not to. He says "we should compromise; gimme $50." The next day he approaches you: "gimme $200." At what point is it reasonable to stop compromising and just say no?

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taxpayer View Post
    As far as forcing people to invest capital in folks who cannot even operate their personal expenses without a deficit... that seems a recipe for disaster. Not everyone is capable of effective capital management and assuming they are is dangerous.
    The people do not actually have to be given this capital (the type that is not a product of human nature). Calculations can be made, and payments could be given out to compensate them for the land and natural resources they are not allowed to have access to. It is called geolibertarianism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taxpayer View Post
    Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.
    Perhaps you should try to attack his theories more directly, besides just claiming that they are outdated.
    Last edited by Anders Hoveland; May 03 2012 at 07:06 PM.

  5. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland View Post
    The people do not actually have to be given this capital (the type that is not a product of human nature). Calculations can be made, and payments could be given out to compensate them for the land and natural resources they are not allowed to have access to. It is called geolibertarianism.

    It's called welfare.
    A man approaches you and says "gimme $100," you respond that you'd prefer not to. He says "we should compromise; gimme $50." The next day he approaches you: "gimme $200." At what point is it reasonable to stop compromising and just say no?

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taxpayer View Post
    It's called welfare.
    Okay, so I admit a society would probably also have to institute some form of eugenics policy before it could just hand out free money.
    (cannot let the incompetent and unfit just breed and multiply without any limitations)

  7. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland View Post
    Perhaps you should try to attack his theories more directly, besides just claiming that they are outdated.
    The bubble blowers that flock to Long Dead George's banner are just looking for a new cult. There is no understanding of modern economics. No attempt to understand the firm. No attempt to understand labour market phenomena. There is only cretinous reference to land tax, even though Long Dead George's single tax ideas became irrelevant yonks ago. Georgism isn't even a marginal school of thought. Instead its something of minor use in very specific analysis (such as environmental economics)
    And the ship we sail, and the flag she flies; It is the Herald of Free Enterprise

  8. Default

    Even if a land value tax is not the complete economic solution, what is wrong with it?
    Geolibertarianism might not be an all-encompassing economic theory, but it does make valid points. What I am saying is that one can support land value taxation and still hold to some other economic school of thought. Much like Shinto and Buddhism in Japan, they are not mutually exclusive.

  9. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland View Post
    Even if a land value tax is not the complete economic solution, what is wrong with it?
    A land tax is valid, but its just one of numerous taxes used. Georgists are irrelevant as they have no way of understanding economic rents in modern economic relations. They're therefore nothing more than whingers
    And the ship we sail, and the flag she flies; It is the Herald of Free Enterprise

  10. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland View Post
    Even if a land value tax is not the complete economic solution, what is wrong with it?
    Geolibertarianism might not be an all-encompassing economic theory, but it does make valid points. What I am saying is that one can support land value taxation and still hold to some other economic school of thought. Much like Shinto and Buddhism in Japan, they are not mutually exclusive.
    I am not an economics major and the only economy I am worried about is my own....but here is the way I see it.

    1. It is far too difficult to open any small business due to inspections, permits, zonning and other regulation.

    2. Why improve land if you are only going to have to pay more for owning it?...You never really own land do you.

    3. It is too great of a risk for me to borrow money on an untried venture...especially market surveys and such.

    4. If I invest my money in corporations, what is to keep them from reducing my dividend and absorbing my investment in stock giveaways, buybacks and large payment packages for executives..

    5. Why save my money when it is worth less every day?

    6. Why support reduction of regulation for large business when they have laws and regulations passed to eliminate the little guy?

    I am truely between a rock and a hard place.
    Last edited by politicalcenter; May 05 2012 at 04:29 AM.
    The truth is neither right or left...it is the truth.

    Forget about the mule, load the cart!

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by politicalcenter View Post
    Why improve land if you are only going to have to pay more for owning it?
    Taxing the land reduces the market value of the land. So you might be taxed for owning land, but the land will be cheaper to buy the first place.

    And ideally I would not want people to be subject to land value taxation if they owned less than a certain value of land. So you could still own some land and not have to pay taxes on it. But wealthy people who own much land, and banks that hold a large number of mortgages on land would be taxed.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks