on the contrary putting more and more people on welfare will only cripple them further and make the problem worse. This amounts to reversing evolution. Typical of anti science liberals
Political Economy originates from Philisophy. No way would philosophers confuse liberalism and socialism.
It's also not what I said, as you know very well. I said the landowner qua landowner is pure evil, not "landowners." Two entirely different things. As always, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. So you have just put the lie to your own claim. I didn't say landowners, who are flesh and blood; I said the landowner QUA landowner, which is an abstraction. You seem to think you can pretend I said things I did not say, and readers won't notice you are just makin' $#!+ up. It is the simple, literal truth. Evil is deliberate abrogation of others' rights without just compensation with intent to inflict injustice. The landowner qua landowner has no function, no identity, but to inflict injustice by abrogating others' liberty rights to use the land, without making just compensation. That is by definition pure evil. No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. Georgists are followers of Henry George, and most are proud to be such. I am just not one of them. Which might be why I do not ignore all other aspects of economics, putting the lie to your claims yet again. You even, weirdly, berated me for identifying some market failure conditions that are recognized in neoclassical economics. Nothing to do with land. No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again, as proved above. Those two are not synonymous, sorry. That depends on the nature of the empire, and what it replaced. In some cases empires have ended horrible home-grown savagery like widow burning. I realize you are a big fan of widow burning because it was ended by imperialism, but others are more rational. Not surprising, as you made it up. Well, that neatly covers all the possibilities, doesn't it? What on earth would be my motive to respond to such obviously fallacious idiocy? You are the VERY LAST PERSON IN THE WORLD who can presume to criticize the honesty of others' comments. Why do you feel you have to change the subject every time you are proved wrong? Oh. Right. Proved wrong, you change the subject. You are just sad, now. Fabrication, as YOU YOURSELF PROVED, above. Sorry, but I really don't care how many times you call factual economic arguments that address issues of justice and rights "morality rant," because I know you are just trying to prevent identification of the fact that your own economic views are evil. No, that is your specialty. Which anti-economic nonsense you proposed, absurdly and dishonestly, to use as the basis of "compensation" for capital forcibly confiscated by socialists. So presumably "entrepreneurial value" is another nonsensical and anti-economic fabrication you are using to evade the concept of MARKET value. How about no? No. You already put the lie to that claim, above. Yep. Nope. What on earth do you even incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about? The Single Tax is quintessential Georgism. And another reason I am not a Georgist. A claim you already put the lie to yourself, by berating me for identifying market failure conditions that have nothing to do with land. I've told you many times I'm not a Georgist -- though I have no trouble celebrating great men without requiring them to be perfect. Henry George was a great man, but he also wrote some nasty racist stuff in his earlier years, as Churchill did. Thomas Jefferson was a great man, but he actually owned slaves, and carried on a clandestine affair with one of them for many years, an indiscretion that we nowadays consider scandalous if not grotesque, but which was obviously fairly common at the time. Aristotle was a great man, but he actually rationalized and argued for slavery. The only problem with any of this is that you have to pretend it is relevant to economic issues, because you have no actual economic arguments to offer.
