What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

So its nationalise land and then what?

 

If you think land owning is unjust, why aren't you buying up a bunch and giving it away to family and friends? Why are YOU ignoring the injustice by not doing anything about it?

 

Try to understand my answer.

Are you somehow unaware of the fact that owning shares of a corporation gives indirect ownership participation in everything the corporation owns, whether factories, oil wells, or slaves?

 

A nonsense comment. You're the one that celebrates land ownership. I don't. Aren't you even able to work out what your stance means?

 

YOU are not providing freehold access to land to those who might not otherwise have it. Until you are doing that, your words are trite nonsense. Mere vanities.

 

I didn't say nationalize it. Owning people is also evil, but I don't advocate taking them into public ownership as the remedy to slavery.

Once the proper economic role of land is recognized, the land administration office should just accept the high bid from prospective users in the market, much as a private landowner would, but index the rent to local GDP. The rent would then be devoted to the purposes and benefit of the public that creates it through ordinary democratically accountable institutions.

 

That's the point! You focus on YOU and allow exploitation to go unchecked. Shame on you.

 

How disappointing. So we're back to really just LVT. How petty.

 

They why did you resort to the popularity "argument"?

Which is simply a record of the current orthodoxy -- in the case of economics, a known-false and absurd orthodoxy.

No, it neatly advertises the pervasiveness of anti-truth Marxist grunt.

It's a plain fact. They are united in ignoring and dismissing geoist analysis because they are united in their hatred of liberty, justice and truth.

 

There is no economics in your comments. You're as relevant as crank's supply side economics.

 

No. Land value is just a proxy for the current subsidy to the location owner, so I prefer location subsidy repayment (LSR), and stipulate a universal individual exemption (UIE). Big difference from the Georgist Single Tax.

Nationalization is too economically disruptive, and won't work. It is also even more difficult politically than LSR, which can be phased in.

 

There is at least more correct economics in my comments than in yours, or in Marx.

<yawn>

 

Ramble, ramble, "new LVT"! Crikey, your orthodoxy is dull

 

You've taken Georgism and made it even more tiresome. God bless.

 

Please provide a DOI where anyone else has proposed what I propose.

 

OK, so you don't want to know you are participating in evil. I get it.

 

Why do I need to? Try and make sense. You've repeated the LVT orthodoxy (i.e. nationalisation isn't needed). I'd personally go for local land co-operatives. Why are you scared of people power?

 

To support your claim.

If repeating one part of an orthodoxy made one orthodox, then anyone who opposed child factory labor would be a communist. So thank you for admitting your claim was false, and that you cannot support it.

But piecemeal local collectivization won't solve the problem.

Why are you scared of liberty, justice and truth?

 

Nothing response. I referred to how "evil" land ownership could be replaced with local democratic control. Why aren't you in favour of that? Try content this time, rather than your conservative Georgist script.

 

Look in the mirror.

That would just make political connection to the commissars more important than liberty, justice, and economic efficiency. You obviously see yourself as the commissar. Simple.

Because democratically accountable control is only better than the market in cases of market failure. There is no reason to think the market is not the best way to allocate land.

LSR aligns government's own financial interest with the public interest in efficient provision of desirable public services and infrastructure and optimally productive private use of land. "Local democratic control" doesn't. It just gives more power to political operators.

 

So, despite your "evil" land ownership bluster you're actually neoclassical and don't think local power is ideal? Back to your orthodoxy! We're getting to see why Georgism managed to make so little impact...

Heck, let's go with it. Why do you think local co-ordination manages to avoid the tragedy of the commons?

 

How do I allow it, that you don't? Details please.

 

How am I participating in it, that you are not? Tell us exactly what you actually do to avoid participating in it.

 

Gosh, do you lack any self-reflection? What the heck do you think supply side economics delivered? What the heck do you think ignoring land inequalities delivered? Hold bringiton's hand; you're as equally useless.

 

You are justifying it.

I oppose it.