- 21 Oct 2015 16:45
#14611623
Of course. The market is pretty efficient, so if privileges of parasitism outperformed productive investment, their prices would just rise to the point where the returns were comparable. The exact same would be true if government had issued licenses to steal: their prices would just move to reflect the amount one could expect to extract from the victims.
Not as much as you think, as proved by the fact that they get so rich so quickly, in return for so little contribution. In any case, even to the extent that their returns are reduced (as, for example, by rent control, which in NYC has resulted in tenants pocketing multi-million dollar extortion payments to move), prices just move to reflect that. The reduction of return doesn't make the landowner any more productive, any more than reducing the amount one could steal with a license would make the thefts any less theft.
--
So, you don't care if someone gets a share of production in return for making a contribution to production, or just by being privileged to take a share of production in return for no contribution? IOW, you do not consider justice to be more desirable than injustice, or good to be more desirable than evil?
Thought so.
No, it does not. The greater the share of production that goes to rentiers in return for nothing, the less is available to reward the productive for actual contributions. That is the whole problem with rent-seeking behavior (which you could Google to advantage): resources are diverted into wasteful competition for rents rather than supporting labor and investments in capital goods that increase production.
No, they most certainly do not, as explained above. You could with equal "logic" claim that it doesn't matter if a portion of production is stolen by thieves, the producers will still produce just as much even though they get to keep less.
Your claims are just examples of the absurdities designed to rationalize, justify, and excuse atrocities -- it's merely that in this case, they are socialist atrocities rather than capitalist ones.
---
No, I am objectively correct.
It is land rent, not building rent, as proved by the astronomical cost of vacant building lots. The very existence of astronomical land values in all advanced industrialized countries (and many poor, undeveloped capitalist countries) PROVES you are INDISPUTABLY wrong.
Oh, really? Have you checked out interest rates lately, vs the cost of a vacant building lot?
What do the financializers create debt money for, hmmmmm?
About 2/3 of all debt is mortgage debt, and 2/3 of all mortgage debt is for land. The banksters are totally focused on getting their hands on land rent.
The facts just flat-out prove me right and you wrong.
Post in one fashion as I've edited it, not in many different posts. It keeps the board tidy this way -TIG
Truth To Power wrote:No, you are both wrong, because you refuse to distinguish between land and capital, and thus do not understand how ownership of the means of production might or might not make one rich depending on WHICH means of production one owns.
AFAIK wrote:[It's pretty rare for an investor/ capitalist to own one "means of production" outright and nothing else. S/he's more likely to own 5% of 20 different ventures, which s/he can abandon at the click of a button. That's why investment firms will boast of outperforming the stockmarket as a whole.
Of course. The market is pretty efficient, so if privileges of parasitism outperformed productive investment, their prices would just rise to the point where the returns were comparable. The exact same would be true if government had issued licenses to steal: their prices would just move to reflect the amount one could expect to extract from the victims.
Truth To Power wrote:Even Marx realized in the end (but buried it in Vol. 3 of "Capital") that the landowner takes all the profit he incorrectly ascribed to the capitalist class in Vols 1 and 2). Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.
I haven't read Marx but surely rent controls and other property regulations limit landlords' ability to maximise returns.
Not as much as you think, as proved by the fact that they get so rich so quickly, in return for so little contribution. In any case, even to the extent that their returns are reduced (as, for example, by rent control, which in NYC has resulted in tenants pocketing multi-million dollar extortion payments to move), prices just move to reflect that. The reduction of return doesn't make the landowner any more productive, any more than reducing the amount one could steal with a license would make the thefts any less theft.
--
mikema63 wrote:All of those things are means of production, I care very little which means of production allow you to accumulate other means of production more easily.
So, you don't care if someone gets a share of production in return for making a contribution to production, or just by being privileged to take a share of production in return for no contribution? IOW, you do not consider justice to be more desirable than injustice, or good to be more desirable than evil?
Thought so.
If the factory owners end up getting disposesed of their factories by the land owners, then the land owners own the factories and capital accumulates just the same.
No, it does not. The greater the share of production that goes to rentiers in return for nothing, the less is available to reward the productive for actual contributions. That is the whole problem with rent-seeking behavior (which you could Google to advantage): resources are diverted into wasteful competition for rents rather than supporting labor and investments in capital goods that increase production.
The results remain the same no matter who "wins."
No, they most certainly do not, as explained above. You could with equal "logic" claim that it doesn't matter if a portion of production is stolen by thieves, the producers will still produce just as much even though they get to keep less.
Your claims are just examples of the absurdities designed to rationalize, justify, and excuse atrocities -- it's merely that in this case, they are socialist atrocities rather than capitalist ones.
---
Truth To Power wrote:Even Marx realized in the end (but buried it in Vol. 3 of "Capital") that the landowner takes all the profit he incorrectly ascribed to the capitalist class in Vols 1 and 2). Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.
quetzalcoatl wrote:You're a bit off base.
No, I am objectively correct.
Other than resource extraction and building/housing rents, land doesn't pay a big part in the accumulation of wealth.
It is land rent, not building rent, as proved by the astronomical cost of vacant building lots. The very existence of astronomical land values in all advanced industrialized countries (and many poor, undeveloped capitalist countries) PROVES you are INDISPUTABLY wrong.
It is the rent on money rather than the rent on land that powers late capitalism.
Oh, really? Have you checked out interest rates lately, vs the cost of a vacant building lot?
Reforms in land ownership, attractive as they might be, would not address the financialization of the economy.
What do the financializers create debt money for, hmmmmm?
About 2/3 of all debt is mortgage debt, and 2/3 of all mortgage debt is for land. The banksters are totally focused on getting their hands on land rent.
The facts just flat-out prove me right and you wrong.
Post in one fashion as I've edited it, not in many different posts. It keeps the board tidy this way -TIG