The problem of Capitalism

I'm very nitpicky with myself:

Hopefully it doesn't read for people too much as if I implied inheritance cannot consist of rent gains. Inheritance could of course consist of unjustly obtained wealth from rent and unjust property that could gain one rent, but that doesn't make inheritance itself an issue. I don't think inheritance itself is an issue. People have a right to bestow their just property and possessions to their kids.

I'm not satisfied at all with this part of my post. Not because it is necessarily entirely incorrect content-wise, but because I feel very dissatisfied with the efficiency and precision of the way I communicated here, especially in context of the conversation. I'm done with posting for today though. Just wanted to mention that.

 

Your adjustment says nothing. Why are the laws of supply and demand seemungly beyond your comprehension? Those ignorant of those laws cannot understand monopsony. Those who understand them know that the key is labour supply elasticity. If a firm faces an upward sloping labour supply it has wage making power if it has wage making power there must be rent derived through wage underpayment.

That this is just an understanding of asymmetric information makes the 'its Marxism' response only indicative of Georgist knowledge deficiency. But thats the point. Georgist effort to refer to justice is hypocrisy as they ignore the labour market: the main source of rent in Anglo Saxon capitalism.

 

Obviously wrong.

How does that capital gain destroy production?

If that's how you define it.

Except that it is incorrect.

There is no doubt some element of deliberate conspiracy in appointments to fellowships, chairs, journal editorships, etc.; but for the most part it's just economists responding to incentives: the privileged will pay them the most to chant whatever lies are in the narrow financial interests of the privileged, so that's what they do.

You again reconfirm your utter ignorance of how business and production actually work. The airline industry as a whole has never made a profit, and many of its best-known brands rarely if ever make a profit. I have worked for firms that have never made a profit in decades of existence. Like most whose minds have been destroyed by Marxist contamination, you know absolutely nothing whatever about actual business or actual production.

Please explain how a land user remitting the land's market rent to the government and community that create it is inefficient or destructive.

Your relentless projections are hilarious. YOU are the one who not only cowers but deflects, evades, dissembles, redefines, fabricates, dismisses and ignores when the TRUE injustice in the labor market -- the forcible stripping of workers' rights to liberty and thus their bargaining power by landowners without just compensation -- is mentioned.

But mainly to the extent that it involves inherited privilege, not merely bequests of what has been earned by commensurate contributions to production.

No. In the absence of privilege, it can only confer an advantage, like inherited intelligence, industry or beauty, not deprive anyone else of equal access to opportunity.

Labor outcomes most justly and efficiently reflect contribution, not merely ability. An advantage that enables greater contribution, whether genetic, educational, financial, etc., just commensurately enhances production, is not an injustice, inefficiency or negative spillover, and is only objectionable to the resentful and envious. It is of no more significance to economics than people's unequal gifts of athletic ability, intelligence, beauty, industry, health, emotional resilience, creativity, etc.

Class comes from privilege, not inheritance, whether financial, environmental or genetic.

Baldly false claim, as usual.

More accurately, you deflected and evaded when he proved you wrong by the example of patents.

In your incorrect opinion.

Evidence?

That's not rent unless you beg the question by defining it as rent. Which you do.

Right. Often it's just silly.

In your imagination.

<sigh> You again prove you actually have no idea what you are talking about and are just mouthing economics-y sounding words you think will impress the naive. The Law of One Price refers to identical commodities, not items that are different. It is completely irrelevant to labor, as everyone's labor is different.

Everything you have said on the subject is therefore nothing but irrelevant garbage.

Utter drivel! Why can't you ever remember that the astronomical value of land always automatically proves you wrong, with no further argumentation needed?

The facts of objective physical reality and their logical implications for economics have not changed.

No. Evil, lying, anti-geoist filth merely contrived more plausible-sounding pretexts for refusing to know facts.

Sure, if you have the military power and the desire to physically exterminate landowners, as they did in the USSR and China.

