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

Georgist versus supply sider? Hmmm. Dead heat.

 

You do understand that repeatedly using or referring to what takes place under current market conditions is completely irrelevant and incredibly dishonest with regards to what was in question?

You do understand that bringiton easily refuted your source's false definition of rent by using the professional poker player as an example? Is a professional poker player a rentier? What he does is extraneous to efficiency and could be taxed heavily without economic damage, but you don't think he's a rentier, do you?

The crucial question is: Is the [professional poker, speculator, etc.] imposing/benefiting from unjust costs/harm in the process?

Sorry, posting irrelevant/wrong "economics" does not somehow mean that you are providing content.

 

I'm stating the bleedin obvious: to have billionaires we must have rent. This make believe utopia you've constructed in your own heads really won't wash. The clue is in how quickly LVT became irrelevant. If land was that important, you'd still be banging on about LVT. Of course you're not. Indeed, you have to do everything you can to avoid the Georgist tag. To acknowledge that tag is to advertise lack of relevance.

That you're referring to poker, a zero sum game, just shows how innocent you are about rent. I've already referred to the neoclassical analysis that refers to how any profit which does not add to allocative efficiency can be defined as rent. Now you could turn around and reject neoclassical economics. Good luck with that! Alternatively you could try and suggest a general equilibrium approach which refers to lottery redistribution. However, that cannot increase economic activity. It is not exchange.

The speculator is a rent seeker, by definition. Unlike the poker player, overall economic activity is harmed. That harm ratchets up to full blown economic crisis.

You haven't got an argument. You're ranting about land in order to hide from the economics. We saw that when bringiton said discrimination could be ignored. We also saw that when you agreed with the ludicrous claim that monopsony is a Marxist construct. It just happens that rent from monopsony is the dominant rent, ensuring that you have nothing to say.

 

No, they are not. The ordinary reality of landownership is that absent massive government interventions to rescue them from enslavement by landowners -- welfare, minimum wages, labor standards laws, publicly funded education, health care and pensions, etc. -- the condition of the landless would be indistinguishable from that of slaves, just as it has been in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where government didn't intervene to rescue them.

Not to those enslaved by landowners, it isn't:

Do you understand? A man who ACTUALLY WAS A SLAVE just told you that landownership is actually WORSE than slavery. And there is a very good reason for that: a slave is a valuable asset that is not harmed casually. A landless peasant, by contrast, is just an animal that can be robbed, mistreated, starved, tortured and killed at no cost.

I'm not compelling them. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

No, that is false. They are not given a choice of whether to participate as victims of landowning. They are forced to be victims. And I will thank you to remember it.

 

Translation: you don't like the fact that I can see yours.

No it doesn't. It shows that rent seeking is likely a dominant force in the market, but it says nothing whatever about how it is accomplished, which may explain your lack of understanding of the matter. And it also says nothing whatever about what degree of inequality a non-capitalist system free of rent seeking might give rise to.

Attempt to evade the issue noted.

 

It is more clearly and accurately predicted by geoist economics.

 

See the history of village commons.

 

I explained why that is false. All you are doing is begging the question by claiming it is true by definition.

You have been proved wrong in principle, so you are trying to change the subject. Simple.

It's bleedin' obvious that LVT is irrelevant in a hypothetical economy where absence of private appropriation of rent means absence of land value. DUH.

Non sequitur fallacy. I already proved to you that land's central importance is proved by its astronomical exchange value.

Thanks for proving you can't -- or decline to -- follow a logical argument.

No. Unlike you, I seek to avoid inaccuracy. A Georgist is a follower of Henry George or an advocate of the Georgist Single Tax. Neither gottzilla nor I qualify, AFAICT. You seek to label advocates of justice in taxation and land tenure as Georgists even though you know the tag is inaccurate because you have to find some way to avoid addressing our actual arguments, and dismissing us as personality cultists is an easy way to do that.

To apply it inaccurately is to advertise lack of honesty.

It refutes you.

Incorrectly, as already proved. Unlike the landowner, the opera singer is not a rentier or parasite, sorry, even if he or she would do the same work for less.

I've already done it. See "Debunking Economics" by Steve Keen.

General equilibrium is anti-economic bull$#!+.

Yes, of course it is: the lottery player is exchanging money for the opportunity of more money.

No, that's false by definition.

No it isn't.

No it doesn't. You just don't understand enough economics to understand what does cause full blown economic crisis.

He is a marvel of fact and logic compared to you.

No, you are dismissing land in order to hide from the economics AS THE ASTRONOMICAL VALUE OF LAND ALWAYS PROVES, AND YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO REFUSE TO KNOW.

