[Truth To Power]

Could you include *all* natural monopolies, *and* all rent-extraction, as being that of *rentier* capital -- ?

I don't consider "rentier capital" a meaningful term. In classical economics, "capital" referred to producer goods, which have no rentier element. It's more informative to talk of assets based on privilege rather than production. An asset like a factory adds to total wealth; it relieves scarcity. An asset like a land title, taxi medallion, bank license, IP monopoly, etc. does not add to total wealth or relieve scarcity (often it aggravates scarcity), it just legally entitles the owner to take wealth from others.

I'm not talking about commercial paper or corporate bonds

Neither am I. I'm talking about demand deposit money, which is mostly outstanding bank loan principal.

-- I'm talking about 'fiat currency',

Fiat currency is a very minor part of the money supply. Most money is debt money issued by private commercial banks when they lend. The entire outstanding principal is part of the money supply, mostly in the form of demand deposits.

so that any random given currency note *may* represent real labor-derived value, or it may be a government *debt* issuance.

Notes are a small part of the money supply.

What is one dollar *worth*, or equivalent-to -- ?

Whatever it will buy.

So then since labor is a 'production factor', what problem do you have with the *labor theory of value* -- ?

It's just wrong. First, there are other production factors, and second, value also applies to things that labor never produced at all, like land.
Jevons proved the Labor Theory of Value is false more than 150 years ago. Socialists who cling to it are as objectively wrong as creationists, and have been for almost as long.

You're *describing* the labor theory of value in the next segment:

Nope. Value is what a thing would trade for. That's all. I am describing the fact that producers apply labor to producing a product until the marginal value that the labor contributes is equal (or at least close) to its marginal cost. The product's value doesn't come from the fact that labor is applied to it. Rather, labor is applied to producing it as long as that labor contributes more value to the product than it costs. The Labor Theory of Value gets cause and effect reversed. See Jevons.

You *need* Stalinism to be called 'socialism', don't you -- ?

Stalinism was socialism. Nothing to do with me.

You said 'Big Lie' -- that's specifically fascism.

The term was coined to apply to fascism, but the concept applies in lots of other cases. It's a kind of gaslighting.
Religion uses the Big Lie all the time. It might even be the original case.

[Truth To Power]

I think, over time, an economy can eventually handle more people, but it requires economic growth, wage growth, and infrastructure investment to keep up with population growth.

There is no doubt that cet. par., increased population increases per capita production because of specialization. It's just that increased population almost always increases land rent even more than it increases production.

One of the big problems in America seems to be that economic opportunity is concentrated into just a few small areas. America has not really built any new big city areas in over a hundred years, despite the population increasing four-fold.

Many sunbelt cities were small towns 100 years ago.

[ckaihatsu]

reducing consumption -- e.g., sharing with roommates or moving back in with parents instead of having their own places, etc.

You're describing this empirically, but what do you *think* about this -- should people *have* to 'share with roommates', or 'move back in with their parents', all for the sake of allowing capitalist economic 'supply-and-demand' to work-itself-out on *paper*. (There may *not necessarily* have been actual physical and/or economic demand for that particular rental unit, yet the person had to *vacate* it, to move, to share with roommates or move back in with their parents, for the sake of the *economic purpose* of capital.

TLDR: Capital won that round against the former renter, sheerly for the 'numbers', for the interests of *private property*, and certainly not for the sake of people's lives and living.

Relatedly, should people in Germany have to 'use less heat' this winter, because of the fucked-up machinations of the German government, namely Merkel, in ditching nuclear power -- ?

[Truth To Power]

You're describing this empirically, but what do you *think* about this -- should people *have* to 'share with roommates', or 'move back in with their parents', all for the sake of allowing capitalist economic 'supply-and-demand' to work-itself-out on *paper*.

I've stated many times that I oppose capitalism, specifically private landowning. Justice -- i.e., a geoist free market economy -- would ensure that everyone would be able to afford housing, even the unemployed. Working people and retirees with some assets or a pension would be able to afford their own places.

