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

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Kode, Aug 19, 2018.

  1. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    37,272
    Likes Received:
    9,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tell us how 'community control' (ie, humans) will ensure justice. Give us the mechanics of it. Please :)
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, that's just obviously false. The local community has no necessary interest in justice, and certainly typical local political operators won't deliver it. You appear to have no actual experience with local politics.
    Wrong. We are left with the problem of efficient allocation, which local political control by no means assures. Quite the contrary.
     
    crank likes this.
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So, are you saying you are not smart enough to understand that revolutions start with a description of a desired change?
    I'd prefer not to have to defend myself; but greedy, evil, privileged parasites have removed that option.
     
  4. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    37,272
    Likes Received:
    9,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wouldya look at that ..... we actually agree on something!
     
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    37,272
    Likes Received:
    9,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) yadda yadda. anyone can describe, few can act.

    2) let's try a thought experiment: let's say you own the family home, and have five kids. let's say those five kids are not going to be able to establish themselves without a good 5 - 10 years of working adulthood free of dependence upon the system (ie, rent). you, in your commitment to your kids, to sharing and thus reducing poverty .. agree to provide them unlimited free access to your property for the duration. does that make you an evil, privileged, parasite? after all, you could eject your five kids early, forcing them to participate (via rent) in the system.

    or: your five kids work hard, sacrifice, save, and buy their own properties - so that they can pass that security on to their own future kids. does that make them evil, privileged, parasites?

    or: your elderly parents live solely on the proceeds of a modest investment property - thus not making themselves a burden on the taxpayer via pensions etc. does this make them evil, privileged, parasites?
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  6. gottzilla

    gottzilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    "wake up one day and you're a billionaire?"

    Why do you struggle so much replying to what was actually written? You communicate very dishonestly.

    One can gain only gain rent in a financial market if it is available. As of now, there is lots of rent in there. But not everything gained in a financial market must automatically be economic rent "by definition". If I devote my finances to help a firm, with no unjust harm inflicted on anyone in the process, then why must that automatically be economic rent "by definition"?

    If I invest in an agricultural firm that owns land, uses slave labor, and has a stranglehold on the market because of patented genetically engineered seeds, then surely what I can gain would be largely unjust and almost entirely rent. But what if there were no slave labor, no private appropriation of publicly created location values, or patented genetically engineered seeds...wouldn't that drastically reduce the rent?

    What if my investment lead to the science department being able to invent a much more efficient method of farming and thus the firm and I, despite no patent on the method, make a lot of money simply by being first comers before others are able to gain experience to offer the same service...then why would any gains from that be economic rent "by definition"?


    I'm very interested in removing rent. But, unlike you, I care about the actual causes of economic rent.

    You are the snake oil peddler. You look at symptoms and then throw your broth at it. You also invent diseases that are not there.


    Does that publication assume current market conditions? Does that publication peddle socialist nonsense?

    Nothing to respond to here.

    Assuming current market conditions, that is true. I agree that you are highly unlikely to find any billionaire who hasn't benefited from rent.

    I'm not, however, ruling out the possibility of a highly intelligent, highly industrious, and very lucky fellow emerging even if market conditions didn't allow for much rent.

    As of now, I tend to agree with bringiton that monopsony could be a symptom of an underlying problem, but would not itself necessarily be the problem.


    "Solve our tax system"? Also, I'm not going to make your "arguments" for you.

    Please stop fabricating things that weren't said.

    Yes, rents do come in many forms. Why are you acting as if anyone claimed that rent only arises through landowning?

    You and far too many others are busy blood letting. We are busy working on combating the causes of diseases.

    Also, I see no "georgists" in this thread. You just automatically associate Henry George with everything to portray anyone who cares as some lunatic cult member.

    I agree with him that the field of economics is corrupted.

    I don't know Philip Green. I mistakenly thought you referred to some paper. If he's filthy rich, then it's highly unlikely that he's not a rent seeker of some form.

    You tend to refuse to contribute actual economic content in your posts in these exchanges, especially in your own words.

    You hide behind references, links, and terminology but demonstrate very little actual understanding of anything.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
    bringiton likes this.
  7. gottzilla

    gottzilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    double post
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  8. gottzilla

    gottzilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Anyone can act mindlessly. Few can think and describe thoughtfully and clearly enough to bring about positive large scale changes for human civilization.
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The dishonesty is the suggestion that you can be billionaire without being a beneficiary of rent. Its an obvious point too.

    Capital gains, such that you become a billionaire without producing anything, is rent by definition. I've quoted economist saying just that.

    You wouldn't become a billionaire by investing in an agricultural firm. Keep on track now! This isn't about investment. This is about how capital gains is rent. Its for that very reason that it can be taxed quite differently from real investments.

