The problem of Capitalism

You should tell black land owners. Imagine how upset they would be to find that they are no better than slave owners!!
Perhaps if they see your proof they will commit suicide en masse ? Maybe you should keep it under raps for a while longer?

 

at no time have you ever had the right to property someone else owns. This is reality. Your georgist bullshit has been repeatedly proven to be bullshit, and contrary to reality. And you know this.

 

1) Not in the least false. No one, even those living in the remotest corners of our First World democracies, is starving. You can live a hundred miles from the nearest town and eat/drink as well as someone living in the centre of a city. More importantly, NO ONE is compelled/forced/cajoled or otherwise made to rent property. That last falsifies your entire argument.

2) I most certainly do. They earn huge salaries, and spend it on expensive rents, expensive cars, expensive holidays, and expensive shoes. They choose not to 'invest' for a variety of reasons. And I most certainly do know much poorer (than the aforementioned rich) people who own property. Plenty of working class people do. You make very silly assertions, it must be said.

3) It's not in the least false, because at least half of the people living in any given town or city OWN their property. And you can never escape the reality that owning is an ordinary economic choice, not an inexplicable result of magical fairy dust and evil hearts.

4) Explain EXACTLY what prevents 'poor' people from buying property. First World poverty is revealed for what it is (a choice) very quickly once you start drilling down. Run through the simple check-list of things the genuinely poor would never do, and see if your average 'poor American' is doing them. I'll get you started - you can work through it at your leisure. Do your 'poor' people ever spend a single cent on:

iphones
alcohol
tobacco
drugs
fast food
tattoos
hair stylists
new clothes
holidays
rents in expensive cities not shared with extended family or friend group
convenience foods (frozen, microwave, etc)
running air conditioning
running clothes dryers
running dishwashers
etc etc

If you answered yes to any of these, your sample person or population is poor by choice - because all of those things are unnecessary luxuries, which a person who is interested in escaping poverty would not indulge. CHOICE.

5) EXACTLY. Like I said, few people are prepared to be the change they seek. So they sit at home, keep enabling the system they despise, and bleat their demand that others fix it for them. And FTR, community can be anywhere, when you build your own. Even when you don't, and simply live in a remote small town - almost always a much more interdependent community, than any you'll find in a city - cities being full of isolationists and non-sharers like yourself.

 

The right wing grunt always comes through! Poverty is a relative term. We've known that since the days of Smith. We also know that inequalities will, through its impact on inter-temporal opportunities, subsequently create class weaknesses (i.e. fancy talk for inequality of opportunity). That therefore guarantees long term poverty and a dismissal of your supply-side nonsense. To suggest otherwise really isn't credible.

 

???????? supply side Republican capitalism is best way to eliminate inequality. If women for example don't get paid fairly and thus work for less, demand for women goes up and so does pay. When you have libsocialism you don't have the market working for you, instead you have bureaucrats who are likely to mirror and perpetuate extant prejudices. 1+1=2 Notice the way a conservative is made to feel like a kindergarten teacher when a liberal is present?

 

Despite its flaws, Capitalism has improved the lives of humankind.

 

You may be thinking WRONGLY that capitalism is a political ideology. It isn't.

It's an historical reference to the means by which mankind exchanged labor in order to purchase good/services. Labor was paid in money and money employed to buy goods/services.

At the very beginning all mankind did was to exchange things-for-other-things. It was when mankind invented "money" that the exchange of goods/services was made quicker . (From here: The history of money: from barter to bitcoin - excerpt:

Capitalism since ever was and still is the accumulation of money (or iow "financial worth"), and it is money's key-value that should concern most mankind. Because this tiny little world of ours has evolved in economic-terms far faster this past century than all the centuries before. Meaning that each country's monetary key-value determines very largely how well it's people can work and trade (goods/services).

(Until, of course, the day comes when the entire world employs only one key-value - the International Dollar. But that event remains very, very far in the future.)

We are becoming a truly integrated globe - financially, tradewise and internet-wise. These three key-characteristics of our lives predominate how well we-the-sheeple live today - and will live far into the future. (Unless we get silly again and somebody starts another world-war.)