How's that working out for you up to now, hmmmmmmmmmmm?

Then there's the other idea: that people are capable of learning some basic economics and choosing liberty, justice and prosperity democratically by choosing freedom, efficiency and justice in land tenure and taxation arrangements.
[quote[That would only dent rent mind you![/quote]
Why can't you ever remember that the astronomical value of land always automatically proves you wrong, with no further argumentation needed?

More ignorance!

More ignorance!

What nonsense. It is the union's monopoly privilege that corrupts the efficient bargain.

GARBAGE. They force underemployment by forcing their members' wages above equilibrium. Economics 101.

But as shown by the 'quality' of your posts, you're not in a position to make any relevant comment on such issue.

 

You're here. Duh.

Now that's funny.

 

Only an example of your flamebait and troll. Please, in future, focus on content.

Its a shame that your conspiracy theorising is so low powered. I suppose that's the nature of the game...

Now it is clear that you can credibly talk about problems within the research process. We are reliant, for exampke, on searching for peer reviewed economic evidence. That can be provlematic. Minimum wage research provides a neat example. Back in the 80s there was an apparent consensus that minimum wages created disemployment. We have since learnt two factors. First, the literature suffered from 'publication bias'. Putting it bluntly, statistically significant outcomes are more likely to be published. We therefore fail to realise the heap of research which isn't published because it found nothing! Ironically, modern labour economics predicts such insignificance. Second, we aren't fully versed in the impact of empirical bias (e.g. adopting an empirical specification encourages hypothesis test error). Understanding those biases, and using more up-to-date econometric methods, have destroyed that original consensus.

What we have is the need to be more diligent. Make sure you know the competing theoretical approaches. Make sure you review the literature. This makes your Georgist conspiracy based approach, designed only to hide from competing theory and evidence, even more sad.

HAHAHAHAHA! This made me snort with laughter. The idea that firms are motivated by profit is now Marxist? That of course would be a silly claim. And the airline industry? Perhaps write off to BA and inform them that those billions in profits didn't happen? Perhaps inform Richard Branson that he doesn't need a bailout? By closing down his flights he will be avoiding losses

Now you could refer to peculiar firms where accountancy profit isn't required. Take Chelsea Football Club. Does it need to make an accountant's profit when its funded by rent gains from a billionaire in search of a Saturday day out? Of course the lesson here is the difference between accountancy and economics. Chelsea still makes an economic profit. Many of the gains are, in their lingo, psychic income. We'd call it non-pecuniary.

You're asking for repetition. That amuses me, given the endless repetition of the Georgist script.

Land cooperatives both solve the tragedy of the commons and the anti-commons. They also ensure that land value is pumped back into the local community. This is the largest problem experienced in local government. Resources leak out, such that local inequalities intensify.

You're back to tantrum that says nothing. We both know that your use of economics is deliberately blinkered. You try to justify it with ludicrous charge over Marxist-led conspiracy. Perhaps you've convinced yourself that such ridiculousness is viable? I wouldn't know. I can just go with the obvious. By ignoring labour analysis, you have guaranteed a position of irrelevance. We saw that with your 'cheese in the ears' effort to ignore discrimination. We also see it in your inability to understand the impact of monopsony.

This is a great example of your bluster. The neoclassical perspective of course refers to contribution. It merely acknowledges that those contributions, via human capital, will be dependent on ability.

Your tactics is to get the Econ 101 wrong and, from that erroneous position, attempt to craft a counter. It is a ridiculous approach.

Extraordinarily naive. Even the neoclassicals accept the importance of inheritance and how it generates inequality of opportunity.

Back to vacuous comment with no content.

Again you show how little economics you actually know. The law of one price refers here to the concept of a 'market wage'. It is a basic empirical exercise to see if that holds. You just need to control for aspects such as human capital and industry/occupation (given possible compensating differentials). We know that, independent of any of these factors, wage distributions exist. Even if it was the same job asking for the same worker, there is a wage offer distribution. This is all understood in monopsony analysis and confirmed by empirical evidence. Gosh, its as if you didn't read the source I gave you

No content again, just rant. I do wonder how internet Georgists think using vocab like "evil, lying, anti-geoist filth" can be effective dialogue. Perhaps its a form of learned helplessness?

