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

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

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No. You have disingenuously misconstrued it.
    No. It uses the correct definition, not your absurdly broad and incorrect one.
    But unlike you, it does so correctly.
    But of incomparably greater value than anything you have said, because it describes the primary relationship of housing markets to land value.
    Again, that's just false.
    It will do as long as you can't answer it and therefore feel you have to make $#!+ up about it.
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    How gratifying that you continue to emit such completely despicable sewage.
    Because you cannot understand the difference between "rent shows up in capital gains," and "capital gains consist of rent."
    What an admirably accurate self-description.
    Which is presumably why you made it up.
    Yes, actually, it does, as does Marxism. But not all neoclassical economists buy into it.
    Which you deny because you hate justice.
    That amused me, as you consistently ignore others' identification of their views as not Georgist and falsely call them Georgists no matter how may times you are corrected on the matter.

    So, thank you for agreeing that you are a Marxist.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is again no content in your replies. The paper does indeed refer to enfeebled Georgism. The paper does indeed refer to the need to include capital gains to try and suggest relevance. The paper does indeed have an undeveloped understanding of housing and its links with poverty. The paper does indeed provide no empirical analysis to indicate LVT relevance.

    Facts aren't very kind to you.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No content, not even flowery effort at put down. You even failed to undertake basic quoting. Tut tut.

    Understanding Georgism isnt difficult. The research into its failures is well known, generating a near consensus that the role of Georgists is secondary and focused on aspects of environmental economics. Even then I'm not convinced they will amount to much. International political economy, for example, is much more insightful for understanding the climate emergency.
     
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    But is impossible for those who refuse to know facts, like you.
    The what?? Sorry, you just disqualified yourself from serious discussion again.
     
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Again, sneers at Georgism but no content from you.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How can that list of facts be classified at sneers (unless of course you're tacitly admitting that Georgist rant struggles in the facts stakes)? Think more before you type.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Your sneers aren't facts.
     
    gottzilla likes this.
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here are the facts that you dodge: The paper does indeed refer to enfeebled Georgism. The paper does indeed refer to the need to include capital gains to try and suggest relevance. The paper does indeed have an undeveloped understanding of housing and its links with poverty. The paper does indeed provide no empirical analysis to indicate LVT relevance.
     
  10. gottzilla

    gottzilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Marxist rant offers no actual substance. It defines itself into existence but has insufficient real world foundation to rest upon.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've changed your tune! I thought you liked bringiton. Perhaps, after he celebrated the Marxist finance capitalism, you've jumped ship?

    Also see which of my facts about that paper are wrong. Bet you can't reject any of them ;)
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2020
  12. gottzilla

    gottzilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    28
    You haven't even been able to get simple causal relationships correct despite us repeatedly pointing out your logical error that rent showing up in capital gain =/= capital gain must be rent, and that in all circumstances. Yet you pretend that you have some kind of "gotcha" because of your misinterpretation of what that paper says. The paper was written by someone who used to be director of the Robert Schalkenbach foundation. I'm fairly certain that either a) You haven't read it sufficiently, b) you do not have the capacity to understand it sufficiently to make rational comment, c) are lying about it, or d) a mixture of all three of these factors. I'm not very keen on participating in what will no doubt be some sort of roundabout of unsubstantiated claims where all your claims rest upon is the previous unsubstantiated claims with no actual underlying foundation to rest upon. You essentially just claim "I'm right because I'm right" in a drawn out bloviated manner.
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've referred directly to an economic source that referred to capital gains as rent. It was just super-lovely that bringiton, despite you whining otherwise, also referred to a paper that said Georgism is irrelevant without reference to capital gains.

    Gosh, you do like to whinge and whine. I've given the facts:

    "The paper does indeed refer to enfeebled Georgism. The paper does indeed refer to the need to include capital gains to try and suggest relevance. The paper does indeed have an undeveloped understanding of housing and its links with poverty. The paper does indeed provide no empirical analysis to indicate LVT relevance"

    Try disputing them ;)

    Hint: You can't as they are facts. Bit of a bleedin clue!
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I did no such thing and you know it. You are a disgrace.
    Every one of your claims is false.
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Come now, don't dodge: Get critiquing my list of facts: "The paper does indeed refer to enfeebled Georgism. The paper does indeed refer to the need to include capital gains to try and suggest relevance. The paper does indeed have an undeveloped understanding of housing and its links with poverty. The paper does indeed provide no empirical analysis to indicate LVT relevance"

    At least the other fellow pretended to do that.
     

Share This Page