Agree, only you do that and with no shame or embarrassment !!! Sad! Hillary (liberal/progressive) and Bernie (socialist) easily endorsed each other since they had same statist programs in mind. 1+1=2 Norman Thomas: ( socialist presidential candidate) "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
You do make me laugh. You're effectively saying 'landowners, acting in the capacity of the landowner, are evil'. Amuses me that you think bunging in a Latin term hides the morality rant. It doesn't. Your defence is now apparently 'cos I don't actually know what I'm saying, you can't either'. Novel! No, that is 'pure rant'. It is neither based on any sound rational comment or relevant definition. Sounds like you need to read some Baumeister and his 'the myth of pure evil'. Of course the reason you use the term evil is to smoke screen a lack of economic comment. Georgists rarely use the term. You'll get some who prefer to use the term Geoist, but typically it's just land rant. Actually I laughed at your attempt to refer to market failures when you had just called neoclassical economics evil. When I asked you to refer to any market failures which aren't Econ 101 you hid. Remember also that I'm apparently evil because I ask for evidence from peer reviewed journals... No need to apologise. 'Enlightened Imperialism' is cobblers of course. Perhaps some Hobson to pit your landowner evil rant in perspective?: "it is a nemesis of imperialism that the arts and crafts of tyranny, acquired and exercised in our unfree empire, should be turned against our liberties at home". Perhaps a post-modern critique instead, such as Kiely pointing to the "problems of environmental destruction and waste, spiritual desolation, the predominance of meaningless, alienating work, and neglect of the elderly". An approach, no less, committed to the false belief of Western superiority over primitive cultures. Tut tut, here you do show that naivety over Western superiority. It's also continuing to be extremely damaging, with Western hegemony used in destabilising military intervention to help 'the little people' You also rant to dodge. You stated that empire 'saved many more millions'. Do you have any evidence in support? If you do, present it. If you don't, be honest. When I make claims, I have evidence in support. It's an outcome quite beyond you. Your comprehension skills are wonky! I haven't changed the subject. I have referred to how the British Empire has led to the deaths of millions. You've made claims that it saved millions and referred to how 'Enlightened Imperialism' has replaced leaders "who were often pure evil". Democide analysis, given it enables quantitative comparison, provides a means to test your assumption. Why can't you refer to any evidence? Strip away your rant and there isn't much left. You openly supported the use of concentration camps, suggesting that more blacks and Boers would have died without them. My advice? Don't make that claim if you visit South Africa. You might not like the reaction! You even rant at a statement of fact. It is factual to note that, without labour, a firm can have negative value. Sunk costs aren't a difficult subject to understand, so no excuse! Let's summarise. I stated that the market socialist approach has been embedded in the Austrian school. You rant, as usual, stating that I was referring to "value in an absurd and non-existent market". I then give you an article published in The Review of Austrian Economics' which confirms everything I said. And of course, being economics, you ignore it. You want to suggest coercion, but there is none. Burczak sums it up in his Hayekian Socialism: "Capital owners would be entitled to any income stream that they could obtain through contract and negotiation with members of selfmanaged firms who might wish to employ capital goods at work'. Labour then hires capital . Keep up! Georgism 101 ignores the Single Tax for two reasons. First, there is only a need to land rant. Second, the Single Tax demonstrates the consequences of being obsessed purely on land. You soon become irrelevant. False again. I noted the stupidity of calling neoclassical evil, as part of your land rant, while then blandly referring (without any validity) to standard neoclassical concepts. That you think Churchill just wrote some nasty stuff illustrates just how your land rant has let you down. The fellow was behind policies that killed thousands of people. Another quote from your hero: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes...[It] would spread a lively terror"
You make me ill. You are the one trying to hide the moral content of economic institutions by dismissing any reference to it as "rant," not me. You are the one trying to deceive readers, not me. Every time you dismiss the relevant facts as "rant," you prove me right and yourself evil. That is just you makin' $#!+ up again. I provided the relevant definition that proves I am correct, so you are just makin' $#!+ up again. Every time you dismiss the relevant facts as "rant," you prove me right and yourself evil. No, I do not. Pure evil is just as I described. Baumeister is like you: full of $#!+. Already proved false. No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. They use it all the time. Their umbrella group is even called the Council of Georgist Organizations. You support institutionalized evil related to land tenure but cannot offer any arguments to defend it, so you have to dismiss any factual discussion of land economics as ranting. Every time you dismiss the relevant facts as "rant," you prove me right and yourself evil. Are you claiming only neoclassical economics recognizes the conditions of market failure? Please provide some evidence for that claim. Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you will not be providing any, because you never provide any evidence for your claims. No, that is just you makin' $#!+ up again. It would be pointless to try to satisfy your request, because you cunningly arrogated to yourself the definition of what "Econ 101" might be. Sorry, such cheap, dishonest tricks do not impress me. No, you are evil because you try to deceive your readers in order to sustain evil institutions. Blatantly false as a matter of objective physical fact. What do you think gave the world some of the best countries people can live in, like Canada, Australia, Singapore, etc.? The sad thing is, you actually think that could be relevant. The arts and crafts of tyranny long antedate empire. They are just more faithfully recorded in the history of empires. You actually imagine the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, anti-economic, anti-Enlightenment, anti-human sewage of post-modernism could originate a meaningful comment? Hilarious!! You strive manfully for relevance, but fall pitifully short again. Every time I present peer-reviewed proof of my statements, you concoct some disingenuous pretext to dismiss it without answering it. Here's another opportunity for you to do the same: "Mortality rates fell in the period 1920–45, primarily due to biological immunisation. Other factors included rising incomes, better living conditions, improved nutrition, a safer and cleaner environment, and better official health policies and medical care." The demographic revolution, Indian Economic Social History Review, Klein, 1990 No, you do not. You present some irrelevant text from some idiotic post-modernist rag, and pretend it supports your false, absurd, and disingenuous sewage. Sorry, supporting evidence has to actually support the claim -- an outcome quite beyond you. You've done nowt else. Most of whom would never have lived at all but for that empire.... No, of course it doesn't. You are being ridiculous in your frenzy to change the subject. Democide isolates a particular form of government action from everything else government does. Why can't you make a single honest response to anything I have written? Every time you dismiss the relevant facts as "rant," you prove me right and yourself evil. Which, given the historical context, was quite possible. <yawn> No, I refute your absurd and disingenuous fabrications. No, it is not. It is a blatant Hypothesis Contrary to Fact fallacy. The fact that value only exists in the context of a market, and there are no markets without labor, isn't a difficult concept to understand, so no excuse! That's the signal that you will now prevaricate: Nope. I ignored it because it didn't say what you said it said. False: I.e., they are prohibited, by aggressive, physical coercion, from consensually employing their own capital goods and labor to make the profits a consensual market would reward them with. Because coercion stops capital from hiring labor. That is simply a bald fabrication on your part. There is no such thing as Georgism that ignores the Single Tax. You are just makin' $#!+ up that has no relation to reality or honesty in order to evade the facts. "Land rant" is merely your disingenuous term to denote identification of facts about land economics that you seek to obscure because they prove your beliefs are false and evil. Every time you use it, you prove me right and yourself evil. You have already made yourself irrelevant with such absurd, disingenuous rant. It was perfectly valid. You just have to find some way to evade the fact that you falsely claimed I don't refer to economics, when I routinely do. So please present your evidence that no other school of economics recognizes any of the market failure conditions I identified. Thought not. Every time you dismiss the relevant facts as "rant," you prove me right and yourself evil.
Given your support for imperialism, that's a win! You blubber about me using the word rant and then call me 'evil'. Chortle, chortle! Let's not forget that you thought adding a latin word changed the meaning: 'landowners, acting in the capacity of the landowner, are evil'. That you thought adding 'qua' ensured that you weren't ranting about landowners is spectacularly silly. You either knew that, or you really don't understand the English language. More rant! Let's summarise: You say 'its pure evil by definition'. I refer to scholarly comment that denies the very existence of such a definition. You reply 'he's a naughty man for not agreeing with me'. How? You have made no economic comment in this reply or the previous one. You blubber evil continuously as a means to hide from coherent comment. Chortle, chortle, love the fact that you aren't a Georgist but you know about an unknown group called the Council of Georgist Organisations. Bet you even know the layout of their Holiday Inn HAHAHA! I'm evil because I recognise that you're ranting? Yep that'll work. Of course you seem to call me evil daily. I personally love the 'you is evil cos you demand evidence from scholarly research'. That was one of your most jolly rants. How you fib! Tut tut. I gave you an opportunity to refer to non-neoclassical market failures. You gave none. I'm more than happy to see you put that right. Please refer to the market failures that you think are important. Please provide economic detail (and try not to rant 'evil!' as you provide that detail). You're so one dimensional. If you had real argument you would simply provide it. Instead you try and blubber why you're incapable of responding that real argument. Oooo, another reason why I'm evil. Originally its because I insist on scholarly