free-market capitalism

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by bricklayer, Jan 7, 2020.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, market power alone does not create rent.
    As most of your comments are.
    Don't fib now. Pro the liberty that permits it.
    Nope. Flat wrong, as usual. Speculation per se cannot create rent. If it could, lottery tickets' value would be rent. Why can't you ever remember the facts conclusively prove you wrong?
    Where does the mainstream say lottery tickets are rent?
    I am tired of your false and disingenuous filth.
    Of course. US military spending occurred before Marx was born, so Marxism is not needed to explain it. Marxism is always just stupid, irrelevant and dishonest garbage, which is obviously why you are so in love with it.
    It's profitable to firms that support successful election campaigns. Duh. No Marxism is needed to understand that.
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This made me smile! We're getting you to understand how varied rent really is. Is it typically about market power? Certainly. But the orthodox economists have a point too! Its also about return alien to economic efficiency .

    This neatly advertises your childishness. This is about economic understanding. Can we just refer to the Military Industrial Complex? Can we see the limits to Engels? Can we refer to underconsumptionist analysis? This requires a tad more than your grunt.
     
  3. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    8,211
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    DISCRETIONARY US BUDGETING

    There are exceptions to that above rule, which you have not mentioned.

    In some countries, and not the US, National Healthcare is supplied by governments in order that such a Key Service is uniformly available to all taxpayer-citizens who apply. This works better, given that the average lifespan in Europe (which has a National Healthcare Service) is four years longer than in the US (which has a mostly private HC-system)!

    Ditto post-secondary education in public-schools!

    Then you are living in the wrong country. Tax breaks are common in Europe for start-ups.

    It is ALWAYS a question reduced to "Guns or Butter" and America has opted for the Guns. Just look at the last breakdown of Discretionary Spending:[​IMG]
    There's no "Butter" left for small companies in startup mode. For instance, how about no taxation for a period of the company's first five years of existence?

    The entire taxation system must be re-thought. But don't expect that in a Donald Dork administration. He's just arranged a lowering of Upper-income Taxation, and the money is pouring in to his Re-election Committee ...
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2020
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No. I am failing to get you to understand that as correctly understood in a genuine empirical science of economics, rent is a very specific kind of return, because you have already realized that that fact proves your beliefs are false and evil. Genuine empirical science requires definition and disaggregation of unlike quantities. You want to aggregate quantities as unlike as the landowner's rent income and the opera singer's earned wages.
    Nope. A worker with a valuable unique talent, like a great opera singer, has great market power, and may obtain commensurate returns, without being a rentier.
    No. It is ONLY about a return obtained by legally depriving others of access to economic opportunity that would otherwise be accessible, without making just compensation.
    No, that neatly advertises your lack of ability to make a contribution.
    No. As soon as you mention Marx, Engels, socialist theory, etc. it is only about your effort to avoid and undermine economic understanding.
    If we wish to avoid understanding.
    A lot narrower than you imagine.
    Not without understanding how it is landowners, not employers, who rob workers of their wages.
    Worthless grunting on your part noted.
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zero economic comment. You've stated that you are a monist. I disagree. You haven't even got a coherent single economic approach. It is merely a Georgist script incapable of adapting to explain economic phenomenon. We see that with your pathetic suggestion that monopsony is somehow Marxist and therefore can be ignored. There is zero understanding of the labour market and, to suggest that you can simply make emotional rant over landowners instead, is frankly quite childish.
     
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That is just your usual falsehood. You cannot refute any of my economic comment, so you falsely claim I didn't make it. It's really quite a cowardly and despicable dodge, but you have made it a habit.
    Oh, really? Where? You are makin' $#!+ up again.
    Of course I do: respect for fact and logic. You just hate fact and logic because you realize that they prove your beliefs are false and evil. Simple.
    Facts about land explain the relevant phenomena, but not unrelated phenomena.
    No, YOU are a Marxist and therefore can -- and should -- be ignored.
    Already refuted.
    I will continue to identify the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality and their inescapable logical implications.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Replying to how you supply zero economic comment, you respond with zero economic comment. Weird reaction ;)

    You stated that "the truth is monist". The reference to truth informs me that Foucault passed you by. To then use that erroneous comment to justify a blinkered view of economics, where you ignore the value of the competing schools of thought, only describes a lack of capability in valid critique.

    Emotional and troll. I refer to the economic approach. I consider competing approaches and only reject hypothesis if there is sufficient empirical evidence in support. I dont just call people evil because they disagree with my opinion. That would be ridiculous.

    Georgists do think they are relevant. That's their biggest problem.