    Again going for a red herring. If you invest, leading to innovation, there is of course a return. You couldn't become a billionaire of course unless there are barriers to entry and therefore rent.

    I don't see any evidence in that. Why, for example, haven't you critiqued bringiton deliberately ignoring discrimination, with Marxist analysis able to explain how it engineer rent?

    I merely bother with economics, something Georgist-obsessives rarely do.

    Ignorant questions. Is peer review beyond you?

    Extraordinarily naive; e.g. "If you earned £5000 every hour of every day since the birth of Christ, you still wouldn't be as rich as Jeff Bezos"; "If you earned £30k a year, paid no tax & spent nothing, it would take you nearly 34 years to become a millionaire. But it would take you more than 33,000 years to become a billionaire. There are 151 billionaires in the UK & 14 million people in poverty".

    Come now, a little more honesty please. The question was: Do you, like the other fellow, believe monopsony is a Marxist construct?

    [The answer is "Of course it isn'y, bringiton has gone off on one again"]


    LVT soon became redundant in optimal tax discussion. The reason? Land rent just isn't significant enough for it to be integral part of tax policy.

    This made me laugh, given your dodge over the monopsony question.

    Because Georgists obsess over land and forget the other sources. Monopsony, for example, is a key source. bringiton can't even understand its nature, going off on an anti-Marxist rant.

    Without any understanding of the labour market? You're pishing in the wind.

    Georgists rarely admit their nature. However, the land obsession gives the game away somewhat.

    You also agree that economics should be a monist discipline? You also agree that economics should be seen through the blinkers of one school of thought?

    All billionaires are. The source of course is market power, with little reference to land.

    And you finish with empty whinge! The idea that someone hides behind references amused me though. That is terribly post-truth![/quote]
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sounds like you're ignorant of local public good provision :)

    I've made no mention to local political control. I've referred to land co-operatives. You and the right winger crank do have common ground here. You both demand orthodox private ownership that necessarily will maintain inequality of opportunity. It is ultimately celebration of the anti-commons.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  11. gottzilla

    gottzilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    If what one "invests" in a financial market largely deals with rents then it's of course largely rent seeking. That's not the same as capital gains being rent "by definition", even though they currently most probably largely consist of rent. Rents can cause capital gain. Capital gain is not necessarily rent caused by systemic injustice.

    I prefer talking about the elephant in the room. Also, Marxists tend to be very convoluted and confused. I do not take that school of economics seriously. It's a headache to read. Like they want you not to understand anything so that you can make other people not understand anything. Not worth my time.

    Your "economics" seems to be economics in the same sense that homeopathy is medicine.

    Just wanted to inquire if your reference is even relevant. FYI, truth is not a matter of peer review.

    I don't know who you are replying to...? Nobody claimed that Jeff Bezos doesn't make gains from rent.

    bringiton claimed that even under market conditions without underlying privileges allowing for rent, there could still be somebody able to afford a super yacht, however unlikely it is for any single individual. And it would certainly be far more unlikely than now.

    There was no claim that monopsony is in and of itself a Marxist construct. Just that it isn't relevant and that your post was "Marxist grunting".

    Unlikely. He is very clear, very precise, and very well thought out. In a way that I come across very rarely, if at all.

    I often lurk here just to read his posts. If you posed more of a challenge, maybe he would elaborate a bit more. Sadly, you don't.

    Land rent should be large enough to finance all efficient spending in infrastructure and services. If people don't bid sufficiently to cover it, then it wasn't spent efficiently.

    Other sources aren't ignored. Also, would you dare tell the abolitionists that they were "obsessing" over slavery?

    You're trying sell homeopathy to sick people who need so much more. The landowner is the one who exploits the labor market.

    Are people who use calculus Newtonists or Leibnizians? And George wasn't even the first to talk about taxing land value.

    I reject homeopathy as a cure and would rather eliminate the root causes of injustice and rent, no matter how many different tinctures you suggest I mix.

    I agree that they probably are.

    Like the power of withholding that where every economic activity has to take place? That which would exist anyways and cannot be created more of? The power of appropriating publicly created location values, which most large companies probably do?

    There is NO COST OF PRODUCTION for land. EVERY SINGLE CENT gotten as a result of owning it comes from PURE MARKET POWER.

    WAKE UP!

    It's true. People often use references (a reference to what?) as a way to hide. Often irrelevant ones or ones that don't actually support their claims.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
    bringiton likes this.
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already referred to an economic analysis that refers to capital gains as rent. Its also quite consistent with orthodox economics, given rent is seen as unproductive and destructive to economic efficiency

    This is extraordinarily ignorant. Of course Marxism is complex. You simply do not understand any of it and subsequently have a tantrum.

