which explains why Gates Jobs Brin Musk etc are all racing to own land and made their fortunes in land!! Goof ball Marxism even after marx killed 120 million??
Actually, those four have all said they are not in it for money, so their motive to own land is attenuated. If they were, they would be buying land. Some very rich folks like Jeff Bezos ARE buying land. Did that happen in Hong Kong, where all land has been publicly owned for over 160 years? Did it happen in Singapore, where 90% of the land is publicly owned? No? Then why do you imagine it is relevant?
don't be 100% absurd. they don't teach in MBA school that land is the best investment. This is something that only you teach with you dead killer liberal friend Marx. You make liberalism look as stupid as it really is. Thank you
tiny technicality makes no difference to a business in Hong Kong. Market determines price a business must pay for land and that price is built in to cost structure of the business just like NYC property. 1+1=2
It's not the best investment because it is so well understood, and thus pretty accurately priced by the market. The best investments are always poorly understood and thus undervalued by the market. That's how they can be so profitable. So it is not often a great investment to buy land or slaves. But it is very profitable to OWN land or slaves. <sigh> MARX HIMSELF said that location subsidy repayment was, "capitalism's last ditch (defense)." You are making a bigger and bigger fool of yourself by claiming a fierce and consistent critic of Marxism is a Marxist. Thank you.
It's not a tiny technicality, and you know it. Location subsidy repayment is the major reason Hong Kong can keep its tax burden on economic activity so low. So you agree that it would not make any difference to a business if it paid that cost to the government and community that create the location's value rather than to private landowning parasites who do not? Other than the fact that they would then have that much less tax to pay on their productive activities, of course... If you are a supporter of productive business, why do you so irrationally defend the current system that makes productive business pay for government TWICE -- once in taxes to the public treasury to fund desirable public services and infrastructure, then again in land rent to private parasites for ACCESS to the exact same services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for? Why not cut out the real parasite: the landowner?
1) ??? business pays cost to ex land owner but still parasite???. 2) would rather pay to ex land owner [and any exproperty owner] rather then govt in free market transaction for purposes of market efficiency. If your Nazi govt killed everyone, took their land, and then leased it, it would be new source of revenue for govt, have soviet inefficiency, enable govt to lower taxes with new revenue, and cause higher prices for all assuming more costly real estate. I see no upside, only another libcommienazi scheme to get more millions killed! Communists’ Ten-Point Plan for Erasing Families Some of these ideas were already emerging in “The Communist Manifesto.” There, Marx and Engels included a shocking but telling 10-point plan for their new ideal of humanity. Here it is, in direct quotation: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Simply delegating fiscal policy to Congress and establishing a Central Bank; means socialism and command economics. only the right wing, appeals to ignorance of that conceptual fact.
I am just glad, you have nothing but fallacy instead of any form of valid argument. Doesn't seem very bright, to me.
The natural rate of unemployment is based upon the number of people actually looking for a job. In the US, regardless of the circumstance, we are at the "natural rate". And yet, companies go off to India to hire software wizards because there are not enough coming out of schools in the US. THAT is the problem we are facing. One of preference. The country should be preferring jobs for those who are American citizens and not American citizenship wannabees. And those people with such qualifications are neither knocking on the entry-door legally nor crossing the Rio Grande to get in. These people are relative unskilled labor, desperate to feed their families. Which should be Mexico's problem and not ours. (Mexico is NOT a poor country.) So, what IS the problem? If one wants a software degree in India, they go to school free, gratis and for nothing. You want software degree in the US, you find a way to pay through the nose at least $10K per year in a state postsecondary training school. The American poor do not have that kind of money*! Which, for far too many of our kids, they simply do not get school.ed in the skills that offer them a decent salary. Maybe they pick-up the smarts by osmosis, but the cost of a post-secondary education in the states IS TOO EFFING HIGH! *So, who's got it? The DoD, which swallows whole 53% of the total Discretionary Budget!
There must be, macroeconomic solutions; even if no microeconomic solutions will do. In the US, we have laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will. I am advocating equal protection of the law, regarding said concept, for unemployment compensation purposes. And, a minimum wage at fifteen dollars an hour. This is Not, Labor's problem. Capitalists can always ask for tax breaks and hire more accountants for their already existing, accounting departments. We should have no illegal problem in our several States. All foreign nationals in the US, should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine, can make that happen via Capitalism. The right wing doesn't like it Because, there is simply, not enough socialism on a national basis in it. It should be about the liberal socialism of "growing the size of the pie", not the national socialism of denying and disparaging natural rights and Individual Liberty.
In my book, what is mean by "Individual Liberty" is one in which a student does not graduate from university with an average $25/27K debt on his/her back. My dentist here in France - I asked him the other day - paid a tuition of about 1K Euros ($1230 today) for his tuition. Room 'n board were extra. Thoughout Europe, the result is the same. One need not go into debt to get an education. Neither in secondary-schooling, nor in tertiary-schooling. Our country is rich enough to fund tertiary-schooling, except we wrongly decided to put a spending onus on the DoD:
In my opinion, we could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, through unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. Recent studies regarding poverty in the US, attribute most of the poverty in California, to cost of living issues. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum will help Labor pay for Infrastructure. The positive multiplier effect should be at least two or three; and, could be a more stable, growth metric.
yes Europe has many welfare programs and so there is little incentive to work. Even Krugman uses the term Eurosclerosis to describe the European economy. France for example has the per capita income of Arkansas about our poorest state IF they could not mooch of the USA for inventions and military support Europe would not even exist.
Who else can it buy or rent the land from but a parasite, which the landowner is by definition? The land would be there, ready to use, even if he had never existed. Wrong again. Market efficiency requires internalization of the positive externalities government and the community provide to the land user rather than subsidizing the landowner at the expense of taxpayers. Repayment of the landholder subsidy is known to be more efficient because it is a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction. You make it impossible to take your blather seriously. That is the idea. No, that is just silly blather from you with no basis in fact. HONG KONG leases land to users, and is consequently rich, free, and prosperous. The USSR did not, and was poor, tyrannical and stagnant. Everything you say on this topic appears to be the exact, diametric opposite of the truth. That is the idea. No, prices would be lower because producers would no longer have to pay landowners for doing and contributing nothing, and would no longer have to pay taxes on their production. They would only have to pay for government once instead of twice. You just want producers to pay for government twice so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for doing and contributing nothing. Landowning kills millions every year. Wrong again. Public ownership of land is an ancient idea. Even Confucius talked about it as characteristic of the mythical Golden Age. The French physiocrats had advocated recovering all rents of land for public purposes instead of levying taxes 100 years before the Communist Manifesto was written. Marx and Engels borrowed it because there was already substantial support for it. <yawn> Marx and Engels also said that 1+1=2. Is that false because Marx and Engels said it?
