How should the something-for-nothing payment to parasitic landowners be abolished? Land users should pay government the market value for the desirable services and infrastructure it provides instead of being taxed to pay for them, and then having to pay a landowner for access to the same services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for. The landowner would thus get the correct nothing in return for the nothing he contributes, and the land user's average cost of government would be roughly halved. This dramatically reduces production costs and increases efficiency by aligning both the government's and land users' financial incentives with the public interest in productive use of land and efficient public spending on services and infrastructure. Now you will claim, falsely, disingenuously and absurdly, that the above is not economics.
You need more practical detail here! What determines market value? What mechanisms are used for payment? It would be great if you could adopt the economic approach and include evidence. Happy to go with case study comment of course
Would any market be worse off, by solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation that conforms to at-will employment laws in our at-will employment States?
Writing to yourself, are you? If not, COPY the person to whom you are directing your comment. This is not a Message Board, it is a Debate Forum ...
7 billion people and the land would there ready to be used freely, or rented from a parasite govt monopoly that charges 10 times market value for anything it touches??? Isn't thinking fun??
Technically you should be much more friendly to bringiton. Friedman supported land tax and, let be fair, market economic focuses on how reaction to land can generate revenue without distortion.
Full employment of resources in the market for labor should produce a minimum positive multiplier of two or three.
FREE, GRATIS, AND FOR NOTHING Economic theory. Economic fact (target): *Employment to population ratio at above 65%, *National Unemployment at 4.0 How to get to these goals is the interesting part, and we aint there yet. Check out the E-to-p Ratio here ... Challenge: The E-to-p Ratio for the 25-54 year olds looks like this: Yes, the ratio is close to back where it was before the shat-hit-the-fan in 2008 (Great Recession). But it is the below 25-age class that is the major social-problem in America. They are unemployed, boisterous and angry. And dealing in dope - they are the major social challenge* of our era. Because they should be in schools obtaining the job-qualifications that will allow them a middle-class existence. And they are not getting one because it is too effing expensive. Even at a state school the tuition fee is $12K per year, which they cannot afford. It should be free, gratis and for nothing - just like a secondary-school education!
it takes money to make money; a conservative, positive multiplier of two or three is a conservative positive return on investment. It may require central bank, inflationary intervention. the goal would be to, "soak up the current slack in our economy."
This is NeoKeynesianism 101. It isn't interesting. You should be going for a public sector bank that provides investment funds according to social return.
That's the way an economist looks at a multiplier "possibility". You write as if it is a certainty. It aint ... and yes it will create inflation, which will diminish total Demand. Americans will take a generation to forget what happened from 2008 to 2014/15 when the economy started creating jobs again all by itself. (No help whatsoever came from the government, because the HofR (which Americans stoopidly voted over to the Replicants) refused Obama's request for stimulus-spending. What happened subsequent to the Great Recession was a classic example of political ineptness. Keynes had warned Roosevelt that only stimulus-spending would work, after Roosevelt had tightened government spending in response to the stock-market collapse of 1929. Roosevelt came around and started spending, which somewhat blunted the consequences of a decade of subdued economic activity. It was WW2 spending that finally ended it, because it pulled a great many men out of the workforce and cost billions of dollars. When the hell are we ever going to learn. If we forget history, it'll come back and break our neck economically time and time again. That's what happens when economies go wildly beyond the full-employment barrier. As a nation, there is an interesting economic phenomenon happening. It can be seen here: Look across the variations and note that growth-rate volatility has lessened since the 1980s. That's goodness because economic growth history - though it remains variable - is still more stable than in the past. And if it is more stable, it is more dependable - that is, less variable and therefore more trustworthy ...
I am saying it is a conservative estimate. the certainty factor comes in to play when dealing with the poor; they must spend most of their discretionary income rather than save it.
Another one who has solved the Great Depression. The solution being... be more left wing. Or was it be more right wing? Argument empirically won with the benefit of hindsight, 100% conclusively.... by both sides. The economic debate that keeps on giving.
You could try and adapt the quantitative easing stuff, but you really need to leave Macro 101 to the textbook!
solving simple poverty in the US is as easy and convenient as the legal concept of employment at the will of either party, can make it.
Higher paid Labor simply Creates more Demand. And, pays more in local taxes. And, can help Labor pay for Infrastructure. A positive multiplier of three, in my opinion, is conservative; simply due to markets "filling any current economic inefficiencies", arising from a simple poverty of money in our institutional system of money based markets.
No it isn't. It referred to structurally changing the economy as austerity is rejected. It does not refer to Macro 101
I prefer the "Egyptian Doctrine", simply Because, It has Already been Printed and so it should be done!