Again you show knowledge deficiency. Efficient Bargain is an analysis used to explain the outcome from bilateral monopoly negotiations.

I enjoyed the irony here, as you get your Econ 101 terms wrong. Underemployment will typically refer to employment which is either beneath desired labour supply or does not fully exploit the individual's skills set.

But let's go through the Econ 101 for you. First, you have to assume that the equilibrium is based in perfectly competitive labour markets. If it isnt, then the Union will certainly be redistributing rent back to the employee. But let's assume we have perfect competition, or at least something close. A ludicrous idea, but let's go with it. The Union then can only move the outcome up the firm's labour demand curve. That doesn't generate rent. That just means lower employment levels and subsequent substitution from labour to capital. Gosh, its as if you don't actually understand Econ 101...

 

bringiton: "The airline industry as a whole has never made a profit, and many of its best-known brands rarely if ever make a profit."

Reiver: ".....BA (British Airways)...."


"The airline industry as a whole has never" ≠ not one single airline has ever

"many of its best-known brands rarely if ever" ≠ none of its best brands ever

 

Profit refers to firms. Didn't you know?

 

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

No, you are. Others are able to think.

<yawn> Strawman fallacy. Your false claim was that firms that don't make a profit die, which has nothing to do with what motivates them. You are merely trying to evade the fact that you have been proved objectively wrong. Again.

For example, every firm...

No, you would call it non-pecuniary in order to evade the fact that you have been proved objectively wrong. Again.

No, I'm asking you to justify your false claim, and you can't. Again.

Readers are aware that it is only you who have a "Georgist" script on infinite loop.

But do not solve the problems of either efficient allocation of land or a just and efficient system of public revenue.

So you are merely evading the question. Again.

Which is also nothing but an evasion. Again.

Land cooperatives do NOT ensure that land is used at optimum productivity, nor do they effectively internalize land rent externalities arising from expenditures by either local or senior governments -- i.e., in effect, all they do is transfer the subsidy to landowning from a private owner to a collective owner. These significant and indisputable failures of land cooperatives show why they are a very inferior option to payment of market rent by exclusive private land users to the government and community that make the land more economically advantageous. Obviously, you are not able to understand such economic reasoning as it is too clear, self-evident, unambiguous, indisputable, and honest.

And is indisputably not addressed, let alone solved, by land cooperatives, which merely substitute a subsidized cooperative for a subsidized individual or firm.

By merely redirecting the subsidy to landowning, land cooperatives intensify the inequalities between members and non-members.

False. My statement explains clearly to naive readers why they find your posts so confusing, absurd, evasive, fallacious, misleading, repetitious, annoying and uninformative, where they are comprehensible at all.

We both know that it is your habit to make such false claims as a form of projection. I.e., we both know that your statement actually means it is your use of economics that is deliberately blinkered.

I'm a child of the Cold War, so I know Marxist-led conspiracies are real.

But falsely calls non-contributory exercise of privilege a "contribution."

But are not ability. Which proves you wrong. Again.

Because they are eager to obscure the difference between the just returns to productive contribution and the rents of privilege.

Which, like the market price of art, has nothing to do with the Law of One Price.

Which is impossible, proving you wrong. Again.

Proving you wrong. Again.

Which of course proves you wrong. Again.

The first paragraph was obvious trash, so no, I didn't read it. I have better things to do with my time.

It's intended as a warning to the naive, not as dialogue with the evil.

Which is idiotic, as the worker can go elsewhere, while the employer can't.

Why can't you ever remember that all your nonsense is disproved by objective facts?

No, you are the one who always has to make the objectively false assumptions, not me.