Until we get privilege under control, anyway. As long as privilege is a problem orders of magnitude worse than discrimination, which it indisputably is, it is disingenuous to try to divert attention from privilege to discrimination.

It's irrelevant garbage, anyway. Like Marx.

No, it just so happens that's just more of your absurd garbage with no basis in fact, as monopsony is extremely rare. I doubt you can even identify an example.

 

No content, as usual. Try and put that right. Provide a coherent explanation for underpayment, on a par with Burdett and Mortensen's application of job search frictions to show how underpayment patterns can be embedded within a supply and demand approach.

Again no content! If you can't craft an economic argument then just say so.

 

Underpayment? That should be able to be remedied in court if a contract was violated.

 

There are no billionaires that do not benefit from rent. You have simply concocted a utopia that you pretend can have non-rent seeking billionaires. Its of course part of the land rand expected by Georgists, an emotional "we could all be happy if only you listened to our fairy-tales". Crikey, even the neoclassical economists had purpose when they constructed their perfect competition nirvana.

So far you've just employed standard Georgist tactics: pretend that you're right and repeat.

Can you refer to one economic study that still celebrates LVT and how it can replace all distortionary tax? Please don't try that red herring where you refer to economists that note land tax should be used. That's such a cliche in the Georgist rant stakes!

No one is banging on about LVT. No one, at least who doesn't think pigs can fly, believe we can adopt LVT and eliminate taxes such as income tax.

Churlish

Georgists are an internet infection. They do not employ the economic method. There is no understanding of pluralism in economics. There is no attempt to combine theory and scholarly evidence. There is just monotonous rant about land and, when challenged, further rant about the person being evil.

There is very little variation in that infection. No mutation.

You're not even trying here! You've not understood the neoclassical approach to rent. Teach yourself it first and then get back with something coherent.

HAHAHAHA! This is delightful on two levels. First, the only time you have actually referred to any coherent economics, via externalities, you have relied totally on neoclassical economics. Second, Keen is demanding pluralism in economics. You've already rejected that, suggesting some sort of truth that only land ranters know about.

Is this supposed to be an argument? I was helping the other land ranter over the nature of rent. The general equilibrium approach allows for an understanding of allocative efficiency. It shows how a lottery would only be a redistribution, generating no additional increase in economic activity.

Absolutely clueless! Money is the means of exchange. All you do, via the lottery, is shift along the Pareto Efficient contract curve. There is no increase in exchange. There is only a change in equity.

This made me laugh. First, the most developed understanding of crisis comes from the Marxists. Alternative approaches, such as the Post Keynesian focus on market concentration and mark-up pricing, is essentially 'borrowing' from Marxist analysis. Second, that the financial market creates conditions ideal for crisis is pretty much obvious. See, for example, the analysis into asset price bubbles.

HAHAHA! In most political economic schools of thought, there is also disagreement. Marxists will always be at each other throats. Keynesians will split into their neo, new and post- tribes. However, when it comes to land rant, there is never disagreement. It helps that there is never any actual content

Openly misrepresenting again? Tut tut! I've never dismissed land. I merely know that rent analysis goes much further. Anyone land ranting will therefore give a very backward account.

I brought up discrimination originally for two reasons.First, unlike Marxists, I knew you couldn't explain it. I knew you'd go into full dodge mode. Second, it is also a source of rent. That you couldn't explain it neatly illustrates the backwardness of the internet Georgism.

You finish by showing just how little economics you really know. Only company towns are extremely rare. We derive the same outcome, however, by acknowledging the impact of job search frictions on bargaining power. That dynamic monopsony approach impacts on every labour market. Indeed, the theory and the empirical evidence, confirms that underpayment (and therefore rent) ironically increases with competition. By ignoring the labour market, and just ranting about land, the internet Georgist confirms their irrelevance.

 

Same evasion you have been using all along. What currently IS is not the issue. What WOULD BE in a different environment is the issue. You just have to evade it.

GET IT??

And I have explained how it could.

Filth lacking content.

I've proved I'm right, and the repetition will be needed until you consent to know facts.

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03068290910947930/full/html

You are again deliberately evading the fact that they say much more than that.

You are again just objectively incorrect, as proved above.

All false.

Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies. Those who lie to rationalize privilege, justify injustice and excuse evil ARE evil.

Oh, but I have: redefine it to remove the concept from economics.

That's just another of your false accusations.

He's demanding honesty.

If you aren't focused on land, you do not know the truth.

Nope.

Irrelevant.

No, it is the medium of exchange.

