Creating arable land.

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Brett Nortje, Mar 28, 2018.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That you interpret rescinding banks' money issuance privilege as a "reaction against monetarism" demonstrates how completely you fail to understand all aspects of monetary economics and banking. More reading for you!
    No, I am completely honest that my position focuses primarily on justice in land tenure, as that is the biggest problem in capitalist economies. You just have to pretend that justice in land tenure is Georgism, when you are aware that Georgism refers to a more specific policy advocated by Henry George that differs significantly from what I propose.
    True, I can't help but tell the truth, which is that my position is not a Georgist one unless you classify any position that advocates a more just and efficient system of land tenure as "Georgist." You do everything you can to pretend that my position is not what it is.
    And you have to disingenuously pretend that when I prove my honesty by acknowledging what is worth keeping in current systems, it is somehow a fault.
    You again have to resort to makin $#!+ up about what I have plainly written. Conspicuously unlike you, I have been completely honest.
    Or the truth, which you cannot bear: I am well aware of the economics, and my approach is not Georgist.
    No, that's just another display of your invariable refusal to discuss rather than just constantly sneer and distort.
    Your despicable behavior makes me physically ill.
    The misinformation has all been from you.
    Then why did you falsely claim that when I advocate it, it is an attack on the poor?
    So as I said, your view is that more of the children of the poor should be born suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome, so that they will stay poor and have worse life outcomes. You believe such suffering and degradation is a plus.
    That reference to the Coase Theorem proves you have no knowledge or understanding of the relevant economics. There cannot be a property rights solution. Can you guess why? Come on. Let's see if you actually know any economics.
    That is exactly what I have done.
    No; as you know very well, I never claimed they were novel. You just had to make that up in order to practice sneering.
    Baldly false.
    No, it does both. The fact that a report does A does not imply that it does not do B. Your innocence of ordinary logic is really quite pitiable!
    No it isn't. That's just another bald falsehood from you. First, there is no jurisdiction where they have been ratcheted up every year, and second, increases are needed at some point to determine experimentally what the ideal level of taxation is to obtain the desired effect.
    Raising revenue does not disqualify a tax from being Pigovian, as you know perfectly well but have to pretend otherwise in order to mislead readers.
    I would hope it is greater, as the externalities should be fully covered, there is good reason to encourage smokers not to injure their own health independently of its societal cost, and such a tax is more efficient than many other British taxes.
    "Need"? Of course not. It's just good public policy.
    That's a very minor component of my proposal, as you know very well. Post a previous proposal that is broadly similar to mine, or admit that you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    Which also has nothing to do with my proposal.
    Another contentless sneer from you.
    That is gratuitous, despicable filth.
    No, of course they don't. That false and irrelevant spew simply establishes that you have no idea what you are talking about. None. You appear to be a sneerbot.
    That you would claim its existence could be relevant only establishes your ignorance of the relevant economics.
    <yawn> So is food. But only a fool would claim that would be better provided by government.
    Development of human capital also requires food. But only fools claim food would be better supplied by government.
    No, that's false, as you know.
    <yawn> Is that better?
    Baldly false. Neoclassical economics takes landowner privilege, bankster privilege and IP monopoly privilege as givens.
    You can say that when you have provided some evidence that you understand the economics I've explained to you. So far you are coming up empty on that score.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2018
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tut tut, you gave an article that gave no more insights than 'monetarism isn't much cop'. It demonstrated no other economic value.

    Why did you try and hide your Georgism 101 with neoclassical baggage? Did you honestly think it wouldn't be noticed?

    I know you want to be terribly radical. Its just a shame that you've been caught out peddling the orthodox. I'm the most gutted mind you. I really was hoping for some insights.

    Technically most of the garbage you presented was neoclassical (and Econ 101 cobblers at that).

    How spiffingly emotive!

    I referred to the obvious: they are regressive. You pretended otherwise.

    That you continued such dishonesty is indicative of your weak position dear chap! Of course if you want to suggest prohibition then please be more guest.

    The Coase Theorem is really about demonstrating the importance of transaction costs. However, it is also quite true to refer to ow most apparent Pigovian Tax problems are actually a reference to property rights. Just facts!

    This is particularly ignorant! A Pigovian tax should internalise externality.That's it! It is not a revenue raising device. That taxes go beyond those externality costs necessarily informs us that it isn't a Pigovian tax.

    If a smoker pays more than the 'true costs' of their behaviour then we cannot have a Pigovian tax. Instead we have what taxes often are: regressive revenue raising devices which means direct tax cuts can be used elsewhere. Being more visible, those tax cuts are vote winners (despite the poor overall losing out).

    There's so little to respond in your ranting. Any chance you could try economic comment?