Garbage. The rent will originate with the union's monopoly, and largely be pocketed by union officials.

Ah, yes, actually, it does.

It means reduced production, which you claimed was a defining characteristic of rent.

Gosh, its as if you don't actually understand Econ 101...

 

And can be summed across a sector or a whole economy to provide information about the profitability of that sector or business as a whole.

Didn't you know?

 

Your one liners are terribly dull. Please stick to content.

By eliminating the tragedy of the commons and anti-commons, they're by definition efficient. By eliminating revenue leakage, they're by definition consistent with successful governance.

One liners. No content.

Henry George of course wasn't much of a radical (unlike the likes of the Diggers). But its certainly the case that land co-operatives eliminate the problems of injustice you ramble about. And there is every reason to assume that it is a superior result, given the anti-commons is removed.

One liners. No content.

Not just content-less, also deliberately hiding from the economics evidence presented. Try Page 156 in https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/15468/1/15468.pdf

One liners. No content.

Happy for you to critique the article provided. Its packed full of both theory and evidence. Good luck.

One liner. No content.

You can play pretend, but it won't wash. There is no union bargaining model which predicts union rent. The Monopoly Union model only predicts an exchange of higher wage for lower employment. The Efficient Bargain only predicts that overemployment may occur. Given you referred to underemployment, I can appreciate that you're on a sticky wicket.

One liners. No content.

 

Hahahaha! Some firms in an industry make losses? Wowsers! It just amused me that you'd pick on the airline industry when firms make profits in the billions. Reality really isn't the pal of the Georgist

 

The reality proved you wrong. While some airlines might make billions in any given year (and that's an accounting profit, remember, not an operating profit, so there is no telling exactly how it happened), the industry as a whole has yet to make a profit in any year.

 

Reality? Let's have the industry-level data giving your irrelevant point of view which had nothing to do with what I said. Cheers!

 

Baldly false. If the most productive prospective user is not in the cooperative, he doesn't get to use the land. Not efficient. You are destroyed. Again.

Nope. They simply substitute a collective private land subsidy recipient for an individual or corporate one. Ineffective and unjust. You are destroyed. Again.

As land cooperatives neither recover the subsidy inherent in public provision of services and infrastructure to pay for them nor compensate everyone for the forcible removal of their rights to liberty by the cooperative, no, they most certainly and indisputably do not eliminate the problems of injustice I identify -- and you always ignore, dismiss and make $#!+ up about.

No, it is incomparably inferior to location subsidy repayment (LSR) with a universal individual exemption (UIE).

Obviously false. One example of many that could be cited:

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00564903/document

That higher wage is indisputably rent.

<remainder of Reiver's false, absurd, and disingenuous tripe mercifully snipped>

 

He can acquire access via payment to the co-operative. Crikey, you do struggle so. You'd have thought a Georgist would think it through

We not only ensure efficiency (as co-operatives avoid the tragedies), we deliver equity. The value of the land maintains with the local community. This is amusing mind you. We already know that your "they're evil" ranting is hypocritical. We now see just how far you want to maintain inequitable land systems.

Empty comment. Co-operatives ensure that value does not leek from the community. Basically, as we all become land owners, you're saying all people are evil. Sweet

HAHAHAHAHA! Every time you try and use evidence you put your foot in it. That article refers to 'Firms' rent'. The clue is in the title

If firms are making more rent, there is more room for the Union to increase wage. Bit obvious really, but hey-ho...

Keep coming out with evidence. You destroy your stance much more effectively than anyone else could. I'd have simply referred to the facts over Union bargaining models, but your approach is much more delicious.

 

Which is thus just another greedy, privileged private landlord pocketing the rent in return for nothing. Inefficient. You lose. Again.

Disproved above. The co-operative is simply a private landowner, with all the associated inefficiencies and inequities that implies. You lose. Again.

<yawn> Same as with a private landowner. You lose. Again.

<yawn> I'm not the one plumping for private trousering of publicly created land rent, son; you are. Again.

