You have to pay a landowner full market value for permission to exercise your liberty right to access the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical advantages nature provides at any given location where economic opportunity is accessible. The better the opportunities available there, the more you have to pay for permission to access them. You also have to pay a landowner full market value for permission to access "free" public education. No. Wages have stagnated because people can't make enough money to pay landowners full market value for permission to work. True enough: the market in land is effectively a slave market created by government forcibly stripping people of their rights to liberty, and making those rights into landowners' private property.
Full market value is a relative term. I own commercial residential property in Los Angeles that my grandfather built in 1949. The full market value for a one bedroom apartment is about $1,800 a month on average, but I barely charge a third of that. So you believe the artificial inflation of property values via government subsidy and monetary policy are solely responsible for wage stagnation?
Yes, it is relative to a given market. So what? Your grandfather did not build the land, sorry. But your commitment to subsidization of landowners is certainly more understandable when it is the source of your wealth: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his livelihood depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair Somehow you have become confused. An apartment is not land. Oh, no, there is far more going on than that. But it is a major factor.
I think you have an extreme misunderstanding of where government gets their money, particularly for this subsidization that makes land valuable. It's almost exclusively from landowners.
"Sweden is Not a Socialist Success" The problem with your assertion is that you are mixing "was" with "is" - "then" with "now" and not taking into consideration that Sweden is FAR LESS SOCIALIST than it was before the CIA murdered Olaf Palme. To put it right .... SWEDEN WAS MOST CERTAINLY A SOCIALIST SUCCESS.
Lol, wut. Scandinavian countries are not Socialist and never have been Socialist. Socialism is a joke over here, even more so than religion.
Economics is a weak science, characterized by arbitrary definitions that can't be quantified or qualified. It deserves abuse
A right winger trying to justify their lack of economic knowledge? Not exactly headline making material...
If socialism wasn't inherently authoritarian you wouldn't feel the need to clarify that it was "democratic"
Sweden is a heavily regulated social democracy. The principle is that business, being afforded the opportunity to accumulate wealth in a good setting, has a moral responsibility to share some of that wealth for the community.
Not high up in the sense stakes. How can the anarchist be authoritarian? How can market socialism, consistent with Austrian economic concepts, be authoritarian?
Try and answer. You referred to an economist. Which one? Are you perhaps rejecting Friedman, or Becker, or Hayek?
This is like the third time this same link has been posted over the last couple of years. Their debt to GDP is still much lower than ours, so our system isn't all rainbows and pink unicorns either ... just say'n. We've been borrowing our children's and grandchildren's money to buy the "capitalists" success.