    You continue to be churlish. I don't have an economics. I do, however, bother to construct argument from multiple school of thought. Why can't you? Why are you reliant on childish comment?

    There is no truth. There is debate. Without reference to peer review evidence, you've given up.

    Crikey, its like talking to a piece of cardboard. The point is obvious: all billionaires are rent seekers. That will continue with the marginal changes that the Georgist-wannabes blubber.

    It is indicative of the stupidity of the Georgist. They rambled about land and then realised that LVT was pointless. They still ramble about land and pretend radical change. That they accept billionaires can exist only shows how feckin cretinous their understanding of rent really is.

    Openly fibbing now? Tut tut! bringiton confused monopsony with Marxism. We know why: he hasn't got any understanding of the labour market. That you would pretend otherwise only describes the virus of Georgism.


    Fanatics show a lack of insight.

    Did you agree with him when he stated that economics should be a monist discipline?

    Should it? Please provide a reference in support :)

    Why do you think bringiton attempted to ignore discrimination and monopsony?

    Complete ignorance. Monopsony only requires asymmetric information.

    Land is important. The reason that Georgists hide from Georgism, however, is that we know LVT is a failed effort at optimal tax.

    You typically just ramble. There is no economics here.

    Why aren't you referring to the real sources of market power? Its like economics is quite beyond you.

    It just happens land is relatively minor compared to other sources of power, as proved by the irrelevance of LVT.

    Rage Against the Machine lyrics are more involved than your grunt.

    Evidence is required for critique. That you would even suggest otherwise only confirms to me that you are a Georgist cultist.
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, you are ignorant of public choice theory.
    What else have you been yammering on about?
    See? Which solve nothing because they are politically controlled.
    That's just baldly false. I advocate location subsidy repayment (LSR) plus a universal individual exemption (UIE), which ensures equality of opportunity to use land.
    You are just makin' $#!+ up again.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Come now. Let's here your argument over why local control doesn't create public good provision! Details now, with your public choice theory :)
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Wrong. The history of science shows that it is far easier to act than to understand and describe accurately.
    Or I could, unlike you, find a willingness to know the fact that they are the victims massive, systematic, institutionalized injustice, and I am therefore right in doing what I can to defend them against it.
    What if they bought slaves? It's hard to deny people the right to self-defense, but at some point someone has to identify evil for what it is.
    What if they lived on the labor of their slaves? Would that justify slavery? Like the slave owner, the landowner qua landowner is always by definition an evil, privileged parasite.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What if underpayment was the norm, as predicted by labour economics?
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, the REAL dishonesty, the grotesque and despicable dishonesty, is claiming that a statement that someone COULD become a billionaire in a market without rents is the same as a statement that one CAN become a billionaire without availing oneself of rents in a market totally dominated by rents.
    No it isn't.
    And he was wrong. That's not what rent is. By that incorrect definition, a professional poker player is a rentier.
    You claim that, but you have no evidence for such a claim.
    No, that is FALSE. You are WRONG. It is about how capital gains in a market without rents would NOT be rent.
    Garbage.
    At least you admit it....
    Prove it.
    Because you choose not to know facts that prove you wrong.
    Maybe because he is honest and intelligent?
    Why are you falsely claiming that has anything to do with what is possible in a market without rents?
    You are the very last person in the world who can ask anyone else for honesty.
    The notion that monopsony inherently creates rent is.
    Why can't you ever remember that the astronomical value of land always automatically proves you wrong, with no further argumentation needed?
    Monopsony is the dodge.
    False. Unlike you, they are merely willing to know the fact that land value greatly exceeds the value of other asset classes.
    Such claims are absurd. In which market is monopsony even observable?
    You do love your well-poisoning fallacies, don't you?
    Your denials of the importance of land in the face of its astronomical value give your game away entirely.
    It should be an empirical science with established, empirically tested laws. Unlike Marxism.
    The accurate lens of the empirically confirmed school of thought.
    <yawn> Garbage. Market power without privilege has its returns competed away.
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What if it is predicted (and much more simply and credibly explained) by geoist economics, as already demonstrated?
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its a shame that you can't see your dishonesty. The existence of such extreme inequality describes the nature of rent seeking in capitalism. You ignore the reality, ensuring exaggerated Georgist grunt.
     
  20. gottzilla

    gottzilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    And that's what I mean with you hiding behind references to refuse providing relevant content, especially in your own words. You post a reference. You are given good reason why that reference is irrelevant/wrong, but still you mindlessly beat your chest because you referenced wrong/irrelevant rubbish.