Uh-huh. No matter how unjust and inefficient the distribution within the community is thus made....

No, that's just another of your bald falsehoods. Only the members of the co-operative own the cooperative's land. It's nothing but a different form of private landowner parasitism, which is why you like it so much: you always try to rationalize and justify private landowner parasitism. Nothing is more important to you.

No, you are aware that only the members of a given co-operative are members of that co-operative and thus eligible to participate in its landowner parasitism. But people who try to rationalize and justify the inefficiency and injustice of private landowner parasitism are certainly evil. Justice and efficiency would require repayment of the full landowner subsidy to the community, not its parasitic trousering by a greedy, privileged, parasitic minority of co-op members.

And how the union extracts it through its monopoly.

No, the market wage is what it is. The union increases its members' incomes by extracting rent, as the very first sentence of the abstract makes crystal clear even to you:

"In this paper, I study the wage premium associated with firm-level union recognition in France and show that this premium is due to a rent-extraction phenomenon."

You are destroyed. Again.

 

You do make me smile. You haven't even worked out that we would be eliminating private ownership. We would have devolved public ownership.

You referred to a paper which confirmed what I said: rent goes hand in hand with market power. It did, however, have a decidedly old fashioned understanding of monopsony. I suppose we can't have everything

That Unions can increase wages if the firm is receiving rent isn't a 'shock horror' moment. I love how you destroy your own arguments and pretend otherwise mind you. Its cute.

 

That's nice. You make me nauseous.

No, that's not what a co-operative is.

Including union monopoly privilege. It therefore proved your claim false. Again.

I.e., it proved your claim false. Again.

It increases them even if the firm isn't receiving rent, because its monopoly enables rent extraction. That's why so many firms have been bankrupted by their unions.

 

Don't fib now. I said from the beginning that I was referring to devolved public ownership. The co-operative is vital as we can't have state capitalism.

I just love how you are so consistently wrong. If a monopoly union model perspective is applied, then we are just bargaining over rent created through firm market power. You really are clueless. Its still cute

 

This, from you??!?

No you didn't. You falsely claimed that land co-operatives would solve the economic problems inherent in the subsidy to landowning, in the absence of any ("Georgist") attempt to recover the land value created by public spending on desirable services and infrastructure to pay for that spending.

The co-operative is irrelevant as it does nothing to address the inefficiency and injustice of the subsidy to landowning, and "state capitalism" is an absurd and disingenuous Marxist oxymoron.

Nonsense. The union extracts rent independently of the firm's market power. Market power merely enables the firm to survive the union's rent extraction for longer. If the firm loses market power, the union's rent extraction will reliably bankrupt it, as we have seen over and over again in many industries from airlines to railroads, auto makers and retailers.

 

Yep. First thing you've got right. You're on a roll

I made it clear, from the start, that this was devolved public ownership, using a local cooperative (where, by definition, all locals become owners). The co-operative is crucial in understanding how efficiency is delivered. Right to roam is naturally delivered, but resource can be leased for the good of the community. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the local community will choose to take advantage of land developers. There is, after all, no leakage of resource from the local community.

Amusingly you've called the local community 'evil'. Perhaps they all belong to the Church of Satan and pray to the words of the Anti Pope?

The use of the term state capitalism is not specific to Marxism. It just neatly advertises the problem. Neoclassicals, decidedly less flowery in their language, would just refer to government failure.

Hahahahaha! Please use more evidence. How you make such a pig's ear of it is quite delicious.

This really isnt difficult. The firm makes inefficient profit through market power. As the firm has achieved rent (and there is a bigger pie to bargain over), the Union is able to increase its wage demands. The Union does not create rent. That rent is created by the firm.

Now I think the paper is actually rather weak. We know, for example, that large firms offer higher wages. We know that monopsonistic power, via job search analysis, predicts that relationship. We also know that unionisation is more likely in larger company. The author, in my humble opinion, hasn't done enough to control for these factors. The risk of spurious conclusion hangs...