    Also wrong. Is a neoclassical economist Marxist if they embed Marxist ideas in their shirking analysis? Is a post Keynesian Marxist if they accept aspects of crisis theory? Is an Austrian Economist Marxist if they accept that post-Hayekian market socialism does eliminate distributed knowledge problems?

    Clearly not true. You stated that monopsony does not create rent, suggesting bogusly that any such view is based on Marxism. Monopsony, reflecting market power, ensures an inefficient redistribution from employee to employer. Any understanding of labour markets will confirm that. You have no such understanding.

    We can agree here. It doesn't matter about the topic, or the evidence, the land rant will never adapt.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Replying to how you falsely claim zero economic comment, you respond with a false claim of zero economic comment. Weird reaction ;)
    Where? Provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to that effect or admit you made it up.
    No; I threw him in the trash where he belongs.
    <yawn> Schools competing to be the most erroneous...
    Fact.
    But eschew fact and logic.
    Nope. You reject out of hand all facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil.
    Neither do I. I call them evil when they lie to rationalize privilege, justify injustice, and excuse evil.
    You refute yourself. If you thought geoists were irrelevant, you wouldn't devote your life to sneering at them.
    Neoclassical economics IS Marxist: it is based on accepting the Marxist conflation of land and capital as "the means of production."
    Yes, if it is Marxist crisis theory, because Marxist crisis theory is nonsense.
    That would be an absurd non sequitur, which is why you believe it.
    Indisputably true.
    Inefficiency is not rent.
    You have negative understanding of labor markets because you refuse to know facts about land.
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still no content? You sure you're intelligent?

    Foucault, the fellow that has transformed multiple disciplines, you threw in the trash? Crikey, why would you insist on looking idiotic?

    Which ones? You don't know any. We are seeing that you have no knowledge.

    This says nothing. Why do you always come across as cretinous?

    This amused me. I spend no real time at it. Everyone knows that Georgists are irrelevant. Crikey, even the ***** publication you have referred to admitted to that fact.

    You are not clearly completely clueless. You will never construct valid economic argument when you make such clueless comment.

    Capitalism tends to crisis. To refer to crisis theory just makes bleedin sense. Sorry, your land rend isn't going to be key!

    The level of Georgist ignorance is clear. You cannot over any understanding of labour markets. Crikey, even the nonsense Austrians can do better, as they effectively rehash neoclassical economics and traditional monopsony.

    I can ask you to offer theory and empirical evidence over the labour market. I will receive nothing coherent. It will be rant about me being evil and how, despite your inability to refer to any actual empirical evidence, you speak truth. I'm not sure whether I should sneer or pity.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2020
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, because he transformed them into trash. Your trash is a good example.
    Disgraceful.
    Marxist, neoclassical, Austrian, Keynesian, the list goes on.
    Despicable.
    Nauseating.
    You are aware that all of those claims are false.
    So you still have nothing to offer but sneers.
    Nope. Debt money does.
    But not Marxist crisis theory.
    You are aware that landowner privilege has been the secondary cause of most financial crises. The principal cause is debt money, but debt money relies on privileges worth borrowing to buy, and land is the most important one.
    Correct: it is clearly orders of magnitude below yours.
    You are aware that that is false.
    You are aware that that is false.
    You are sneering, of course: you are incapable of doing anything else.
     
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You adopt a particularly anti-intellectual approach. To simply dismiss schools of thought makes no sense. All have their value. We couldn't understand labour market outcomes without Marxism. We wouldn't understand information problems without the Austrians. We wouldn't have any basis for the theory of the firm without the neoclassicals. We wouldn't understand pricing without the post-Keynesians

    That crisis theory is dominated by Marxist perspective is just a matter of fact.

    Most recent crises can be traced back to rent seeking, but that's within a 'bad faith' context and nothing to do with land.

    Given you've stated that neoclassical is Marxist, you're technically sneering at yourself...
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, anti-dishonesty. A lot of the "economics" of those schools is just flat-out dishonest.
    They may have some value, as religions may have some value. That doesn't make them valid.
    Wrong. We can't understand them with Marxism because Marxism refuses to know the difference between owning land and owning a factory.
    Or maybe we would understand all those things better without all the noise of competing non-empirical schools.
    And shows why the GFC was not predicted by anyone but a handful of non-Marxists.
    Wrong again. The crises can be traced to debt money, which is mainly created to finance land purchases.
    <yawn>
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is anti-intellectual clap-trap.