Relatedly, should people in Germany have to 'use less heat' this winter, because of the fucked-up machinations of the German government, namely Merkel, in ditching nuclear power -- ?

If they don't want to suffer, they shouldn't vote for evil socialist scum.

[ckaihatsu]

Merkel's government decided to phase out both nuclear power and coal plants and supported the European Commission's Green Deal plans.[290][291] Many critics blamed the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and closure of nuclear plants for contributing to the 2021–2022 global energy crisis.[291][292][293]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Me ... troversies

---

[German government]

[Merkel]

evil socialist scum.

A member of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU),

[Truth To Power]

---

So? A political opportunist can still be a socialist, especially one raised in East Germany.

[late]

If they don't want to suffer, they shouldn't vote for evil socialist scum.

How do you get those wonderful hallucinations?

[Puffer Fish]

There is no doubt that cet. par., increased population increases per capita production because of specialization. It's just that increased population almost always increases land rent even more than it increases production.

Beyond a certain level, I have doubts that increase of population level in a city really increases specialization or economic efficiency. I would guess that the level at which increasing population within a specific area is no longer beneficial might be around 40,000 to 100,000. It might be a little higher than that for good restaurants, 200,000 to 250,000. I do know it can be even higher to sustain sports teams. It's also possible there could begin to be trade-offs at higher population levels, once things become so crowded that businesses do not have enough space.

Wealthier cities tend to attract more people due to the better paying job opportunities, or city amenities (which can also be a result of wealth), so that could be the main cause of the correlation between wealthier cities having higher population.

It's more complicated but it could also be argued that open space within city areas where these amenities exist is also a form of infrastructure wealth, since these spaces were set aside at an earlier time in history when wealth still existed in that city but land costs were lower.

[Potemkin]

How do you get those wonderful hallucinations?

Anyone who disagrees with @Truth To Power’s geoist beliefs is either evil socialist scum or evil capitalist scum, depending on his mood that day. Angela Merkel grew up in East Germany, so clearly she must be evil socialist scum. After all, her opposition to geoism - the only non-evil political philosophy to have ever existed - can only have been motivated by the malicious spirit of Satan himself. There’s really no other possible explanation, since geoism is so self-evidently and obviously true.

[Puffer Fish]

since geoism is so self-evidently and obviously true.

In my view, geoism may be theoretically correct, but has a couple of complicating issues in trying to implement it, including issues of excessive government control, and then some practical issues.
(That would be a discussion for a different thread)

[ckaihatsu]

So? A political opportunist can still be a socialist, especially one raised in East Germany.

You're all over the place -- time to tighten it up.

Merkel was no socialist -- especially for *fucking up* the country's energy policy. (Now it's Europe-wide, and even a *global* energy crisis.)

[Truth To Power]

Beyond a certain level, I have doubts that increase of population level in a city really increases specialization or economic efficiency. I would guess that the level at which increasing population within a specific area is no longer beneficial might be around 40,000 to 100,000. It might be a little higher than that for good restaurants, 200,000 to 250,000. I do know it can be even higher to sustain sports teams. It's also possible there could begin to be trade-offs at higher population levels, once things become so crowded that businesses do not have enough space.

There doesn't seem to be a limit. Research has found that per capita production keeps increasing with population all the way up to a city like Greater Tokyo, with ~35M. That is the main reason we have such huge and growing cities; it certainly isn't easy keeping them habitable.

Wealthier cities tend to attract more people due to the better paying job opportunities, or city amenities (which can also be a result of wealth), so that could be the main cause of the correlation between wealthier cities having higher population.

The jobs pay better in big cities because the people doing them are more productive.

It's more complicated but it could also be argued that open space within city areas where these amenities exist is also a form of infrastructure wealth, since these spaces were set aside at an earlier time in history when wealth still existed in that city but land costs were lower.

Parks and other open spaces (not ground-level parking lots) certainly improve people's psychological state; Curitiba, in Brazil, is considered the most livable city in Latin America, and it has a huge park almost encircling its downtown. But there is a point of diminishing returns, where too many parks or greenbelt areas makes infrastructure too expensive, transportation too inconvenient, etc.

