Ummmmmmm…
I concur
You can study economics without prescribing what to do. And there is certainly a legitimate role for scientists to offer advice on policy.
True & true & not at all relevant to this thread.
You already called it up thread… this is ACer redux. Except without Roof Rodz™. Neither the long gone ACers, nor today’s liberals ITT, are scientists. We joke about their ECON 101 “wisdom”… but I’m pretty skeptical they have even mastered that materiel.
In… economics, rent-seeking means seeking to increase one’s share of existing wealth without creating new wealth. Rent-seeking results in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, reduced wealth-creation… heightened income inequality,[1] and potential national decline.
Standard economics (as expressed by today’s Wikipedia above) claims that rent-seeking reduces wealth-creation. You claim the opposite (at top).
Either standard economics is wrong… or you are wrong.
What now Mr.Econ smarty-pants ???/?
Except he didn’t say any like that.
He said capitalist systems have rent seeking AND they create wealth.
You then lied and claimed he said rent seeking created wealth.
yada, yada, yada
At some point we will, or maybe I should say we should, come around to an understanding that standard economics is indeed claiming this: more rent-seeking leads to less wealth-creation. When, or if, we come to that understanding, we’ll find that…
“Georgist systems have rent-seeking too!” ~ not responsive, as the issue isn’t a checkbox. The issue is a comparison: Do Georgist systems have more-or-less rent-seeking -vs- our pre-pandemic status-quo.
“All systems have rent-seeking too!” ~ not responsive, as the issue isn’t a checkbox. The issue is a comparison: Do Georgist systems have more-or-less rent-seeking -vs- our pre-pandemic status-quo.
“Capitalist systems create wealth too!” ~ not responsive, as the issue isn’t a checkbox. The issue is a comparison: Do Georgist systems have more-or-less rent-seeking -vs- our pre-pandemic status-quo.
{other typical Mr.Econ smarty-pants gibberish} ~ not responsive, as gibberish is never responsive. The issue is a comparison: Do Georgist systems have more -or-less rent-seeking -vs- our pre-pandemic status-quo.
DUCPH (do you see the pattern here) ???/?
Lol that was my whole point but you head is too far up your own ass to realize it. Because capitalist systems have proven to be a more effective engine for creating wealth they cannot be rife with rent seeking relative to the alternatives. That doesn’t mean they are perfectly efficient but perfect efficiency is not a realistic goal.
LOL.
Because capitalist systems are so damn rife with rent-seeking they simply cannot be the most effective ‘engine’ for ‘creating’ wealth.
Pre-pandemic, in my part of the world, we could buy $250k houses built on unimproved land worth $500k. That means that 67% of the purchase price is rent-seeking. Under a Georgist system, there would be 0% rent-seeking on this purchase.
So, since 67% > 0%, we can conclude that our pre-pandemic status-quo has more rent-seeking than a Georgist system, and therefore standard economics claims there would be less wealth-creation. Less not more. QED.
FYI: Here’s still another system that has less rent-seeking than our pre-pandemic status-quo… Sharia. So we now have identified -three- distinct systems that have less rent-seeking than our pre-pandemic status-quo… and -zero- systems that have more.
“A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground."
—Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
“A tax on rent would affect rent only; it would fall wholly on landlords, and could not be shifted to any class of consumers. The landlord could not raise his rent, because he would leave unaltered the difference between the produce obtained from the least productive land in cultivation, and that obtained from land of every quality."
—David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
The main problem with chatting econ with the Mr.Econ smarty-pants Brigade is that they are shockingly ignorant when it comes to econ.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Ok I guess I missed it till now but this is a great gimmick account. Well played. You got me for a while.
The whole “but my house cost more than it cost to build, so capitalism is bad” line was a bit far for the satire but it made me laugh.
But that’s not at all what I’m saying. As I’ve mentioned several times ITT, I’m not spewing about the “moral”. If you feel capitalism is “good” or “bad” is up to you… right inside the privacy of your own pretty little head. Some people like feel vanilla ice cream is “gooder”, some people feel chocolate ice cream is “gooder”. Whatever floats your boat. Here, this is what I’m actually saying…
“but my house cost more than it cost to build, so there is rent-seeking”
Seriously elite gimmick. Can’t believe I missed it until now. Really well played.
Stop trolling asshole !!!1!
Now that I understand what you are doing I’ll just sit back and enjoy the satire. Carry on.
Stop trolling asshole !!!11
It’s not really clear to me (or people online explaining Georgism) that land would not be bought and sold at prices > $0 in high demand areas. The fact that land could be had for free in upstate NY wouldn’t make land free in NYC unless maybe the taxes were so high that demand disappeared. And land is already extremely cheap where there is little demand. You can buy perfectly good lots in many places, even California, for 4 figures.
Maybe some people consider Georgism solely defined by the single tax and others think it means more?
Sure. And there would be higher property taxes in areas of high demand too. In Georgist theory, it’d be a “wash”.
This is discussed in the Wikipedia. Cliffs: George, and Georgists in general, are aware that rent-seeking exists outside of land. But, back in their day, they were mixing it up with the Donkeys & Elephants & etc… and felt it politically expedient to focus in on just one ‘creator’ of rent-seeking, which they feel is the biggest.
I didn’t mean the way things other than land are treated, but whether some Georgists think that the single-tax is all they would have done with land or if some consider it necessary to forbid the sale of land. As you probably know, much of the land in Singapore belongs to the public (well, the government) and people get long term leases. Maybe something like that where you claim land by paying the taxes on it.
Personally, for reasons of fairness anyway, I think there should be a hard limit on how much land a person can monopolize whether it’s via ownership, leasing, paying taxes or whatever - though I wouldn’t be set against exceptions that were clearly in the interest of the greater good.