Potential Alternatives to Capitalist system( Part 2)

Since China slowly starved 60 million human souls to death under libsocialism and since the Chinese are now getting rich under Republican capitalism there are no alternatives to Republican capitalism: the greatest intellectual discovery by far in humankind's history.

 

Socialism. There is no such thing as "libsocialism."

China is not capitalist, as land is all publicly owned. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production: capital and land. China has moved into a quasi-geoist economy much like Hong Kong: capital is privately owned, land publicly owned.

What a sad commentary that is on your perspective.

 

Sanders is a socialist, Clinton is a liberal, and Sanders endorsed Clinton because Clinton adopted many of his positions. Our liberals spied for Stalin. 1+1=2

 

in fact land costs as much in China and Hong Kong as anywhere else because both understand that the free market is the best way to distribute land.

 

You may want to research land zoning laws. You have tightly zoned regions and loosely zoned regions. Zoning laws constrict supply, and force prices up. Hong Kong is one of the most heavily zoned regions in the world. You have acres outside city limits that are undeveloped because the government simply doesn't allow it. The government interferes with real estate equilibrium in Hong Kong and most other cities. Because current landowners would never want additional supply to deflate their asset prices, they invest heavily into politics in Hong Kong. It is a very corrupt place as a result. http://www.worldfinance.com/wealth-...bribery-plagues-hong-kongs-real-estate-market

In the Unitied States, these tight zoning restrictions create barriers to entry that shape commercial real estate investment strategies. Cities like New York and DC have high zoning restrictions. It greatly reduces competition. In fact, you have many Real Estate Investment Trusts and Real Estate Private Equity firms that boast of their portfolios footprints in these areas. Cities like Atlanta are far more open, have lower asset prices and make it much easier to buy property.

The level of 'freeness' in free market economies varies within countries even within cities due largely in part to regulations.

 

do you have any idea what your point is???

 

Communists spied for Stalin. Not liberals.

 

There can never be a free market in land, as exclusive tenure is always a privilege. The more of that privilege's publicly created value that we recover for public purposes and benefit, the freer the market in land.

 

China and Hong Kong have largely free markets in land just like all other goods and services. Capitalism does not make a distinction between land and other goods when it ends the en masse libcommie starvation of 100's of millions.
Nice that you're into a libcommie death cult

 

No, your claims contiue to be false and absurd. China and HK regulate land very extensively.

Capitalism -- specifically private ownership of land -- kills about 12M people (i.e., two Holocausts) per year through starvation, preventable disease, and other poverty-related causes. That matches the toll of socialism in the whole of the 20th century in just eight years. But fortunately, China and HK don't have capitalism.

Even 20th century socialism could not match the death cult of capitalism.

 

Flat false. Just as one example, the enclosure of public land -- "commons" -- as private property in Britain took millions of people who had enjoyed a very decent standard of living for centuries and turned them into thieves, beggars and prostitutes.

No, that's just false and absurd. Poverty is almost always caused by capitalism, specifically private landowning. Google "enclosures" and start reading. Look at Russia: as dreadful as it was under socialism, In 25 years, capitalism has made it the most unequal country on earth, an oligarchic hellhole where half the people live at starvation level so that the 1% can live like nabobs.

It is fact.

No. I know the facts. You do not, as proved above.

I'm not a socialist. I've criticized and condemned socialism even more than capitalism.

You just proved you do not know what you are talking about, nor what I am talking about.

You are the one who is trying to get away with nonsense.

 

No, China is geoist, not capitalist, because all land is still publicly owned; and it took decades for GEOISM to eliminate 40% of all the poverty on earth because of the baleful influence of capitalism and socialism.

The more they switched to geoism.

Your claims continue to be uniformly false. Many Chinese economists understand it, perhaps most prominently, Ke Tizu.

 

So here's a typical socialist argument. When the government takes wealth away from the rich and gives it to the poor, he calls it socialism, but when the government takes away wealth from the poor and gives it to the rich, he calls it capitalism, even though it's the same exact mechanism. So regular folk have a property right in commonly held land, what we might call an easement. This is the right to use a piece of land for a specific purpose only, for example, agriculture. So the government comes along and takes away this property right from poor people and gives the land to rich people, yet somehow this government action is called capitalism by the socialists like bringiton.

I have no doubt, were I to probe further, that he would claim all the problems in Russia was caused by "capitalism," yet upon closer examination it would be more of the same as above: the government uses it power to take from the poor and give to the rich, which is what socialists think capitalism is.

 

is there more than one crackpot on the entire planet who believes that??? Why do you embarrass yourself here?

 

does even one person on earth think when China switched to capitalism the poor got poorer?? Liberalism is pure ignorance. there is not an argument there that would challenge even a child.

 

No, here's you proving you haven't a clue what socialism is:

Wrong. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.

What? Capitalism inherently takes wealth from the poor and gives it to the rich through the mechanism of private landowning and government spending. It is unavoidable, a law of economics. You could with equal "logic" claim that giving money to a supermarket in return for groceries is "the exact same mechanism" as giving money to a thug who demands you pay him for permission to enter the supermarket.

I am not a socialist, stop makin' $#!+ up. But yes, what you describe is indisputably capitalism: it removed land from collective -- common -- ownership and made it into private property, the very essence of capitalism.

Wrong. A lot of what's wrong with Russia dates to socialism, and even further back to feudalism. Russia's problem is that it went directly from socialism to capitalism without a chance to experience geoism, which has been the key to China's miracle.

