You have obviously not looked at the evidence. For starters, you might want to consider the fact that skinny people don't have their fat taken by fat ones, but poor people do have their wealth taken by wealthy ones. That is a fabrication on your part. The problem is not how much rich people have, but how they got it. One of the most evil and despicable acts a human being can commit is to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it. Disgraceful.
Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production: natural resources and producer goods. Free market capitalism is an oxymoron because private ownership of natural resources forces everyone else to subsidize the owners of those resources, and by definition, forced subsidies can't exist in a free market. I don't see any mention of freedom there. A free market is a market whose participants are unforced. That doesn't include capitalism, because under capitalism, people's rights to liberty have been forcibly stripped from them and made into the private property of natural resource owners. Capitalism is defined by ownership, not prices. Nonsense. The capitalist landowner need have no ability, need contribute nothing and produce nothing. He can be comatose and still take from others.
That's neoclassical economics. While there would be rents (recovered for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates them) in a free market, the rentier cannot exist in a free market.
You show the consequences of your monism here. Ironically you refer to neoclassicalism alot. You, for example, love the application of externalities. A rentier approach would reject that simplistic neoclassical approach and refer to the irrelevance of marginalism in understanding economic inefficiency. Completely naive. A free market is neither achievable or desirable. Even if it was possible rent would be the norm. See, for example, empirical analysis into labour markets that shows how monopsony power perversely increases with competition.
It's the dominant paradigm, so we have to refer to it if only to refute it. And it's not like the neoclassical marginal value theory is not an advance on classical economics's Labor Theory of Value. Neoclassical economics began well enough with Jevons, Wicksteed, Walras, etc., but got pushed off the rails by JB Clark, Seligman, and the other apologists for landowner privilege. Except that marginalism is not irrelevant to inefficiency as value is determined at the margin. It may not be achievable, but is probably desirable. But devoted to public purposes and benefit. Otherwise it would constitute a forced subsidy, which is not compatible with a free market. There is no empirical analysis of free labor markets, silly boy.
1% of what? To be in the top 1% of income earners in the world today, you must earn $36,717.00 a year.
You continue to demonstrate similarities with the fake libertarians. They also ignore empirical evidence in order to protect their fundamentalist position. Monopsony is market power, by definition. Monopsony creates economic rent, by definition. I'm not particularly interested in your 'hand in the sand' routine. I'm interested in your ability to understand modern economic relations. This will be a struggle. Marx is certainly more relevant today that George. Crikey, given his moral sentiments, Smith pishes away George in terms of demonstrating the folly of free market economics. The issue here is straightforward: given empirical evidence shows that monopsony power is the norm, even in apparently competitive industries, how are you going to explain away this inefficiency with your land obsession?
And you can't tell the difference. Fine. I can. Nope. Rent is defined by HOW IT IS OBTAINED, not by contingent market conditions. And in any case, monopsony certainly does not describe the labor market. Nope. Marx is only more relevant than George in the sense that a lot more people share Marx's errors than George's insights. Smith didn't understand the Law of Rent, let alone the Henry George Theorem. The empirical evidence shows no such thing. You can't work backwards to a valid conclusion based on factor returns if you ignore the effect of privilege rents.
Free market an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. Capitalism an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Free-market capitalism In its purest form, free market capitalism is a society in which an open market sets prices for the sole purpose of profits. This type of society operates on the principles of supply and demand. Prices are set, and goods are bought and sold based on the demand of the people Why are my definitions not quite the same as the OP's? I can tell you that when I set up a business I have a disadvantage over a big business because a big business gets tax breaks where as I as a small business owner get none. So therefore the small business person starts with a huge disadvantage from the govt. compared to a big business which is not fair.
Wrong. Capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production: natural resources (land) and production goods. Because they're wrong.
Monopsony creates rent; orthodox and heterodox economists agree on that. Now the problem is completely ignored by the fake libertarians. You also ignore it. You're not doing a very good job in pretending difference with them... Let's continue. Take economic crisis. The Marxists have a detailed understanding of the risk. You do not. What will you do to fill in the gap? Will you replicate the fake libertarians again and just pretend economic crisis cannot exist?
In other words, your self-proclaimed moral superiority justifies violence against strangers to force them to conform. You have that in common with all those who are deeply religious, whether the object of their worship is a sky-being or the state.
Weird argument, given inequities ensure coercion (and the rentier capitalism you should, if you actually had a non-hypocritical approach, despise).
No they don't. The only thing that can create rent is a legal entitlement to deprive others of access to economic opportunity they would otherwise have been at liberty to access. Any other definition of rent in the economic sense is invalid and dishonest. Monopsony per se is not a problem nor a source of rent, though of course rent extraction privileges can contribute to monopsony. You are merely confusing cause with effect. That's quite normal for socialists. Garbage contrary to fact. I have explained the mechanism that causes economic crises, of which Marx and Marxists, like you, are utterly and immutably ignorant. I have explained how the debt money system's inherent positive feedback effect inevitably creates economic crises.
This is just head in the sand stuff. Your position is simply based on ignoring economic reality. That's terribly anti-Georgist surely? Crisis theory is dominated by the Marxist perspective. That's just a matter of fact. Indeed, efforts by other schools of thought have largely piggybacked off that analysis. Post-Keynesian analysis into stagflation, for example, is largely based on Marxist analysis into the impact of market concentration. Monopsony is of course a source of rent. To suggest otherwise is just indicative of ignorance of labour economics. The only debate is the source of monopsony. Can we just rely on asymmetric information modelling of job search? While the empirical evidence shows that such modelling can predict the distribution of underpayment, I'd suggest that's a rather restrictive outlook. There needs to be much better consideration of rent created through hierarchy (starting with how internal labour markets create market power and compliance, even in competitive industries). And of course these sources of rent, rather than land, deliver the super yachts you cannot explain...
An admirable self-description. Nope. Your Marxist one is, as already proved. It would be, if you weren't wrong. Which is why it failed to predict the GFC. But the dominant theory can be wrong, especially in economics. Which was also proved wrong by its failure to predict the GFC. Nope. It is ignorance of labor economics that leads you to confuse cause with effect. Monopsony that is a mere side-effect of rent collection privilege is not the source of the rent. Duh.
One liners demonstrating no economic insight. This is another trait you share with the right wing! The idea that monopsony power isn't a major source of rent shows just how out of touch you really are. Just like LVT, your argument becomes increasingly desperate. It also of course proves that you do not have a hypocritical-free understanding of justice. You ignore injustices when they do not fit in your one dimensional rant. Shame on you!
No content? That's predictable. You are neither able to understand monopsony or reject its importance. It just refuses to fit within your Georgist script. That you ignore it, despite those super yachts consequences, illustrates that your support for justice is largely a sham. I dont ignore the importance of land. You do ignore the importance of everything else, ensuring a quite ridiculous one dimensional routine.