    Let's ask you a simple question: You think neoclassical economics is Marxist. Now that's a ludicrous claim, but how would you ensure consistency within the neoclassical use of marginal revenue product of labour and Marxist labour power?
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It is fact.
    It shares the Marxist conflation of land and capital as "the means of production."
    Consistency is an absurd goal for such ideologies, as they are not even internally consistent.
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To suggest neoclassical economics is Marxist is cretinous. Amusingly, the only time you actually refer to economics with any validity, you are completely reliant on neoclassical concepts (e.g. externality analysis).
     
  16. Quadhole

    Quadhole Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    428
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Same ole Peter Schiff outcry... Free market Capitalism would work great. Until it is all funneled into 10 Israeli owned companies leveraging every angle, political, police, workers right to steal and rape every penny they could possibly squeeze. Just like we did before the depression.
    The only reason it is happening again is deregulation and the gullible American. Most to young to remember great grandpa losing his entire savings to the banksters. As if, todays rules would never allow it to happen. It can and will happen within the next 20 years. Youre dollar will be inflated into Oblivion. What is left will be bail in to save the banks. This after they Print Trillions more and tell you too "stay the course"

    Amazing that guys like Schiff, Mike Maloney, Lynette ZANG are out there telling the truth. That we allowed the rich and politicians (both sides) to adjust the rules a little at a time until the worker, the avg. JOE was pushed into forever debt, and broke.
    There are so many paid pundits to argue the truth in every area, if it be global warming, or multi trillion dollar deficits, debt. all that the NOW republican Party could care less about. If Biden were to win, the very week after wards Trump would say, what is he going to do about the Debt. His followers would say "yea, what r you going to do, this isnt right"

    Americans, most of them are fools
     
  17. Quadhole

    Quadhole Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    428
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    All worthless comments in this Amazingly corrupt system.
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You haven't said anything. Try application of economics, just for the crack.
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Free market capitalism is an oxymoron.
    No, it's inherent to capitalism, and merely accelerated by finance capitalism.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2020
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This made me laugh, given the term finance capitalism goes hand in hand with Marxism and is usually tracked back to Hilferding. Tut tut!
     
  21. Quadhole

    Quadhole Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    428
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    That is a joke in itself. Are you mentioning the economics of WHICH ERA ? Obviously near zero tax on the UBER Rich today cannot be Compared to tax on the rich 1983 ! ?

    Nor can Real Inflation data previous to the ridiculous changes in the early 90s that Gave us CPI be compared. Todays FOREVER 1% - 2% inflation numbers are a BIG FAT JOKE on Americans. But economist, all 7000 of them now on the FED payroll agree with it. Obviously they DIDNT agree with it before obtaining a place on the payroll.

    Chapwood index tells the truth and we run about 6% YoY for past 20 years. Obviously an economist when told this would write or say something like : "Well, that is a point of view" or "I have not seen that, the FED says xyz" and that is what we go by.
    That shows us that the Crooks in the banks, FED, IMF, democrat and Republicans other than BERNIE and his group are all on the payroll of KEEP BANKS running the show.
    We are at the MINSKY moment... where rate cuts and FOREVER QE (japanifycation) kicks in and the rich double down on dumbness and the Sheeple triple down on gullible thinking... "it will be ok, Mr. Trump said we just need a sate cut"

    So now you go right ahead and throw out some grad school repsonse of what some economic guru has said lately, or 50 years ago and make it relevant to todays crooks... you cant because you wont acknowledge the incredible fascist conditions we live under...
    The regulation to pound the working class with ever cheaper wages and rising costs in ever sector. Or the other deregulations that help MAJOR corps pay ZERO tax, or their owners to treat employees as FREE MARKET THINGS, not humans with needs. As one states, a skill makes you more valuable ! Sure it does, until the next guy and the next guy comes along with same skill and is 5% faster, you become a worthless commodity and pushed aside with no regulations to make the business owner ACT LIKE an American, or even HUMAN.

    The GREED is outstanding and loathe the day when a revolution takes out the greedy tarts children. I hope they all hang, like in the 1700s when you did something wrong.
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is just a rant, with no relevance to what I said.
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    <yawn> Marx had not the slightest understanding of finance capitalism because he didn't understand money (or anything else).
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hahahaha, you referred to a term developed by a Marxist. You referred to a term that sits quite comfortably within Marxist analysis.

    Given finance capitalism originated from Marxist analysis, you must be suffering a severe dose of cognitive dissonance right about now ;)
     
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    But that means something quite different from what Marxists believe. Haha.
    But a term that means something else in Marxist "analysis."
    No. Finance capitalism is in reality different from what Marx believed, and would still exist if Marx had never existed.
    No. Just inexpressible weariness with your worthless, disingenuous garbage.
     

Share This Page