 

It's an indisputable fact. China is geoist, not capitalist or socialist, because capital is (mostly) privately owned while land is ALL publicly owned. So:

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

 

in short you are the only libcommie human being on earth to bother with your geoist insanity!! What does that say about you?

 

What did it say about Edward Jenner that he was the only human being on earth to think smallpox could be prevented by infecting people with cowpox?

 

So I pointed out already how a typical socialist argues, and while claiming not to be a socialist, bringiton continues to make socialist arguments. The ONLY real difference, the one that really counts, between capitalism and socialism is the word "take." Under capitalism one cannot use force to take property that belongs to someone else. It must be freely exchanged by voluntary agreement which we call a contract. Hence any form of taking must be socialism. It's hilarious to me that bringiton calls government spending capitalism when the government had to take the money by force.

This is socialism--the violent taking of property rights from some and giving it to others. Under capitalism, if someone wanted a piece of land, they would have to negotiate and purchase it from the current owners. In this case, the current owners were a local community who held the property in common together and had, through tradition or some other form of agreement, agreed to use the land for a specific purpose, perhaps agriculture. In a capitalist society, a purchaser would speak with members of the local community who would collectively negotiate a price they wanted and if they agreed on one, they would sell the property and the owners would share the proceeds. This is no different than the shareholders of a company selling the company to a buyer and splitting the proceeds of the sale, only it would be for land rather than a business. Common ownership--multiple people owning a property--does not mean socialism. A man and wife can own their house "in common" because they bought it together. Hundreds of people can own one corporation because they all purchased shares in the company.

However under socialism, the State, using it's power of force, stole that private property right away from the local community who owned it, and redistributed it to someone else, likely a wealthy person who had given some money to the rulers in exchange for benefits. This is just another example of socialism, not capitalism. But socialists like bringiton want to point at everything bad and call it capitalism, without regard to the actual mechanism of action. The definition is simple: voluntary exchanges are capitalism, involuntary exchanges are socialism.

 

In sum, you are the only libcommie human being on earth to bother with your geoist insanity!! What does that say about you?

 

It went right over your head.

 

why not try to explain what you were trying to say if you dare?

 

Wrong. It's not a socialist argument. It's just pointing out an unpleasant fact about capitalism. One does not have to be a socialist to be anti-capitalist, any more than one has to be a Christian to be anti-Muslim.

No, both capitalism and socialism take. Socialism takes capital from its rightful owners and gives it to collectives, capitalism takes wages from their rightful owners and gives them to landowners.

Sure you can. You just call a legal privilege to do so, "property."

No, that's objectively false. No one ever voluntarily agreed to have their rights to liberty forcibly removed and made into the private property of landowners and other privileged parasites.

No, that's just stupid garbage from you. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, not just anything you consider undesirable.

That is exactly right: government had to take the money by force BECAUSE capitalism deprived it of its right and natural revenue source: the land value its spending creates.

No it isn't. You're just objectively wrong. Socialism describes a system of collective ownership of the means of production: land and capital. Taking someone's car and giving it to someone else is not socialism. You're just objectively wrong. Even taking land into collective ownership is not socialism, unless capital is also taken into collective ownership. You are just incorrectly applying the word, "socialism" to anything you think people will object to.

Right, because capitalism makes that portion of their rights to liberty the private property of the landowners. Similarly, under capitalism, if your liberty rights are owned by just one person instead of being distributed among the landowners (i.e., if you are owned by just one person instead of being owned in microscopic pieces by all the landowners), you would have to negotiate and purchase your liberty from its owner.

No, the land was not their property. They only had use rights.

Right: a capitalist society will have forcibly removed people's rights to liberty by making the land private property, whether of one person or a group.

Not so fast, buddy. There is one HUGE and CRUCIAL difference: the shareholders of a company own something that was CREATED by its original owners, and was thus their rightful property to sell. Land was never created by anyone, was therefore never rightfully anyone's property, and it is only by forcibly removing people's liberty to use the land and making that liberty the landowner's property that capitalism enables the effective enslavement of working people.

Right. Socialism is ownership by a collective whose members may change without any change to the ownership.

And those are both products of labor which can therefore rightly be owned. Land isn't.

They didn't own it. They only had use rights. Capitalism took those rights away from them by force and made them into the private property of capitalist landowners.

Right. Not to a collective. To a private individual. That's capitalism, not socialism. Hello?

So now forcibly removing a collective use right and making it into the private property of an individual is socialism??!?

The inevitable descent into absurdity.

I'm not a socialist. That's just you makin' $#!+ up, as any reader who has been paying attention can see.

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I call the bad things about socialism socialism, and the bad things about capitalism capitalism. But as we live under capitalism, it's a lot more relevant to point out the bad things about capitalism, and I usually only point out the bad things about socialism when arguing with socialists.

No. I am the one here who IS paying attention to the actual mechanism of action.

No, that's not what those words mean. Capitalism first forcibly removes people's rights to liberty without compensation and makes them into the private property of landowners and other privilege holders, then calls the invariable resulting enslavement of working people by said landowners and privilege holders "voluntary exchange." Socialism blames the capital owner for what privilege holders do to working people, confiscates their capital under that pretext, wastes and misallocates it until the economy collapses in poverty, and then blames the result on the selfishness of people wanting to keep the fruits of their labor.

 

That's clearly false, as I occasionally get fan mail.

That I am a lot braver than those who just chant whatever absurdities are convenient to the interests of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.