The change in equity comes from an exchange of risk.

Nothing Marx said offered any factual description of economic crisis. Marx knew nothing whatever about financial or economic crisis. Everything he said on the subject was wrong.

Wrong. A valid approach to understanding crisis -- similar to Minsky's monetary finance dynamics -- owes nothing to Marx.

Marx knew nothing about it, because he did not know that asset bubbles are blown by bank-issued debt money.

Yes, you are.

You do little else.

If you want to aggregate unlikes, which Marx pioneered in economics.

No, only one: to evade the truth by creating a diversion.

That is a diversion. The discoverer of a cure for cancer does not concern himself with explaining bunions.

Your discrimination red herring WAS the dodge mode. I just didn't fall for it.

Nope.

No. That I am not deceived by your absurd and disingenuous Marxist red herrings neatly illustrates how far superior I am to you both intellectually and morally.

So you agree that you cannot actually identify any monopsony in the real world, and are just spewing Marxist effluvia as usual. Thought so.

 

I already provided an incomparably superior explanation: landowner privilege. The landowner forcibly deprives the worker of his liberty right to access economic opportunity, and thus removes his options and his bargaining power.

Sorry, I don't know how to craft the sort of fact- and logic-free "arguments" you favor.

 

This is just repetition of a call for Georgist blinkers. I didn't ask for that. I asked for a coherent explanation of underpayment akin to the job search analysis. You would need a theoretical model that eliminates the law of one wage. You would then need an empirical study that shows how the model can predict wage differential patterns.

Why cant you do that?

 

A call for a nonsense utopia that you cant support. You were forced to refer to capital gains. I'm sure you'll agree that rents typically are revealed as capital gains

Have you? So far I've only seen a rather bland attempt at referring to how community ownership can be avoided. Perhaps refer me to an analysis that predicts wealth inequality outcomes post-Georgist utopia?

Calm down now! You honestly dont see the relationship with your utopia peddling and the concept of perfect competition? Technically you have to conclude perfect competition exists in your Georgist utopia, else rent through underpayment will naturally develop.

That's not possible, given your posts rarely have any economic content and you ignore that economics is a pluralist discipline.

I found this a particularly amusing effort. First, it's trying to tell you what I have been saying: you need to broaden your understanding of rent. It's only doing that as it admits that Georgism is timid and shrinking. Second, its analysis is ultimately low powered. The stuff on taxing mortgages, whether its feasible or desirable, shows no insight. There is no appreciation, for example, how home ownership has become self insurance and how it has transformed the welfare state (often to the detriment of the lower paid, the main source of rent seeking activity). Third, its conclusions are extraordinarily weak. It merely says that broadening the definition of rent will increase tax capacity. No **** Sherlock!

You merely confirm that you have no understanding of the labour market. Dynamic monopsony, by definition, means that rent from underpayment is the norm. Of course this isnt surprising as you also ignore discrimination because you cant explain it! Good luck with Keen, mind you, and his rejection of rising marginal costs

 

I have supported it, and you have offered no counter-argument, just contentless sneers.

You are makin' $#!+ up again.

They often ARE, but that does not imply they MUST be. You are again evading the issue by falsely and disingenuously pretending that only what happens under the current system could happen under a different system. That is textbook willful blindness.

No, that is not what you saw, and you know it.

Something like an inverse exponential distribution is likely because the relevant factors tend to have multiplicative rather than merely additive effects. The inverse exponential distribution is substantially more equal than the current distribution of wealth, and is typical of certain natural grinding/accretion processes.

No, because you made it up.

Nope. We have established that underpayment per se is not rent. Your claims are just false.

Wrong again, because you again can't understand the difference between what IS and what would be a lot better.

So you didn't understand anything it said. OK. That was inevitable.

So you again, inevitably, confirm that you cannot identify a single example of the monopsony you claim is the dominant source of rent.

I got a chuckle out of that.

 

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. It is a factual and logical economic explanation.

You asked for an economic explanation; I gave you one; and now, as always, you are falsely and disingenuously pretending that I did not give it.

No you did not. You asked for a coherent explanation of underpayment. I gave you one. You did NOT specify that it had to be akin to the job search analysis. I have no interest in supplying incorrect explanations -- i.e., ones akin to the ones you favor.

If I were interested in constructing an incorrect explanation akin to the ones you find persuasive, and congenial to your false beliefs.

If I wanted to be as incorrect as you.

I'm too honest, intelligent and informed, obviously.

 

Perfect competition, despite being nonsense, is easily explained. You have nothing but rant. That you pretend otherwise shows you can't even be honest about it.