Much sooner than later, we will be signing agreements to give more "order" to the manner in which we exchange goods/services today by means of financial-value. Because such exchanges have a direct impact upon our lifestyle - whomever and wherever we are on this globe.

But before that happens a key-player (Uncle Sam) must wake-up and understand that he is just a major-player in which there are now three others - Europe, China and All-the-rest.

That historical moment is not yet with us. But, it will be - and very soon. Unless the mess that Americans call "the finest democracy on earth" works its manipulative-magic to reelect Donald Dork and everything is frozen once again for another four-years whilst he purports his sick-silliness from the Offal-Office.

But that will only put the Magic Moment off for a bit longer. Because what is happening on earth in terms of key economic-evolutions is far more important than one jerk of an American PotUS ...

 

It doesn't matter what the economics are doing, if you want to escape poverty you work with it as it is. Or rather, against it. While 'poor' people continue to leave poverty (and they do - via education, via pooling resources, via not spending on luxuries etc), it remains entirely possible. Which makes all of it CHOICE.

Meantime: "right wing grunt" haha. Dear, you look like a Far Rightest from where I sit.

 

Thank you! Just as socialism/communism isn't a political ideology.

These are all economic models, which can exist within ANY politic.

 

Detroit is an interesting example of dysfunction - and "force", in a western democracy.
From a prosperous middle class city of c.1.8million people in 1960, it was reduced to largely a vast abandoned wasteland by 2000, population c.700,000, in which the poor who were unable to afford to move found themselves living in one of the most crime-ravaged cities in the US.

???.

I've never been able to live anywhere, and hope to earn an income, without either paying rent, or buying a house to live in.

 

I didn't say they were no better than slave owners. I said owning land is no better than owning slaves. Big difference between hating the sin and hating the sinner.

GET IT???

Unfortunately, the privileged are pretty good at getting their victims to commit suicide en masse in defense of their privileges, as in the Civil War.

I don't think so.

 

I have always had, and always will have, an absolute right to any "property," owned by anyone, that consists of my right to liberty. I have already proved that to you multiple times by the examples of slavery, Crusoe's island, the earth's atmosphere, Dirty Rahl's waterhole, etc. They could be multiplied indefinitely. And you have never been able to refute a single one of those proofs. Nor will you ever be doing so.

Nope. It is your attempt to pretend that property is always rightful. But I have proved to you that it isn't. And you know it.

No, that's just a false claim you repeat without factual or logical evidence.

I know it hasn't. Readers know it hasn't. And so do you.

You are just disgracing yourself, and proving the unworthiness of those who hate the idea of justice in land tenure and taxation.

Why do you hate justice, rahl? Is it because you are evil? That's the usual reason.

 

According to Australian biology professor Jeremy Griffith, founder of the World Transformation Movement (google it), it's because of our "human condition", which is the consequence of the evolution of consciousness, ie, self-awareness, and the henceforth egotistical, competitive search for knowledge/understanding, imposing itself over our previously instinct-determined group/species behaviour.

Griffith claims we had no choice but to become 'Right Wing' and competitive; but he surmises we will, through understanding the "human condition", eventually create a co-operative human civilisation.

 

It is indisputably false.

You are again just objectively incorrect:

https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/

The USA's death rate from malnutrition is 0.64/100K, or about 2K/yr. Most of them suffer from eating disorders, but many of the rest are neglected children, and a few are just unlucky hermits.

The governments of all advanced democracies intervene massively in the economy to prevent people from starving, but many people still fall through the cracks. And if governments didn't intervene, millions of the landless would definitely be starving in advanced democracies, as they are in countries where private landowning is well established, but government does not intervene massively to rescue the landless from enslavement and murder by landowners.

No, you can't without spending a lot of money on transportation to make up for the money you aren't spending on rent. Land rent is precisely the difference between the economic advantages of a good and a marginal location.

Of course: they are forced to choose between paying rent for an advantageous location and being forcibly deprived of access to economic opportunity. But although being told, "Your money or your life," doesn't FORCE you to give your money -- after all, you can choose to be killed -- that doesn't mean you are not being forced.