research. Now its some form of conspiracy where I'm deceiving to maintain evil institutions. To be fair, I wear black a lot. So the massacre of Aboriginals (and continued discrimination of those left) is something you ignore? Wow, dig that hole sweetpea! Chortle, chortle, Hobson isn't relevant now? Golly, aren't you billy big balls? You have the gall to use the term anti-intellectual when writing this ignorant comment? Crikey! At least you didn't call me evil again! Of course you simply dodged the comment. You have essentially sneered at the 'little people', with the cretinous notion that somehow Western powers know best. That notion has been maintained and been used to justify numerous destructive acts of aggression. That's a reference to economic development dear boy. There is no notion that economic development goes hand in hand with imperialism. But its worse than that isn't it? You again demonstrate your dishonesty. You copy and paste the wrong journal title. You also copy and paste a quote which isn't even in that article. That is pathetic. I can actually quote directly from it: "The majority of diseases which devastated the subcontinent had been 'partly or completely controlled’ in European nations. IMS leaders concluded that 'more than 75 per cent of all sickness and mortality' in India had 'preventible causes', but were not averted because of weak policies". See above! Unlike you I actually bother to read the sources that I use. Given you're prepared to fib about sources, I'm not surprised that you're so willing to adopt anti-intellectualism. More and more pathetic statements. Refer me to just one economic history source that concludes the British Empire led to a net savings of lives. Don't copy and past and try to fib this time! This is ignorant. Democide provides a means to compare death rates across different forms of government (and oppression). I don't expect you to know that. Indeed, I know you will present nothing of note and just rant. Technically I've just laughed at your rant. There's zero evidence in that. Oooo, here you go again. I love the idea that I'm evil because I acknowledge that your comment is nothing but empty rant. By suggesting that, you kill your own argument! Refer me to just one economic historian that argues concentration camps saved lives. Go ahead! If you tried to justify concentration camps in South Africa you wouldn't be yawning. At best, and you'd be extremely lucky, you'd be picking up your teeth. Sunk costs do indeed reduce value of firm. Sunk costs do indeed lead to possible negative value. That you'd deny these facts just illustrates how economics is alien to you. Hahahah! You are funny. Sunk costs refer to investments which aren't fungible. Without labour, and therefore production, those investments derive no value in any sell-off. Economics is again beyond you. There is still a market. The market is in the capital. Its just possible that the market leads to negative value (when you get subsidies, for example, for brown site clear up) One-liners to hide from economic comment. At least you're ranting less here. There's been at least a few sentences that you haven't said evil! Congrats Ignorant again! They can do what they want with their capital. They simply can't create economic rent through control of the firm. The labour contract is, by definition, coercive. There would be zero underpayment otherwise. Of course there is. Take you! There you go! Back to ranting about how I'm evil. The Single Tax is irrelevant today. That's a statement of fact. I mentioned "the stupidity of calling neoclassical evil, as part of your land rant, while then blandly referring (without any validity) to standard neoclassical concepts". Did you counter with any valid mention of economics? Of course not! You're not capable of achieving that are you? You call me evil while hero-worshipping a man that said "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes...[It] would spread a lively terror"
cute, 2 libcommies ranting endlessly to see who can be the most libcommie statist with each pretending to be a more creative communist than the other.
It's pointless to try to communicate with a mind so remote from fact and logic. There is no common ground. Being completely removed from fact and logic, you claim, absurdly, that any returns to contributions of capital represent underpayment of labor. Then why do you repeatedly try to insert it into unrelated discussions when no one has mentioned it? <remainder of intellectual sewage snipped>
Congrats! A whole comment without calling me evil. That's progress! Coercion in the labour contract is accepted across the discipline. It's territory for classical and neoclassical, it creates agreement between orthodox and heterodox. Take the orthodox approach to the labour market. That recognises firms have monopsonistic power. That recognises how that enables firms to force payment below the wage associated with supply and demand exchange criteria. It's also easily tested empirically. See, for example, the labour economic application of stochastic frontier theory. Tut tut, making stuff up again aren't you? I hardly ever refer to the Single Tax. It's irrelevant after all. And that's why I've mentioned it here. George is deliberately avoided as it leads to uncomfortable conversations over economic relevancy! I'm not surprised you hid from Churchill's support of chemical warfare...
actually firms and workers can from time to time force wages above or below free market point. Happening now for example. Thanks to liberal taxes, unions, regulations, and 30 million illegals wages have been flat for 20 years. Restoring the Republican free market is best way to get labor a fair free market wage.
