The problem of Capitalism

No, I corrected you on the definition of property.

 

Its a shame that you're not prepared to engage and learn. If you decide to change your mind, here's the comment that you ignored:

"Again, you shy away from any economic validity. That seems a strange tactic. How were property rights acquired? Often through the destruction of the commons. This is just factual stuff. The only interesting aspect is how you're attacking the Georgists without actually having any basic understanding of the orthodox alternative. It indicates that you haven't got an economic argument, preferring only to trumpet land ownership because it benefits you."

I do have to conclude that you're actually making the Georgists look relatively knowledgeable. I suppose there is a congrats in there somewhere.

 

As soon as you comprehend the definition of property, we can have a discussion.

 

Defeatism. Slavery had been the norm for human history, post agriculture until recently (c.10000 years all up). Not the reality now; slavery exists only as an abnormality on the fringes of some communities now.

I notice you are continuing with your flat assertion that land is (personal) property, which amounts to nothing more than a statement that Might is Right.

In the same manner that a lion marks it's territory, and Genghis Khan conquered Asia, by dint of possessing the most powerful military force in the world.

The reality of the nature of human relations, in your words "living in reality", and more specifically, the methods of possession/ownership of land, are by no means 'unchangeable'. History proves it.

 

Has nothing to do with land ownership.

It’s called reality.

Neither are relevant to 2019 America.

History is against you, lol

 

a) I doubt he's referring to ancient history.

b) Land resources can be used to their maximum capacity if we (as land owners) dispense with the demand for privacy/exclusivity/sole use etc, and share with our kith and kin. The problem is that we have so many folk like Bringiton etc, who refuse to share theirs .... calling kith and kin a burden. Then there's the further problem of impecunious kith and kin refusing to participate, demanding exclusivity. Which when they're not able to afford, demand restitution from society/tax payers etc. Both are problems of human nature, not the system.

 

Cooperative? In this very thread we have champions of 'sharing', proudly refusing to share.

 

When the land owner shares his/her land resources with kith and kin less able to secure their own, everyone benefits.

 

Work with what IS, not what was.

 

Well "what is": is that economies everywhere are failing, competitive pressures are producing trade wars, soil depletion via large scale poison-based industrial agriculture is increasing, and the pollution from fossil based industry is unsustainable.

Your individual enterprise/responsibility model is fast approaching its use-by date. Community responsibility to ourselves and the environment is the new and necessary paradigm.

Capitalism will still play a role, but a much reduced one, in comparison to the overall quantum of economic activity on this planet ie to achieve the economics of global, sustainable prosperity.

 

Yes, exactly. COMMUNITY responsibility. WE are the community.

It's your model which is failing, with the insistence that outside agents fix things because you refuse to share. The individualist, anti-family, non-sharer is the very root of all of the problems you mention.

 

Not my model.

I'm saying "Invisible hand" competitive, neoliberal macroeconomics, in which money 'value' is determined only by prices achieved in the private sector, is obsolete/inadequate - and is indeed THE problem (not capitalism itself).

Time to study MMT...and then know we (the global community) can actually "afford" to exit the filthy, planet-destroying, fossil industry, and can actually afford to guarantee above poverty participation in ALL nations' economies.

 

And you're wrong. When WE the PEOPLE band together to increase our strength, they can barely touch us. Stop blaming the parasite, and start blaming the host.

No idea why you've suddently veered off into climate change .. but since you did, what do you plan to use to replace the fossil industry? And how will you make it happen? Any ideas not in conflict with democracy? Any preparedness on your part to dramatically alter your lifestyle?

 

….to Promote the Common Welfare... see the preamble to the US constitution.

???? as in 'us' and 'them'? ….meaningless drivel, ideological blindness; lift your game or I'm finished with this.

To demonstrate a community is more than a market place.

.

Green energy. Sun + Wind + pumped hydro back-up.

Engineering, funded as described by MMT.

No. MMT is not in conflict with democracy, it promotes democracy.

