[Steve_American]

The U technically means "universal," but IMO it can only apply to resident citizens. The community's obligation is to look after its own people and not, e.g., visitors from other countries. OTOH, citizens residing in other countries have placed themselves outside the community's protection, so if they need help to survive, it's clearly up to them to deal with the problem where they are or get back home.

But the problem with UBI is that no matter how much it is, landowners will just take it all.

The idea is that it is supposed to be enough to live on; but the cost of living depends a lot on whether you have to pay private landowners full market value just for permission to live. There is also the problem of people who have to live in supervised or institutionalized situations because they can't be responsible for themselves due to physical, intellectual or psychological disabilities. In such cases, the institution responsible for them would presumably get their UBI.

Depends what you mean by "welfare." Presumably all other income support programs would be abolished.

Unless it is paid for with taxes on economic rent, which, unlike our current taxes, encourage production of goods and services rather than punishing it.

I agree that the current housing price bubble is going to push up all rents. Something needs to be done about this.
. . . However, taxing parts of the economy that have monopoly power likely is not the answer. In this case, they can just raise the rents more to pay the new taxes. What is necessary is to break their monopoly power.

So, if you are right and all the UBI of $15K per adult citizen and say $7K per child is sucked up by the owners or rental properties, then maybe the UBI will not be inflationary. This is because the people who get it are immediately giving it to their landlords. The people don't get a chance to spend it, the landlords do, and they will likely save most of it.

However, not everyone is a renter. Those who are not renters will spend or save it. So, it may still be inflationary.

Your claim also applies to wage increases and all other income increases by the people who live in rented housing.

So, I'm going to assume that the changes in who has power over the Gov. that will allow my program to pass into law will also deal with the problems of monopoly power and of multi- billionaires having so much money that they have no use for. [Now, they can use some small part of it to buy Congress and the Gov., but I just assumed that they will no longer be allowed to do that. So, for example, I have proposed a 99% (or 999%) tax on all PAC campaign donations and independent political ads, etc.]
. . . I'm not sure how to break the monopoly power of landlords, but it will also have been done somehow.
. . . This means I'm assuming that that the landlords can't raise their rents to suck-up all of the UBI.
. . . If this assumption is true, then I again claim that a "living UBI" will cause certainly inflation. And that taxing the rich to 'pay for it' will not help, because it is the masses who are spending the money that the Gov. took from the rich, who would have otherwise put it in their savings and would not have spent it.**

PS (added with edit very soon). Sir, it appears you are making the mistake that all MS Econ. theories make of assuming that money is the same as things. So, they assume that a nation can quickly change from exporting fruit to exporting wine (when it has fruit trees and no grape vines at the moment). Here you are assuming the the rich will spend the same percentage of their income as a the very poor. So, taxing the rich has the same size effect (only the opposite direction) as giving the resulting money to the poor and everyone else.
.

. ** . Note that MS Econ. theories falsely assume that, or prove that, money being saved is used by banks to make loans that are then spent on investments or just spent. This is not true because banks don't lend the deposits, they create new money with every loan. IIRC, this includes 'loans' made by people using their credit cards.

[Truth To Power]

1] People will only accept one's assertions of facts as real facts, if they respect you. In a court of law experts are allowed to make such assertions.

No, every witness is allowed to make assertions in a court of law, it's called, "giving evidence." Expert testimony is only to ensure that specific witnesses are qualified to give evidence on certain matters. There are also rules that disallow giving certain kinds of evidence, like hearsay, not because it isn't true, but because it is considered too susceptible to witness error and falsification.

2] IMHO, rather little of what you assert without other evidence are facts. For example, you have asserted that NASA's data on ACC, solar output, heat coming up from the earth, etc. are 'false data'.

Oh, really? Where did I do that? AFAIK, the only NASA data I have said are false are the historical temperature data that have been systematically altered, often decades after the fact, to support the hypothesis that CO2 governs global temperature.

3] What I say about MS Econ. theories and MMT are facts to the best of my knowledge. IMO, all who took econ. classes were brainwashed to believe that false assumptions can be assumed to be true in econ. proofs. Therefore, all that they learned is BS.

I wouldn't say all. But a lot, certainly.

4] I have explained this proof at least 3 times.
. . . a] Before the transactions, person-A has $1K and person-B has a $1K bond. Both of them think they have money.

Then person B thinks wrong, because bonds are not generally accepted in exchange and are therefore not money.