    I'm a good reader and have good analytical ability. My current roommate has a verified IQ test result in the 140s, and I do not struggle communicating with him at that level. I'm one of those people that can sleep in class and ace math with minimal preparation. I'm very logical. Complexity is not the problem with Marxism. The problem is that Marxism is convoluted and unclear. I assume that an honest person that bothered to "understand" Marxism is one that rejects it.

    You mix a snake oil broth. That's your "economics".

    I guess that's helpful to prevent bad conscience when you sell people snake oil to treat cancer...

    Assuming that something having been peer reviewed means it's true (which is not the case), wouldn't it have had to be true already before it was peer reviewed? If something not yet peer reviewed cannot be true, then how would it magically become true by being peer reviewed? Why even bother?

    Evidence =/= peer review. You're just trying to hide from providing actual content. That's your modus operandi.

    Assuming current market conditions, that is probably true.

    Contentless and boring.

    No fibbing on my side. Just you demonstrating dishonesty and/or poor reading comprehension skills.

    Boring.

    I think that his suggestion that economics "should be an empirical science with established, empirically tested laws. Unlike Marxism." sounds rational, in stark contrast to your peddling of snake oil.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem

    It's a distraction.

    Not interested in such a distraction. I can see the elephant in the room.

    The value of land proves you wrong.

    You typically don't post anything worth any actual effort. Just condescending, snide remarks and hiding from giving any actual content.

    The value of land proves you wrong.

    Boring.

    'Reference' and 'evidence' are not synonymous. Please respond to my posts again when you can demonstrate that you are capable of thinking rationally and logically.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
    bringiton likes this.
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This isn't a cunning comment. That I can refer to evidence and you can just go "its wrong, its wrong" is standard post-truther approach.

    Fascinating. Shame you don't put it to good use mind you.

    HAHAHAHAHA! You forgot to mention that you can arm wrestle a bear ;)

    Why is it that you and bringiton try to belittle Marxism but do it with crayons? Why is there never any content? Perhaps provide a real critique of Marxist discrimination theory? Go on, have a pop!

    Childish! If you want to critique any of the economics that I give, then do so. I've stated, for example, that Georgists are feckin irrelevant as shown by how quick LVT became irrelevant. Fancy critiquing that?

    I'm drifting off now. Comment after comment without any economics...

    The clever response to a paper that you disagree with is to reference a conflicting source. Why can't you?

    Post-truth argument. Economics combines theory and evidence, from experiment to hypothesis test. Peer review is a crucial aspect of that process. Its as if you're not really interested in economics...

    Under any.

    Where's your content?

    Ramble, ramble.

    Crikey, is this really the best you can do?

    This made me laugh on two levels. First, you've moaned about the use of peer review. That's a crucial part of any empirical science. Second, you've already agreed with a non-scientific comment by bringiton. Monopsony has nothing to do with Marxism.

    HAHAHAHAHA!

    That isn't an argument. Analysis into discrimination illustrated the value of Marxism. Analysis into monopsony illustrated the importance of labour market analysis.

    Can you understand discrimination by referring to land? bringiton attempted (very badly!). Fancy having a go? Just getting economic content out of you would be a win!

    Given its a major source of rent, you're clearly therefore uninterested in rent. Tut tut.

    LVT cannot be used to eliminate income tax, despite its distortionary impact. That is a statement of fact.

    Look up hypocrite in the dictionary?

    Land tax is a side issue. Of course it should be used. However, Henry George's contribution- as illustrated by the irrelevance of LVT in optimal tax analysis- soon became old hat.

    No reference to Rage Against the Machine comeback being a profiteering exercise? :)

    You have not provided one valid economic comment in this exchange. Indeed, you've only attacked the economic approach and supported falsehoods (like monopsony being a Marxist concept). Please put that right. Your next post, god willing, will be packed full of economic insight. Fingers crossed!
     
  22. gottzilla

    gottzilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    It looked as if I'm trying to toot my own horn at one point. I do have good analytical ability and am good at math, but that part perhaps came across wrong. It's not what I intended. It's not a personality trait of mine. Just wanted to mention that because I don't feel comfortable with that part of my post.
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I found that funny. I didn't enjoy your lack of economics mind you.
     
  24. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    37,272
    Likes Received:
    9,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tell us exactly how 'thinking' in the absence of action, brings about large scale change. You know, the ordinary citizen thinkage, as is manifest here.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  25. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    37,272
    Likes Received:
    9,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So basically, your notions about evil are completely undermined by the ordinary realities of land ownership. You even threw in 'slavery', to try to hold on to your position. That's pretty funny.

    Meantime, you're not defending your kids against the system when you compel them to participate in it via refusal to share property. We're democracies, remember. You can CHOOSE whether you (and they, if they're without their own land) will participate.
     

Share This Page