 

No, that's not the definition of a "land cooperative." Public ownership is public ownership. You are merely makin' $#!+ up to evade the fact that the only possible solution to the inefficiency and injustice of capitalist land tenure arrangements is effectively the "Georgism" you always have to dismiss, sneer at, and make $@!+ up about.

Nope. Wrong again. Only voluntary payment of the market rent to the government and community that create it -- i.e., what you call "Georgism" -- is.
[/quote]Right to roam is naturally delivered, but resource can be leased for the good of the community.[/quote]
So in fact, nothing other than the "Georgist" solution you have for some reason decided always to derogate, dismiss, and make $#!+ up about. Inevitably.

When the "Georgist" solution you are describing -- but for some reason simultaneously contrive to sneer at -- is consistently applied. Right.

No; inevitably, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. I've called those who seek to profit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation evil -- and of course, those who deliberately lie to rationalize privilege, justify injustice, and excuse evil because they hate liberty, justice and the truth.

Of course it is. It is an absurd and exclusively -- and typically -- Marxist fabrication concocted to try to blame capitalism for the failures and atrocities of socialism.

By calling it something it isn't....?

I.e., They would blame government for the inevitable consequences of the institutionalized privilege and injustice they have devoted themselves to rationalizing and justifying because that's what pays them the most money for the least productive contribution.

Correct: it has required a deliberate, conscious decision and effort on your part not to understand it.

To the extent that it enjoys privilege.

Ridiculous. The union has no motive whatever to abstain from increasing its wage demands until the firm has market power, because it already has market power: its monopoly privilege. The union's optimum strategy is to extract just enough rent to permit only employment of the current staff, and gradually shrink the firm's payroll through attrition until it goes bankrupt on the day the last union employee retires. Of course, they usually get greedy, and bankrupt the employer by extracting rent before that.

Right: its monopoly privilege does. The union just extracts it.

I see. So, somehow, a restaurant that serves less than 1% of the market has "market power" that makes it a "monopsonist," and as long as it doesn't make a profit, the union asks for nothing; but let a profit show up on the books, and somehow that is "rent" which the union suddenly and mysteriously acquires the bargaining power to transfer to itself...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

Like Walmart and Amazon....?

The monopsony we know doesn't exist because you are unable to identify it, that is...

For obvious reasons...

In your WHAT????

 

We both can agree that you don't understand how socialism adapted after the socialist calculation debate. Of course I did inform you, from the beginning, that devolved public ownership is key. I also informed that, to sell land services, a firm is required. The problem for you is that this advertises a key conservatism of Internet Georgism. This type of nationalisation eliminates your "evil landowner" guff whilst simulateously meeting efficiency demands of the Austrians

We are merely seeing the drastic consequence of your monism. You have no understanding of efficiency, making you conservatively cling on to outdated Georgism. In comparison, I am able to take lessons from all schools of thought and go much further. I feel sorry for you here. It must be so frustrating to have to give the same bobbins time after time again.

Back to yohr misinformation? Tut tut. I have always acknowledged the importance of land. The difference between you and me is I know its a side issue. Of course we should nationalise land as part of local devolution. However, it would never be enough.

We have already seen that this is hypocrtical rant. You aren't interested in justice. You're only interested in endlessly pushing internet Georgism. We saw that with your dismissal over crime such as discrimination.

Back to neatly describing your conservatism. Early land reformers were anarchists and socialists. But of course that doesn't fit your agenda, so you go off on a churlish rant about Marxism.

The only thing ridiculous here is how you didnt notice that rent is created by the firm (the clue is in the feckin title!). But lets go through the different union approaches. Traditionally we would start with the Monopoly Union model. Referring to bilateral monopoly bargaining, we merely see a movement up the firm's labour demand. This can be used to refer to inefficiency through unemployment. However, employed workers do not receive rent. To receive rent they would have to receive a wage which exceeds their productivity. Given the firm has control over hiring, that cannot happen. The other prevailing approach is the Efficient Bargain. That questions the existence of disemployment effects. Instead, the Union bargains over both wage and employment levels. As the firm makes rent, there is more bargaining room. The Union can now increase both wage and employment. It isnt a source of rent mind you. It is merelt maximising its objective function when confronted with a firm receiving rent.