I love this comment. The idea of firms forcing wages below the market wage is inconsistent with any notion of free market economics. It is true, mind you, that free market economics is based on idiotic assumptions over the nature of the labour market. To deliver wages according to productivity criteria you need homogeneous workers (to stop use of hierarchical relations), perfect knowledge (to eliminate job search) and no long term contracting (to ensure there are no internal labour markets feeding issues such as discrimination). They are heroic assumptions perhaps?
no the communist market is and there are 120 million dead human souls to prove it. When China switched to the free market the starving instantly stopped. Sorry to rock your world.
no, you need a free buyer and seller freely agreeing on a price, not a libcommie guessing at the price.
Then bring it up with @Kode. I'm responding to his proposed system. It sounds like you are advocating for aggression against the person and property of your fellow man. Double-plus un-nice.
You continue to make a fool of yourself. China is not remotely a free market. You have to pay off officials to do anything. The starving stopped because China RETAINED PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF LAND while permitting private ownership of the fruits of private labor: i.e., however imperfectly, it adopted the geoist model. Russia, which privatized the land on the capitalist model, has had the starvation and economic stagnation. Sorry to rock your world.
Property in land is forcible, violent, coercive aggression against the person and rights of your fellow man. Evil to the core.
Yes, it most certainly and indisputably is, as proved by the slave-like condition of the landless in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where landowning was well established, but government did not intervene massively through welfare, minimum wages, labor standards laws, union monopoly laws, publicly funded education, health care and pensions, etc. to rescue the landless from the violent, forcible, aggressive coercion of landowners.
That's an excellent question, but don't expect a rational or reasonable answer. And, not to mention the obvious fact, that our government HAS "intervened massively through welfare, minimum wages, labor standards laws, union monopoly laws, publicly funded education, health care and pensions, etc." to the tune of more than $20 trillion dollars.
AMERICA'S RUSH TO AWESOME INCOME DISPARITY And you are proposing that the Individual is the key element of any economy (and therefore nation)? He/she isn't. She is just one element AND his/her outcome in life depends upon the whole. (That is, all the members of a market-economy.) What is frightening about your cockamamie insight (the individual is "key") is that it leads to monstrous Income Disparity, which most economists think is the major drawback of our existence in the United States. The US is NOT UNITED - not as long as this is happening: Do you know how to read info-graphics? Likely not. The above depicts fundamental research conducted at the UofCal showing that the top 0.1% of the American population owns as much Wealth as the bottom 90%! And people like you think that's "normal". It isn't normal, and every thing changed at a key moment in American history: * Look at the dark-red line above (that of the 0.1Percent of the population). * Look at when that dark-red line bends upwards in the 1980s. Who was elected PotUS in 1980? * Who (along with Congress) changed lowered upper-taxation from 70% to 30%? See that factual evidence here, and see what happens to upper-income tax-rates in 1980! * Do you really think the rush to America's awesome Income Disparity in America was an "accident"? * Then you are in denial of the factual economic evidence. The present state of awesome Income Disparity in the US was planned and executed by the Replicants in the 1980s. And we suckers, the 90Percenters, swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker. Moreover, we still do ... !!!
The one demonstrated in my post just above. Tell me how it wasn't so. You and others who pray at the Replicant altar are in denial of the rip-off orchestrated by Reckless Ronnie in the 1980s. Which is why so many of America's rich have paid to erect statues of him ... their hero! The American people want the Replicants to control the presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court. Wow! Let's all bend over to make the shafting even easier ... !