Wrong, as proved above.

No, you most certainly do not.

Income is not wealth, any more than speed is distance. If they don't have a lot of assets -- $10M worth, say, which gets you into the 1% -- they aren't wealthy.

So no, in fact you do not know any wealthy people who do not own land.

Working class is not poor. "Much poorer than rich people" is also not poor. Poor people have assets much less than their income. No landowner with a poverty-level income does.

Yours are a lot sillier, and mine have the advantage of being factually correct.

It is certainly and indisputably false.

Huh?? Whom do you imagine they had to PAY for that property, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

And you will find that in some cities, the majority are tenants:

https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/two-thirds-new-yorkers-now-rent-their-apartments-data-show

Your claims are just reliably false, sorry.

No one chose to be forcibly stripped of their rights to liberty and have them given to landowners as their private property.

No one said anything about magic. There was nothing magical that caused slavery, either. It was simple greed.

First they have to pay a landowner full market value just for permission to have a job, to shop, to access "free" public education and medical care, to access desirable public services and infrastructure, etc. Then they have to pay taxes that fund the desirable public services and infrastructure they just paid the landowner for access to. At every step, they are robbed by landowners who contribute nothing in return.

Garbage. Read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed," and try to get the beginning of a clue.

Nope.

If you don't have a kitchen, and you need food to work, sometimes that's the most economical choice. See Ehrenreich.

Nope. See Erhenreich.

If they ever want to escape poverty, they have to pay a landowner full market value just for PERMISSION to access economic opportunity.

Only when frozen is the cheapest.

The poor should just choose to die of heat prostration? They used to do that quite a lot, you know.

It's often cheaper than the labor cost of hanging them out. And what if it's raining or so humid that you can't dry your work clothes any other way?

Again, cheaper than the labor cost of washing them by hand.

All refuted.

GARBAGE, as proved above. Read Erhenreich and get a clue.

GARBAGE, as proved above.

GARBAGE, as proved above. If you want to escape poverty, you have to pay a landowner full market value just for PERMISSION to do so.

What a load of nonsense. Read Erhenreich. It's available online.

Are you unaware of the fact that even their rights to vote are being systematically removed?

And how much economic opportunity are they going to find in small towns? How many job openings? How big a market for their skills?

You have no idea what you are talking about. None.

 

Again .. please describe EXACTLY what is preventing 'poor' Americans from escaping poverty. Tell us what the long term poor THEMSELVES are doing - or not doing - which prevents it. Since many poor people do indeed, escape poverty in America (migrants, especially), then it's patently not 'the system'. So tell us what it is, please. Meantime, those who are 'too poor to move' .. any of them fat? tattood? smoking? drinking? buying fast food? buying new clothes? running air-con 24hrs a day? using clothes dryers instead of air drying their laundry?

I said no one is compelled to RENT. In America, even welfare recipients can band together as a family, save like demons for few years, and buy a house in a small town for $10k - outright, no mortgage. They can move as a family to a small town and start a home-based business, or work online. CHOICES.

 

You literally had to find miniscule exceptions, to make your point. Plus .. my bold.

Pathetic. Meantime, explain the plague of morbid obesity afflicting America's 'poor'.

 

Some do have assets (cash + cars + jewellery + art) above $10m, some don't. Either way, by anyone outside of the 1%, they are RICH.

I home property in a small town, where some of the neighbouring HOME OWNERS (who've long since paid off their homes) don't have enough money for a freaking indoor toilet. Small towns, in both yours and my own nations, are full of poor people who do indeed own their homes. Some are so poor that they could never afford to rent. How are you not aware of this?

 

Don't make false claims. You saw the table. Lots of countries have much lower malnutrition death rates than the USA.

They often aren't poor, because poverty is incorrectly defined by income, rather than correctly, by assets, meaning that many well-off retired seniors are classed as "poor." People gain weight as they get older, duh.

 

1) Are you going to try and tell us that America is full of houses/apartments which don't have kitchens? Come on, your desperation to defend CHOICES is becoming unhinged now.