Now of course we may want to question these neoclassical approaches. The Austrians, quite amusingly, can be used in support of 'voice effects'. The Union, providing a resource to a managerial planner suffering from dispersed information, can be an information provider. Any wage increase achieved is then due to an increase in productivity. It can't be rent, by definition.

You could try a 'wage norm' analysis. That could be used, for example, to highlight how wage overemployment occurs. Amusingly, thats your only means to say 'Unions create rent'. Its funny as it is a Marxist perspective based on hierarachy to eliminate the dangers of solidarity.

You're again merely highlighting your ignorance. For monopsonistic power we merely need the firm to have wage making power. That is delivered through job search frictions. Indeed, labour analysis shows that subsequent underpayment will be higher in seemingly competitive industries.

I had fingers crossed in this post. Surely, even if it was quite random, they will say something pertinent? You let me down

We know that all firms have monopsonistic power. To argue otherwise you have to assume that all workers are homogenous and that they have perfect knowledge. I appreciate internet Georgism is a particularly backward perspective. But surely not that backward?

 

More accurately, we can both agree that you overestimate how significant that adaptation is.

But were wrong, as usual. Just compensation is key: compensation from the exclusive tenure holder to the community of those thus excluded (primarily to fund the desirable public services and infrastructure that make the land more valuable), and from the community to its individual citizens to compensate them for the loss of their liberty to access opportunity, which exclusive tenure removes.

Land is not a service, which perhaps explains your confusion. Possession and use of land is always administered by government in any case, as that is what government is: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. The only question is whether government will exercise that function in the interest and to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all its citizens, or only in the narrow financial interest of a greedy, privileged, landholding elite.

I notice you have claimed "efficiency" for your approach, but not justice. How admirably accurate of you. Of course, we have already established that only the geoist approach of location subsidy repayment (LSR) with a universal individual exemption (UIE) can achieve both, and liberty too.

More accurately, I am aware that "efficiency" as defined by neoclassical apologists for privilege and injustice is not even a particularly worthwhile goal, let alone the most important one.

You are just makin' $#!+ up again. Georgism -- the Single Tax proposal and campaign led by Henry George -- differs from what I advocate in three key respects, as George:

1. specified repayment of all land rent, and did not contemplate a substantial UIE to compensate for the individual right to liberty that exclusive tenure removes;
2. did not advocate Pigovian taxes to internalize negative externalities;
3. did not oppose IP monopoly privilege or private banks' privilege of money creation.

Translation: because you hate liberty, justice and truth, you find it expedient to adopt the errors of many schools of thought.

No you haven't. You have explicitly denied it:

See? But there are three indisputable reasons we know land is not a side issue but by far the most important issue:

1. The Law of Rent, which shows that the increased production resulting from population increase, technological progress, investment in production equipment, and improvements in education, health, etc. tends to all be taken by landowners, and not its producers;
2. The Henry George Theorem, which shows that any attempt to relieve the public hardship and injustice caused by landowner privilege through provision of desirable public services and infrastructure such as welfare, public pensions, education and health care, etc. will merely be taken by landowners in increased rents, with no net benefit to the putative beneficiaries;
3. Its astronomical value, which just flat-out proves you wrong with no further argumentation needed.

Of course that is not a practical approach, which is why it exclusively serves the narrow financial interests of landowners by diverting attention from the actual solution: LSR + UIE.

True, land is not the only issue; and if landowner privilege alone were removed, bankster privilege, IP monopoly privilege, etc. would merely be expanded to extract the rent formerly appropriated by landowners. That is why it is necessary to understand, identify, and attack privilege per se.