I referred to a statement of fact You referred to financial market capital gains.

This amused me. I'm referring to the paper that you referenced. God bless you for that. You so rarely attempt to actually refer to evidence. That evidence, mind you, refers to rents being typically characterized as capital gains. Its as if you can't construct comment.

Your comment is mainly nonsense. Why can't you even construct valid Georgist grunt?

Love this effort! Its akin to stealing randomly from paper and then grunting "but I've read something".

Child like comment again. It annoys me that you know so little economics. I'll set you a task. We know that job search creates monopsonistic conditions and therefore ensures underpayment. How would you ensure a labour market outcome where that rent doesn't occur? [Hint: Its impossible in capitalism]

 

The need to tack on additional conditions to avoid error such as the professional poker player or opera singer being branded as rentiers means that the definition provided must at the very least be insufficient. Still he insists on his claim being true "by definition". The very same definition he knows to be insufficient/wrong. He is stuck in a loop. An infinite Marxist loop of illogical, non-reality based nonsense that needs to refer to itself to "prove" itself. Marxism essentially just spends its time chasing its own behind.

 

What do you think of bringiton's paper that, acknowledging the irrelevance of Georgism, noted that rent is often capital gains? Did you agree? What about bringiton's suggestion that neoclassical economics is Marxist? Did you agree?

Georgists do seem to struggle with self-reflection

 

You really do struggle with simple causal relationships. That rent can contribute to capital gain does not logically imply that therefore all capital gain must be rent. And that capital gain currently largely consists of rent doesn't mean that there couldn't be any capital gain in a system that doesn't allow for rent. You still have not been able to demonstrate that capital gain is "by definition" rent. The definition you provided of rent thus far is clearly insufficient, as you have to tack on additional conditions to avoid branding opera singers or poker players as rentiers. Your claim rests on nothing but air.

bringiton is correct that neoclassical economics makes convenient use of Marxist error such as the conflation of land and capital. Not sure if that makes neoclassical economics "Marxist". It does make for a similarly axiomatically wrong foundation. Axiomatic error makes everything that "logically" follows automatically suspect, and that may be an understatement.

Marxists do seem to struggle with substance. You have much terminology. Much verbiage. Much fluff. Probably impressive to the unsuspecting, but I'm not buying that potion.

 

Can you explain how capital gain must necessarily always be made with infliction of unjust harm / economic damage in the process? Please do so without circular reasoning / question begging. You claimed capital gain is by definition rent. The definition of rent originally provided was clearly insufficient thus you had to tack on additional conditions to avoid branding poker players and opera singers as rentiers, one of those conditions being harm / economic damage. You know that for there to be rent there must be harm done / economic damage. So, it's on you to demonstrate that for there to be capital gain there must always be unjust harm / economic damage done. Sorry, going back to claiming that it's rent "by definition" and therefore always unjustly harmful is completely insufficient.

 

Despicable evasion.

You never refer to a statement of fact except to deny it.

Are you saying they aren't a fact?

No you aren't, you are just makin' $#!+ up and falsely claiming to be referring to what I referenced.

Too bad you can't do better than a puerile affirming-the-consequent fallacy. It's really a shame!

No, it IS that you can't.

That is how you evade when you know you have been refuted and you have no answers. Also this:

See?

Sorry you couldn't find a willingness to understand it. Frustrating.

An admirably accurate self-description.

Oh, then you should just put me on "Ignore." Please.

No; we know it doesn't.

That isn't rent.

Because land is privately owned in capitalism.

 

Unlike you, I understood the paper. It does try to help the enfeebled Georgists by widening the definition of rent. It does refer to capital gains (which I've already done). It does make simplistic reference to housing markets (of little value in understanding how housing markets are linked to higher poverty and lower wages). And it does provide no empirical justification for LVT.

Is that the best you have?

 

I just found it amusing that, after blubbering that the paper I quoted on capital gains was wrong, your fellow Georgist referred to a paper that refers to the need to include capital gains to ensure that LVT is relevant.

This shows a complete lack of honesty. To suggest that neoclassical economics is Marxist is cretinous. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics will know that. Neoclassical economics also doesn't make any conflation of land and capital. Amusingly Georgists would often quote neoclassical economists referring to the importance of land tax. Sounds like you fellows ignore that wikipedia guff when it suits you.

You continue to show no understanding. I'm not a Marxist. I've always made it clear that I am pluralist but have a preference for institutionalism (particularly in understanding how economic rent is created). I'm not convinced that you have any understanding of Marxism. Then again, we could say the same thing about every school of thought. Georgists don't do economics; they repeat a script with religious fever.