2) Incorrect. If they don't want to stay poor, they must band together to cut costs and pool resources, and stop freaking spending all their money on luxuries!

3) Frozen is not cheaper, because any processing/packaging adds cost to the end product. Those who are serious about escaping poverty buy ONLY produce which in season (and therefore very cheap), and don't buy meat or any other expensive luxury foods. Remember, anything but beans and rice is luxury.

4) I'm nowhere near 'poor', and choose not to use airconditioning because it's too expensive (and in case you'd forgotten, the freaking planet is freaking dying). And I guarantee I live in a much hotter place than you. We regularly see temperatures over 100% in summer. No one will die if they behave sensibly and manage their homes properly (windows open overnight to cool down, then closed up by 8am - blinds down til after sunset). Unlike you, I don't demand luxury levels of comfort, yet somehow expect to be able to sustain that indulgence .. either financially or environmentally.

5) I don't even OWN a clothes dryer. I have a clothes line out back, and drying racks for indoors on rainy days. Clothes on racks will dry overnight, if you need work gear for the following day. More importantly, are you seriously going to suggest that it's reasonable to use incredibly expensive to run (for both poor peoples' wallets, and for the planet) clothes dryers? You need some serious thinking time, Dude.

6) Again? No, sorry. There is no reality in which someone short of funds can justify running clothes dryers and dishwashers.

Jesus .. you really are a confused unit ain't ya. You spend all your argument time defending poor choices (like spending on these damned luxuries), and demonising better choices. None of this is really about elevating the impoverished, is it? It's about salving your guilt for being unwilling to live the changes you demand of others.

 

The ones that do own land.

 

Malnutrition is not starvation. A fat person can be malnourished .. and in that case it's a result of poor food choices. CHOICES.

Yeah right ... somehow the old people in Japan and China missed that memo about getting fatter as you age. Meantime, how about you explain the dramatic rise in YOUTH obesity?

 

No .. I said they are rich and DON'T own land. You are responding like a child, again.

 

First, I notice you did not even comment on Detroit's fate, which was obviously a systems problem (of world trade, in fact).

Yes, "many poor people do indeed, escape poverty in America" .....but many do not. Why is it so?

Obviously we need to ensure government, or whoever feels so inclined, does teach these people how to escape poverty. Note: if you are living in poverty, it is unlikely your 'kin' will be in a position to help, in fact they are likely to be a hindrance.

So a public agency will be required to teach healthy lifestyle choices, in an environment where self-interested competition, aided and abetted by junk advertising, is teaching the exact opposite.

Not everyone can create his own small business and survive, in this post industrial age, even with the most rigid budget controls in place.

In fact, in an "invisible hand" competitive, free market, a Job Guarantee + education as mentioned above, is a necessity, to ensure no-one lives in poverty. Obviously.

Sorry to upset your 'comfortable conservative'/ 'individual agency' stance, which is wholly inadequate given our "invisible hand", competitive free market system.

A competition needs a referee....ie public sector oversight of private sector competition.

 

1) Because lazy, fat, rich (compared to the Third World) First Worlders don't want to sacrifice their pleasures and luxuries to get ahead. Why do you think Asians do so well in the West .. even those who arrived with nothing? Do you think it's just dumb luck? Or is it because they have a phenomenal work ethic and iron self-discipline, and understand the importance of pooled resources?

2) Your 'kin' are the only ones who can teach you a work ethic and self-discipline, and the only way kin can teach you those things is by MODELLING them. Govt can't do jack when it comes to such fundamental character traits. No amount of later learning will work, without the fundamental will to see it through.

3) You think GOVT can teach people how to resist temptation? Seriously? No .. I mean, seriously? There have been such 'educational' programs in the works for decades, and people are failing harder now than ever before. What does it take for you to understand where the error is?

4) Not everyone has to create a small business. If the collective owns the property outright, they don't all need to earn a living. In fact, it can be managed even on welfare. CHOICES.

5) Get the right education and jobs are guaranteed. And by 'right' I mean high achievment at a public school, followed by a STEM degree in a high demand, high pay field. Even the poorest family can make that happen.