Sivad wrote:You seem to be saying rent is just unearned value?
It's unearned value obtained specifically by legally depriving others of opportunity they would otherwise have enjoyed.
That's not how economic rent is defined, at least not by any economic theory I've ever come across.
I am aware of the inadequacy of current definitions of rent to the task of clarifying economic relationships. Classical economics defines rent as the return to land, which does not include privilege rents, while neoclassical economics defines it as a return in excess of opportunity cost, which completely ignores the fact that factor returns are defined by how they are obtained, not how big they are. That is to prevent people from identifying the non-contributory nature of the landowner's participation in the economy.
According to most theories, geoism included, rent is the appropriation of unearned value.
No, it has to be a legal entitlement, and it has to be obtained by controlling others' access to economic opportunity.
The whole point of geoism is to abolish rent by capturing that value and distributing it back to those who produced it(society).
That's recovering rent, not abolishing it. Rent per se is a valuable allocation tool. It is a measure of economic advantage. The problem arises when people are deprived, without just compensation, of their liberty to use what they would otherwise be at liberty to use, and their lost liberty rights are made into others' private property, conferring on the latter a legal entitlement to extract for themselves the value of everyone else's liberty rights.
So when some capitalist starts a factory that would otherwise have been started by the public,
It wouldn't. The public had the same opportunity to build the factory that he did, and they didn't build it. He did. You are again arguing based on a hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy.
and hoards the bulk of the wealth that would otherwise have been shared by the workers and the public,
What an absurd and disingenuous load of garbage. He's producing wealth, not hoarding it, and he is doing nothing whatever to deprive the public or anyone else of their liberty to build a factory and produce wealth of their own.
that capitalist is extracting rent by depriving others of access to economic opportunities that would otherwise have been accessible.
How? How is he depriving anyone of any opportunity they would otherwise have? Unlike the landowner or other privilege holder, he has no legal power to do anything of the kind. You are just making up false and absurd garbage.
You could say that by investing in the factory the capitalist has made a contribution which entitles them to that wealth,
Yes, I could; and I do, because it is indisputably the truth.
but the same could be said of the capitalist who invests in land or intellectual property.
No, it most certainly and indisputably could not. The factory had to be built by its original owner, but land was already there, ready to use, with no help from the owner or any previous owner. So unlike the factory owner, the landowner has not added to production, only placed his pockets in a position to intercept a portion of it; and the IP monopolist has actually REDUCED production below what it would otherwise be.
What's the difference?
Your refusal to distinguish between making a contribution to production and taking a portion of production in return for no (or even a negative) contribution is what makes you a socialist.
If you claim the difference is that capital is reproducible so rent doesn't pertain to it then you're missing the point.
are missing the point that capital is not merely "reproducible"; it has to BE PRODUCED, and it is its original owner who produces it.
We're not talking about capital,
I am, because that is the topic. You aren't, because you have to contrive some way to prevent yourself from knowing the indisputable facts of objective physical reality in order to preserve your false and evil beliefs.
it's the system of capitalism that through state capture and mass manipulation of public opinion functions as a coercive monopoly over our economy.
More false and disingenuous garbage. The landowner, bankster, IP monopolist, etc. -- but NOT the factory owner --have specific legal entitlements to benefit from coercion inflicted on others to deprive them of access to economic opportunity they would otherwise be at liberty to access. Claiming that it is "capitalism" that inflicts this coercion, and not their specific legal privileges, is just an attempt to pretend that the factory owner per se is also a beneficiary of such privileges when he is their victim just as much as the worker. Now, it is true that a successful factory owner is likely also to own such privileges; but that just means he is guilty of the same moral and intellectual crime socialists like you are most guilty of: not distinguishing between production and rent extraction.
If rent is "income flow resulting from payments for restricted access to natural opportunities or for contrived privileges over geographic regions" then capitalism itself is nothing more than a system of rent extraction.
Capitalism enables landowner rent extraction by definition. Modern finance capitalism also enables banksters and IP monopolists to extract rents. It DOESN'T enable FACTORY OWNERS to extract any rents.
In most sectors capitalism cannot compete with socialism so it has to "contrive privileges" and "restrict access" via force or corruption.
It is obviously socialism that can't compete with capitalism, and there is a very good reason for that: socialists' stealing of capital reduces the amount of capital available to production, but capitalists' stealing of land does not reduce the amount of land available to production.