    No. Food is about the physical efficiency of labour as an input. Human capital is necessarily about a shift in productivity.

    Given most of your comments have been nothing but Neoclassical 101, this did make me laugh. You really need to educate yourself in some heterodox economics. You might come across as more credible then. But let's play pretend. Which of the political economic schools of thought do you think justifies an approach based on rehashing concepts like the Pigovian tax and natural monopoly?
     
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you agree that it proved you wrong.
    This made me laugh! You are the one trying to hide the fact that taking what is valid from neoclassical and geoist economics produces a hybrid that is neither neoclassical nor Georgist.
    I just want to solve problems.
    <yawn> I have not been "caught out," that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. Some orthodoxies are just correct. Neoclassical economics could hardly have become dominant if there were nothing valid in it at all.
    No, all you do is pretend they haven't been provided.
    You have to dismiss the facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil, so I suppose that is as good a pretext as any.
    No, that is a bald falsehood. Progressivity is simply a lower priority for me than liberty, justice, prosperity, and improved life outcomes.
    It's not dishonest. It's the indisputable implication of your mewling that the poor's alcohol consumption should not be moderated by Pigovian taxation because it is regressive.
    The Pigovian tax you oppose is more effective, and increases revenue rather than expenses.
    So as I knew would be the case, you have no idea why a property rights solution is impossible. Thanks for again demonstrating your incapacity to offer anything in the way of economics.
    No, a Pigovian tax can obviously also raise revenue.
    So now you are claiming taxes don't raise revenue?? BWAHAHAHAAA!!
    False, as already proved.
    False, as already proved. No one can say exactly what the "true" costs of smoking are, but such uncertainties do not in any way disallow Pigovian taxes. You are just outright wrong.
    Irrelevant. It depends on whether the taxes being cut are better or worse than the one being increased. Typically they are better, but that doesn't mean worse ones couldn't be cut.
    The poor also lose out in state-run lotteries. So? It is no part of government's job to avoid benefiting from stupidity, even of the poor.
    No it isn't. It's about sustaining health by consumption.
    No it isn't. It's about pretending people are ownable.
    I haven't thought about it, as that is not what my approach is based on. All but yours...?
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've always said monetarism isn't much cop. It added nothing.

    You do need to laugh more!

    This is unfortunately ignorant. You don't get geoism by combining neoclassical and Georgism ideas. You just get a bloody mess. There are one of two reasons for that mess. You either don't understand much economics, or you're trying to hide the Georgism. I've shown respect to you and gone for the latter.

    Which aspects of neoclassical economics impress you?

    Hallelujah, you've called me evil! Please try more mature argument.

    Other that the Georgism, you've gone for regressive tax. Are you purely reliant on the Georgism to deliver progressivity overall?

    A Pigovian tax does not eliminate health costs from alcohol. It merely ensures that the consumer faces the true cost from their behaviour (i.e. internalisation of externality). It just happens that alcohol taxes aren't use for that purpose. They are used to revenue raise.

    More lies! I've already referred to how I don't oppose taxes. I do, mind you, laugh at your attempt to refer to them as you pretend policy change.

    No content? Golly gosh! I've referred to the reality of the Coase Theorem: it refer to how taxes can be avoided, but at the same time describes how property rights protection won't work if transaction costs are prohibitive. Try critiquing that statement.

    You show your ignorance again. A Pigovian tax isn't about revenue raising (indeed, given equity concerns, it should lead to tax cuts elsewhere). It is about changing price such that the consumer, or producer, faces the true cost of their behaviour. This is Econ 101 so you're merely advertising your lack of knowledge of basic economics.

    A cretinous effort! All that is needed is an estimate of the externality. Could there be error? Of course. Indeed, this is one reason why right wingers will celebrate the Coase Theorem (given it eliminates any relevance of government failure)

    I don't think you know any of the schools of thought. Your combination of neoclassical economics and Georgism merely illustrated that I'm typing to someone that doesn't know much economics.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for agreeing I proved you wrong again.
    How true!
    That's not what I said, so you are again just trying to change the subject.
    That's just obviously fallacious and disingenuous. I've proved repeatedly I'm not a Georgist, so you turn around and claim such proofs are evidence I'm trying to "hide" Georgism! It's self-evidently Marxist paranoid delusion.
    Marginalism, price and competition theory, and externalities. Not much else.
    False.
    No. Obviously.
    It reduces them.
    They obviously do both.
    You have relentlessly opposed all taxes that are fair and efficient.
    You have failed utterly to understand the reason no Coasian solution is possible. Try again! Your pitiable floundering is amusing.
    Translation: I proved you wrong again.
    Not even talking about anything I've said.
    Thank you for admitting you were wrong again.
    More prance and dodge. Do try some economics!
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You proved me wrong by providing a mudane source that confirmed that monetarism was dead? You are a card!

