Very telling that you’d think that. Classic vocabulary envy. Luckily prose isn’t a science, or you’d feel really bad.
Cool story bruh.
1 Like
Outline a big post trying to lay out a logical anti landlord position.
Ooh 15 new posts maybe I kicked off an insightful discussion?
Oh, a bunch of clovis nonsense.
Never try kids. It ain’t worth it.
3 Likes
let it marinate baby
I read your post!!
For premise 1 I’d be fine with houses never appreciate. Maybe a Frank Lloyd Wright house or something, but essentially never. The house I live in has a negative value equal to how much it would cost to demolish and that’s pretty much true of any house more than about 40 years old in my part of town.
The ‘value’, so to speak, that this kinda clovis nonsense has is that it gives us an example of how your typical bog-standard liberal ‘thinks’, again so to speak.
Notice how he wants to wrap himself up in the sanctity of science. As in, if some dude LOLs at the alleged divine truths that the Mr.Econ smarty-parts brigade have been mindlessness trained to spew, that that dude is anti-science… and in a lol-tastical leap of nonsense… are anti all social science.
Here’s some facts…
-
Unstucker geewhysee didn’t lol at science in general, and he didn’t lol at social sciences in general either. He lol’ed at Economics.
-
The thinking, so to speak, that the Mr.Econ smarty-pants brigade have been mindlessly trained to spew has no grounding in empiricism. The Scientific Method is never employed by the Mr.Econ smarty-pants brigade. Their spew is all dogma, and nah science.
-
OTOH, all the ‘superstars’ of Economics, that these Mr.Econ smarty-pants brigade idolize like rock stars… they are all of the opinion that Georgism >>>> our pre-pandemic status-quo.
Cliffs: LOL @ liberals !!!11
Economics is the only “science” where I can guess at your conclusions based on how you dress. Everyone is just objectively interpreting the data it’s just the weirdest coincidence that all the poor people are Keynesians and all the rich people are monetarists. It’s like physics where all the trade unionists are compatiblists and all the bankers are determinists.
1 Like
Yeah, it’s also the only “science” that tells us what to do. Like… physics doesn’t tell us what to do. Physics doesn’t say building nukes ‘creates’ peace, or war, or buildings, or urban planning for that matter.
Any so-called “science” that tries to tell us what to do isn’t founded in empiricism. It isn’t real science. In fact, it isn’t even sound on the level of formal logic. Because that kinda “science” is a…
Again with the baiting, you just cannot resist throwing this language into every post and it really undermines the good points that you make.
There may be rent seekers in capitalist systems, but somehow throughout recent history capitalist systems have been more successful at creating wealth than the alternatives. Proclaiming that violent rent seeking is the defining aspect of capitalism completely ignores that it is an engine for wealth creation based on mutually beneficial transactions.
And guess what? Rent seeking is nothing unique to capitalism, it is human nature and a part of all economic systems. Every other system actually put into place in the real world has involved rent seeking, the only thing that changes is whether it is corrupt government officials or private sector actors. At least with private sector actors there is an opportunity for competition to undermine the rent seeking.
Rent seeking behavior would exist in a Georgist system as well, even in real property. It would just involve collaboration between those assessing the land value and those investing in the land.
My comment wasn’t directed at geewhysee. Reading is difficult.
Also, I’m the least surprised person on earth that you are anti-science typical “I’m just asking questions about (insert climate change) here”.
Of course you are. Of course.
Even for you this is just plain dumb.
It’s not baiting. The fact that you see it that way, is both (a) lol-tastical and (b) suggests that you are emotionally involved.
It’s as simple as this: six of one, half a dozen of the other. Or 6ix, VI, 110base2, or sqrt(36), or the number of Superb Owls my Patriots have won. These are all different names for the same idea. This idea can be equally and equivalently “defined” by any one of the above listed names, and by plenty of others.
Like the clovis nonsense before you… you seem to be emotionally dismayed at a “six of one”, while you seem, at the same time, to be spiritually attached to a “half a dozen”.
LOL. Where do you even get this shiz from ???/?.
But seriously, how about voting in the poll I posted above ITT.
I know, I know. You are just “questioning the man” about (insert vaccines).
Well, I haven’t mentioned vaccines, and AFAIK, nobody else has ITT. But you be you, I guess. Anyways…
How about voting in the poll I posted ???/?
1 Like
There is no option for “Sabo’s sad poll is pathetic“ so I think I’ll pass.
Of course you don’t get the vaccine or climate change point. Of course.
That’s what the Bastard option is for.
And no, I don’t get your alleged point. Since I’m not in fact anti-science, I don’t believe you have a point. So, now that I’ve explained how the Bastard option works…
How about you voting in the poll?
An entire social science is-how did you put it- “all dogma” because some of it doesn’t align with your worldview. My mistake you are super pro science.
You are also completely typical of every anti-vaxer, climate change truther and UFO enthusiast on the planet.
There’s something almost balletic about it.
2 Likes
I get it you are having trouble following along. Do you need to point your difficulty out so often?