The transition to the green economy can occur without "dramatic" disruption, provided we start building the infrastructure NOW,
so that we can eliminate and replace coal plants with green energy with pumped hydro backup - with equivalent energy output for each plant - on a continuous basis, during the transition. Some transfer of technology to the 3rd world will speed up/facilitate the transition. (Against your "looking after kin"? doctrine?.....)

 

'Constitution'? Not American, don't care. This is about the bigger picture.

Ideological blindness? To suggest that if we all shared our resources, there would be less poverty? I'm going to go with 'full moon' as explanation.

Of course a community is more than a market place, but it IS a market place. Band together to subvert market pressures, or perish alone.

 

What transition? In any western democracy, 50% are going to vote against it. HOW will you make it happen?

 

I won't have to make it happen. The issue is beyond politics, as time will tell. The majority will make it happen, when even the well-off understand their own well-being need not be negatively impacted - when they understand the age-old question of the Right, namely: "how are we going to pay for it" is a sham designed to enable enrichment of the few.

 

I know...the concept of the "Common Welfare" doesn't accord with your world view...

That is not the suggestion: rather the concept is just and sufficient access (within capitalism) ...spot the difference? (I know... you will have difficulty, given your ideological blindness).

Confusion and contradiction abound in that statement, as expected eg, more than = is.....so unite to subvert the "invisible hand" of the market, - the invisible hand which is the aggregate of all the market participants' search for profit....

 

Two aspects here...

First, he isn't actually referring to anything but error. You can't attack Georgists if you haven't even bothered to construct an alternative economic spine. Simply crowing 'property rights' doesn't work. Even when you do attempt to acquire that spine, there are likely to be oops moments. For example, new institutionalism- attempting to embed information economics within a neoclassical framework- led to a focus which wasn't really distinct from Marx's analysis into property rights.

Second, its not about ancient history. Neoclassical analysis into the wonders of property rights, based on religious devotion to the tragedy of the commons, has been soundly rejected. The real threat to the commons remains rent seekers attempting to impose inefficient property rights.

I've never been interested in your fake routine. There's no economics involved. Its simply a poor attempt at pandering to the right wing. Take this 'kith and kin' bobbins. We know that the commons doesn't necessarily fall foul of the tragedy. In that sense there is no need for property rights. And the failure of the tragedy actually reflects the complexity of human nature that you deliberately ignore.

 

OMG .. you're serious

 

Fake routine, eh? Well, as we who are looking forward to - and actioning - a better way, you carry on with your staunch isolationism and refusal to share. Keep telling yourself the problem is 'out there', and someone else's to fix.

Meantime, we are ALL kith and kin to someone ... that's the very point of the exercise. Far fewer will be left behind. Besides, if we can't even share with our own, what on earth makes you think that legislated sharing (with random strangers) will somehow be welcome? Note: I'm the one actually factoring in human nature .. you're talking economic theory.

 

On the contrary, the common welfare is exactly what I'm talking about. If it matters to you, you will ensure you live it. Are you living the common welfare by sharing your resources with as many as possible? Or is it of so little importance that you prefer to sit on your behind and pontificate about someone else fixing it?

Is 'ideological blindness' code for "you've spotted the insincerity of my position, so I must demonise you and all you stand for!"?

Look, Friend .... when a group SHARES resources (land, housing, access to water, access to soil, access to the means of earning a living, etc) they become far more resistant to the vaguaries of the market. That's the bottom line. Each of us First Worlders has the option to make that happen. You have to live with your decision to remain isolationist and non-sharing. Make peace with that, or change it.

 

IIRC it was the Roman emperor Constantine.

 

I've already disproved your identical ROI nonsense, which is also irrelevant to the issue of whether ownership of land, slaves, and products of labor are all morally and economically equivalent.

 

No, you've made a fool of yourself and shown you have no interest in reality.

I have a right to anyone else's property that consists of my rights. That is reality.

<yawn> Nope. Wrong again. The reality, child, is that the abolitionists did exactly that, and they were NOT stopped. They stopped the property owners.

Clear?

<yawn> Silliness unworthy of response.