    Thank you for admitting it. Once you recognise the error I'm sure you will improve in any future dialogue. Well done!

    You stated "taking what is valid from neoclassical and geoist economics produces a hybrid that is neither neoclassical nor Georgist". That is bobbins. You have simply taken the most mundane aspects of neoclassical economics and combined it with Georgism to hide your Georgist nature.

    That's not true is it? You say you're not Georgist. However, when you're asked details, you give Georgism 101. I did find it interesting that you thought adding such mundane noeoclassical concepts would make your argument look more credible.00

    Are you taking the piss? "Marginalism, price and competition theory, and externalities" is the bulk of the approach. Didn't you know?

    To be fair, you're different to standard Georgism here. They typically blubber about land tax being the only efficient tax. In your pathetic attempt to sound less Goergist, you've actually argued for inefficient and inequitable indirect tax (where revenue raising, rather than Pigovian justification, determines outcome).

    This amused me. You were asked to critique my statement: 'I've referred to the reality of the Coase Theorem: it refers to how taxes can be avoided, but at the same time describes how property rights protection won't work if transaction costs are prohibitive'. Why can't you critique that simple sentence? I predict you'll hide again!
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, by posting the proof that you were wrong. Trying to pretend it didn't say what it plainly said -- a favorite deceitful dodge of yours -- is not an argument, sorry.
    It is fact.
    You have simply decided to use the word "Georgist" as an all-purpose pejorative to dismiss all facts about land.
    It is indisputably true.
    No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. When did Henry George advocate a universal individual exemption from location subsidy repayment? When did he advocate a purchase value exemption? When did he advocate Pigovian taxes? When did he advocate rescinding banks' debt money issuance privilege?

    See how easily I always prove your deceitful filth is deceitful filth?
    You ask me for economic details, then when I give them, you claim I am only trying to make my argument "look more credible."

    Sickening, deceitful and despicable.
    Wrong, obviously. General equilibrium, rationality, initial endowments, exclusion of money, debt and banking, etc. are also major elements.
    Why prove your unfitness to participate in civilized discourse by describing a rational and well supported view as "blubbering"?
    You make me ill.
    No, that's another fabrication on your part. There's nothing inequitable about taxing activities that impose costs on society.
    No, that's just another fabrication on your part. The justification is Pigovian, the revenue depends on maximizing net benefits.
    You nauseate me.
    BWAHAHAAAA!! You are so far from understanding how little you understand, you didn't even notice the critique! It's nothing to do with transaction costs, I guess I should have spelled that out for you.

    But hey, there's still ample time to try again: why won't a Coasian property rights solution work? See if you can actually venture a relevant answer this time.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2018
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You only confirm that you don't understand Macro 101. The content was focused on righteous counter-comment over monetarism. There was nothing of value otherwise.

    Bit of a problem there. Taking what is valid from neoclassical and geoist economics does not produce a hybrid that is neither neoclassical nor Georgist. It produces incoherency.

    Nope. I respect George and I also understand the value of land tax. I just smell the stink of Georgism 101, where land is used to crow righteousness without any credible reference to economics. That's not George's fault mind you! That's typically just the fault of libertarian yank wannabes who want to sound more punk.

    Crikey, you do create a web of phlegm. I've made it clear why your comments are guff. You went for orthodox policies which are already adopted. You did that because your only input was Georgist (note I said Georgist, not 'quote from George')

    Your emotion only describes your frustration over how you've been found out.

    So your response is that you're actually neoclassical, not Georgist? Crikey, you're making your argument look even more pisspot!

    I am genuinely sorry that I've recognised the stupidity of your Neoclassical-Georgism crossover. I don't think economic honesty will make you happier.

    Bit silly! General equilibrium is an understanding of competition (e.g. appreciation of comparative advance). Rationality determines price theory etc etc.

    Georgism obsesses over the efficiency of land tax. You support that. However, you also want to convince folk you're not a Georgist?

    I wouldn't want to do that. The idea that tellingthe truth is unpalatable to you does worry me!

    That's the trouble when you try to refer to neoclassical economics. You get it wrong. A Pigovian tax has to refer to internalising externalities. Its about economic efficiency created by the perceived change in the price face by the consumer or producer. Anything other than that is not Pigovian. Brit's cig or booze tax is, by definition, non-Pigovian. It is a regressive tax, nothing more.

    The Pigovian tax is based on ensuring externalities are embedded in the pricing decision. That's it! Its not complicated so your failure to understand it only reflect innocence of basic economics.

    You still amuse!

    That you blubber and then actually make no valid economic comment is predicted. The Coase Theorem is very much structured around highlighting the importance of transaction costs. The original examples were obviously chosen to show examples where bargaining was relatively costless (ensuring property rights protection works).

