Why do people not understand socialism ? - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15251574
SkilfulDotCom wrote:
Thanks Truth To Power - I am critical of economists so will put it on the reading list.

Wiki: It is a treatise on the questions of why poverty accompanies economic and technological progress and why economies exhibit a tendency toward cyclical boom and bust.



TLDR: TTP says an ideal government administration of all (nationalized) land parcels would be sufficient as the material basis for a sound frictionless equity-markets worldwide economy.
#15251576
ckaihatsu wrote:TLDR: TTP says an ideal government administration of all (nationalized) land parcels would be sufficient as the material basis for a sound frictionless equity-markets worldwide economy.

I would have to spend a week getting my head in the right mindset to understand how TTP's proposition would work.

Frictionless?
#15251578
SkilfulDotCom wrote:
I would have to spend a week getting my head in the right mindset to understand how TTP's proposition would work.

Frictionless?



It's pure corporatist opportunism -- I just use the ten-foot-pole of 'F.I.R.E.' costs to capital ownership, and where-does-value-come-from / why-bother-hiring-employees.

As though only the *historical* land distribution was problematic, whereas everything would be *peachy* once all land issues are neatly administrated out of the way, leaving purely-meritocratic 'equity heaven' for everyone, as I call it.
#15251582
ckaihatsu wrote:It's pure corporatist opportunism -- I just use the ten-foot-pole of 'F.I.R.E.' costs to capital ownership, and where-does-value-come-from / why-bother-hiring-employees.

As though only the *historical* land distribution was problematic, whereas everything would be *peachy* once all land issues are neatly administrated out of the way, leaving purely-meritocratic 'equity heaven' for everyone, as I call it.

My head hurts - time for bed in UK - after 1am.

Goodnight.
#15251599
ckaihatsu wrote:Leave. Politics. Now.

= D

Albert Einstein is supposed to have said, "Any fool can know - the point is to understand".

May be Ernest Kinoy a script writer doing a script about Albert Einstein.

The point being, is that Professors of topics think they understand their subject - many (most/all?) do not.

Case in point, I proved economists wrong i.e. Gini coefficient and other metrics do not measure inequality.

Either wrong or liars - given they refuse to answer an extremely simple question - guess what I went for.

Not necessary to have their superior education - merely spot weak links in their logic and ask simple question:

"How am I wrong?"

Are political professors just as flawed about their ideologies - surely they will know that they have weak links?
#15251695
ckaihatsu wrote:What's your critique of the Gini coefficient, and what do you propose instead?

Where to start, nobody has pointed out facts that I have - not even the great Thomas Piketty - hero of socialists?

I have created a spreadsheet that will measure actual inequality of the entire population - are links allowed?
#15251697
SkilfulDotCom wrote:
Where to start, nobody has pointed out facts that I have - not even the great Thomas Piketty - hero of socialists?

I have created a spreadsheet that will measure actual inequality of the entire population - are links allowed?



'Are links allowed?' -- ?

Usually I have to ask *twice* around here.... (grin)
#15251884
SkilfulDotCom wrote:Thanks Truth To Power - I am critical of economists so will put it on the reading list.

You may like Henry George, then. The late professor Mason Gaffney wrote a book called, "The Corruption of Economics" that describes how modern mainstream neoclassical economics was originally developed as a stratagem to keep George's analysis out of economics. This was done by changing the definitions of technical terms so that George's arguments could no longer even be stated.
#15251938
Truth To Power wrote:You may like Henry George, then. The late professor Mason Gaffney wrote a book called, "The Corruption of Economics" that describes how modern mainstream neoclassical economics was originally developed as a stratagem to keep George's analysis out of economics. This was done by changing the definitions of technical terms so that George's arguments could no longer even be stated.

Thanks again TTP - it seems more what I am looking for - "changing the definitions of technical terms".

This is on the basis of my findings about inequality metrics e.g. the new definition of the word "inequality" itself.

The richest are now hidden with the average of a large group of those of much less income - I'd call that corruption.

The top people at the ONS and UK Statistics Authority are clearly afraid to answer the most simplest of questions.
#15251983
SkilfulDotCom wrote:This is on the basis of my findings about inequality metrics e.g. the new definition of the word "inequality" itself.

The richest are now hidden with the average of a large group of those of much less income - I'd call that corruption.

They use income as the measure of people's wealth to pretend that a burger flipper with no assets is somehow "richer" than a billionaire with no income. Obviously the measure of wealth is wealth, not income. But all the official statistics on economic inequality are based on income.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

No, the reason for the ‘Holodomor’ was to secure […]

I think you're stepping on BlutoSays' bit. x D

https://assangedefense.org/wp-content/upl[…]

The Higgins Trial

It really should have been a judge only trial :h[…]