[Truth To Power]

You're all over the place -- time to tighten it up.

Merkel was no socialist -- especially for *fucking up* the country's energy policy. (Now it's Europe-wide, and even a *global* energy crisis.)

The absurd anti-fossil-fuel hysteria, like anti-nuclear hysteria, is almost exclusively a phenomenon of the left, and it's hard to find a socialist who is not totally on board with it. Some even say it is the conclusive reason we have to renounce capitalism and embrace socialism.

[ckaihatsu]

The absurd anti-fossil-fuel hysteria, like anti-nuclear hysteria, is almost exclusively a phenomenon of the left, and it's hard to find a socialist who is not totally on board with it. Some even say it is the conclusive reason we have to renounce capitalism and embrace socialism.

The far left, including myself, is usually pretty good at critiquing the 'Left', though these days everything's pressed together in the left-wing lately because of having to stop the Trump dynasty.

Spoiler: show

[Pants-of-dog]

Arguing that the movement to mitigate anthropogenic climate change is merely a ruse by socialists is anti-socialism hysteria.

[Truth To Power]

In my view, geoism may be theoretically correct, but has a couple of complicating issues in trying to implement it,

The three main ones are that:
1. People are so accustomed to landowner privilege, they can't understand how much better their lives would be with justice in public revenue and land tenure institutions. This is much like the situation with slavery in the 19th century:

“When the emancipation of the African was spoken of, and when the nation of Britain appeared to be taking into serious consideration the rightfulness of abolishing slavery, what tremendous evils were to follow! Trade was to be ruined, commerce was almost to cease, and manufacturers were to be bankrupt. Worse than all, private property was to be invaded (property in human flesh), the rights of planters sacrificed to the speculative notions of fanatics, and the British government was to commit an act that would forever deprive it of the confidence of British subjects.”
– Patrick Edward Dove, The Theory of Human Progression, 1850

2. The big landowners who are the only people who would be worse off with justice have all the money, and thus the political power.

3. The debt money system requires something to lend for, and against. Without landowner privilege, people would have nothing to go into debt for, bank lending would collapse, the money supply would crash, and a deflationary depression would ensue. So the debt money system would have to be eliminated before landowner privilege.

including issues of excessive government control,

Specifically? Hong Kong was the most geoist place on earth for over 100 years, and often topped lists of the freest and most prosperous economies in the world.

and then some practical issues.

Specifically? Usually these turn out not to be issues.

(That would be a discussion for a different thread)

IMO it is entirely appropriate for this thread, as one cannot understand housing issues without understanding land issues, and every honest person who understand land issues is a geoist.

[Truth To Power]

Arguing that the movement to mitigate anthropogenic climate change is merely a ruse by socialists is anti-socialism hysteria.

I'm not saying it's a ruse by socialists -- for one thing, socialists aren't smart or disciplined enough to pull something like that off. But it is a ruse they have almost all fallen for, hook, line and sinker. I have repeatedly warned people on the progressive left not to get married to anti-CO2 nonscience, as it is certain eventually to be proved objectively false, and when that happens, all their other views will be tarnished with the same wretched humiliation.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Your anti-global warming hysteria and your ad hominems about socialists are not relevant, nor do they refute my point.

[Truth To Power]

The far left, including myself, is usually pretty good at critiquing the 'Left', though these days everything's pressed together in the left-wing lately because of having to stop the Trump dynasty.

TDS. Really, I can't bring myself to see Trump as a serious danger. Rather, the conditions that gave rise to Trump are the danger, and they will not be resolved by defeating Trump. They will just throw up some other demagogue, who may be much smarter and thus more dangerous than Trump. So I decline to make Trump a major focus of my concern for the same reason Ayn Rand said she did not want to be known primarily as an atheist: the opponent is too unworthy.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Your anti-global warming hysteria

You made that up. The hysteria is all on the part of anti-CO2 screamers.

and your ad hominems about socialists are not relevant, nor do they refute my point.

Remember this when anti-CO2 nonscience is definitively proved to be the second biggest scientific hoax in history. It won't be long.