    I've already said. If property rights can be allocated, then failure reflects bargaining costs. You need to be a little more grown up and offer economic comment. I do hope it will be more relevant than your kack about natural monopoly
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2018
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing of value to you, because you do not value the truth.
    No, that's just another false claim from you. Coherency depends on what is taken from them.
    No, of course you don't: he was honest. Which is why you employ the term, "Georgist" incorrectly, as derogation.
    No, you do not.
    <yawn> There might be a reason why Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz named his most important mathematical economics result the Henry George Theorem.

    You see, the reeking, putrid stench of your evil is proved by the fact that you dismiss the peer-reviewed work of a Nobel laureate as "not a credible reference to economics."
    You've made it clear you can't and won't address them.
    Oh, really? Where? Where is the subsidy to location owners repaid to the community that provides it? Where is banksters' debt money issuance privilege revoked in favor of public fiat money issuance calculated to stabilize prices? Where has the people's natural liberty to use land been restored?

    Your claims are false and ridiculous, and you know it.
    No honest, informed person (lets you out, sorry) would claim that Georgist policies have already been adopted anywhere.
    No, slandered.
    Neither, as I've told you repeatedly, and you always have to make $#!+ up about.
    Only in the same sense that epicycles were an understanding of planetary orbits.
    Overdetermines.
    No, I do not support the Georgist "Single Tax" obsession that would limit tax bases to land value. That is simply a fabrication on your part, as you know.
    I just want to be honest and accurate, two words you seem permanently unacquainted with. You are aware that it is not accurate to call me a Georgist, because my views diverge from George's in important ways. Yet you call me a Georgist because it enables you to dismiss my actual views.
    Everyone reading this knows which of us tells the truth and which does not, including you.
    Exactly as I said, and you falsely denied.
    No, that's just false. There is no aspect of Pigovian tax theory that says they can't raise any revenue, that's just absurd bobbins you made up out of whole cloth.
    Again, that's just false. There is no zero-tolerance requirement in Pigovian taxes. Here's a reasonable primer on the subject for the economically naive:

    https://www.economist.com/news/econ...ndividuals-and-society-do-not-coincide-fourth

    You'll notice it explicitly states that the British tax on cigarettes is Pigovian, and PIGOU HIMSELF proposed a tax on alcohol.
    That's what I said.
    You still nauseate.
    That was laughter.
    But that's not the problem in this case.
    So you again failed to understand the difficulty.
    It amuses me that you pretend such superiority, but can't actually figure anything out.
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All you do is sneer to avoid the economics. That doesn't surprise me. Georgism, with an added layer of rancid neoclassicalism to hide the truth, will always be a struggle!
     
  11. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting that 'we' want to colonize the Moon or Mars, or surely some other romantic location, yet here on Earth we either are incapable of producing enough food for everyone...or we are simply not interested in the challenge. According to this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_greening and other articles you can Google, we can create more arable land if we wish...
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
    Truth is truth whatever the source. Even a ninny like Marx agreed that 2+2=4.
    This, from you??
    No worthwhile enterprise is easy.
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No comment again. Calling a great political economist like Marx, even if you disagree with him, a ninny does show the level of your debate.

    I appreciate that you cannot just give Georgist comment as that would advertise Georgism. Infusing Neoclassical 101, however, was a poor choice!
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Creating more arable land is technically trivial, but politically difficult: it damages the financial interests of those who own land that is already arable. The greed of the landowner for unearned wealth is the most powerful force in the universe.
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
    He was a polemicist and propagandist, not a political economist. Rejecting established and indisputable facts of political economy, as Marx did with the established and indisputable fact that unlike the landowner the capital owner is fundamentally a producer, was the act of a ninny (or a liar), not a political economist.
    Do try to get over your obsession with Georgism.
    I know you hate facts with hysterical ferocity.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you think he's significantly impacted so many disciplines? Why hasn't your "my Georgism isn't Georgism" had the same impact?
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    His lies were and are very attractive to certain kinds of people.
    "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it;" -- Swift
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So he is an integral figure across academia because academics like his lies? You continue to advertise a childish outlook
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it's less naive than yours. Academics universally regard themselves as under-rewarded for their labors, and Marx gives them a plausible excuse to blame someone other than themselves.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you pitch yourself as even more post-truth than Trump? Impressive!
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You again prove you cannot offer relevant economic comment.
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do realise that Economists tend to be academics don't you? Your post-truthing is in all sorts of trouble!
     
  23. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's enough for everyone...
     
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course. But the landowner demands that others pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide.
     
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But rather less likely to be Marxists than other academics in the humanities.
    Right back atcha, champ.
     

Share This Page