"Thousands hack at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Thoreau

The former would be you, the latter, me.

Ah, no, that would be you.

Makin' $#!+ up again, as proved above.

No. There are lots of crimes, and I have neither the time nor the energy to concern myself with all of them. My efforts are most effectively devoted to identifying and fighting the one crime that is not only by far the most important, as proved above, but the one that other people -- like you -- are least able to understand: landowner privilege.

I.e., their primitive understanding of the issue was neither reasoned nor informed.

The conflation of land with producer goods as "the means of production" was a profound error that originated with Marx, and reversed the progress that classical economics had made. Neoclassical economics gleefully adopted the same policy, conflating them as "capital," though for the opposite reason: socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital; capitalists pretend land is capital to justify stealing land.

Such claims only prove you have no experience as either owner, manager, or employee in a private business.

No, we know such claims are absurd, and no more meaningful or justified than claiming all workers or all consumers have monopsonistic power.

You are the one who requires absurd assumptions to make your arguments, not me.

 

How did socialist political economy adjust following the socialist calculation debate? Good luck

This amused me. You have the gall to tell the local community what 'just' compensation means? They determine. They decide. Its their land after all. There's no real internet Georgist counter to this approach. You can't refer to 'evil landowners', as we all are landowners. You can't refer to neoclassical alternatives. You can't refer to justice as, by definition, all land resource remains devolved to the local community.

Look at your ugly authoritarianism. That local cooperative will determine what land is. If the local community wants to be hippies and refuse any exploitation of land then god bless them. If they want to lease land to developers then god bless them. Its not for me to determine how the land is used. Their choice mind you will twin efficiency and equity.

So so conservative! I have been open to how such land cooperatives go beyond any mere reference to pareto efficiency. Justice here is how resources remains within the local community. It doesn't matter if we are referring to land or procurement policy. Without resource leakage, the local community is protected.

Empty ramble. You could refer to the obvious, such as how GDP isn't a good measure of wellbeing. However, the neoclassical approach argues wrongly that efficiency and equity are typically in conflict. In their general equilibrium approach they are forced to say only lump sum transfers can enhance equity without harming efficiency. With land, we have efficiency and equity going hand in hand. Indeed, its that relationship which demands nationalisation and devolved control. Anything else is conservative claptrap.

The Single Tax proposal is great evidence of how Georgism quickly become redundant. Obsessive reference to land, and ignoring modern economics, makes it a side issue. Its a mere single perspective in environmental economics debate. That why internet Georgists are so belligerent: learned helplessness.

I loved this. First, the reference to externality analysis is childlike. Economics has moved on. From transaction costs analysis to evolutionary economics and climate change, we know that Pigovian taxes provide few answers (except in driving regressive outcomes). Second, we are seeing just why George is so easily ignored. Take Adam Smith. His analysis predates the rise of the corporation, but he still offers insight into human behaviour and egalitarianism.

This type of churlishness only reflects learned helplessness. Comparison across schools of thought can only improve knowledge

I really do not need you to confirm your land obsession. There are two aspects here. First, we know with certainty how irrelevant Internet Georgism really is. We see that with their childlike understanding of labour markets. Second, we've seen that even with land you're not actually interested about justice. You're interested in endless Georgist prattle. Devolved public ownership of land delivers efficiency and equity. It would also wipe out any need for your simplistic understanding of inefficient mechanisms such as the Pigovian tax. Inefficient, by definition, as its requires a government with perfect knowledge. Good luck with that!

But the government still can't compare with internet Georgism when it comes to knowledge deficiency. We see that with how you take Econ 101 externality analysis as the gospel, but then insist on stating that neoclassical concepts are Marxist (just so you can ignore them in your rant). What was revealing, however, is how you throw out emotive vocab to hide from economics. A local cooperative? Evil. A trade union? Evil. There is no understanding of economic relations. There is really only a footstamping on a par with tantrum.