. . . b] Person-A looses $1K in taxes, which the Gov. now has.

Taxes transfer purchasing power from the private to the public sector. Right.

. . . c] The Gov. redeems the bond that person-B had and gives him/her the $1K.
. . . d] Now after the transactions, person-B has $1K and person-A has nothing.

B has liquidated an asset, A has removed a tax liability.

Now, only one of them thinks he/she has money.

And unlike the bondholder B you mentioned above, they are objectively correct.

Worse, person-A would have spent the $1K, but person-B very likely will not spend much of the $1K, saving it in someway instead.

You don't know what B will do with it any more than you know what A would do with it. He must have had some reason for liquidating the bond. If he invests the money productively, it will likely increase economic activity more than if A spent it on video games and lottery tickets.

Taxes suck money out of the economy.

No they don't. They just transfer purchasing power from the private to the public sector. Repaying private commercial bank loan principal sucks money out of the economy. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.

Gov. spending puts it back.

No it doesn't. It just prioritizes spending for public purposes over private ones.

Deficit spending puts dollars into the economy.

Only if the borrowed money is issued by either government itself through the Mint or Treasury, by the central bank, or by private commercial banks in return for loan (bond) assets. If it is borrowed from private savers, it just transfers that purchasing power from them to the government -- but instead of the unrequited wealth transfer of taxation, the bond buyer gets an equivalent asset in return. Interest-bearing government debt is just a way to give the rich unearned interest income instead of asking them to help fund government by paying more taxes.

They become in the form of a bond if bonds are sold to the public.

Bonds are not money, and selling them to the public transfers the purchase price to government, taking it out of the private economy.

However, this is after the are used to buy something twice, at least.

Huh? Buy what? How so?

A Gov. surplus, by definition, therefore, is sucking dollars out of the economy and *not* spending it back into the economy.

That depends on how the surplus happens. If bonds are redeemed in newly issued debt-free fiat currency, then the erstwhile bondholders get that purchasing power to spend or invest: it is injected into the private economy. There is a "liability" associated with creating a cash asset by issuing new currency debt-free, but it is only an accounting convention, not a debt that has to be paid to anyone.

With a little thought, you should have seen that this is true. Too bad you didn't think before you answered.

[Truth To Power]

I agree that the current housing price bubble is going to push up all rents. Something needs to be done about this.

As long as it isn't justice...?

. . . However, taxing parts of the economy that have monopoly power likely is not the answer.

It is, because the Law of Rent and the Henry George Theorem show that no other solution can possibly work.

In this case, they can just raise the rents more to pay the new taxes.

They can't. If they could, why would they wait for the new taxes? The fact that a tax that bears on land -- or anything else in fixed supply -- cannot be passed on to tenants or anyone else is one of the most firmly established facts in all of economics.

What is necessary is to break their monopoly power.

Land is always inherently a monopoly because every parcel is unique and the supply cannot be increased. What is necessary, therefore, is to remove the owner's legal entitlement to deprive everyone else of it without making just compensation.

So, if you are right and all the UBI of $15K per adult citizen and say $7K per child is sucked up by the owners or rental properties, then maybe the UBI will not be inflationary.

Whether it is inflationary depends on where the money comes from.

This is because the people who get it are immediately giving it to their landlords. The people don't get a chance to spend it, the landlords do, and they will likely save most of it.

However, not everyone is a renter. Those who are not renters will spend or save it. So, it may still be inflationary.

Resident owners are still landowners. As UBI raises land rents, it will also raise land prices, so owners will also be able to pocket the (future) UBI when they sell.

Your claim also applies to wage increases and all other income increases by the people who live in rented housing.

Right: landowners are legally entitled to charge everyone else full market value for permission to access economic opportunity, whether that opportunity is created by nature, the community, or government programs like UBI or a JGP.

So, I'm going to assume that the changes in who has power over the Gov. that will allow my program to pass into law will also deal with the problems of monopoly power and of multi- billionaires having so much money that they have no use for.

Not a very plausible assumption IMO. There is a reason the corporate-owned media are allowed to mention UBI and the MMT JGP but not landowner privilege.

There is one use for money that the super-duper uber-rich always have: bidding up the prices of each other's rent collection privileges.

[Now, they can use some small part of it to buy Congress and the Gov., but I just assumed that they will no longer be allowed to do that. So, for example, I have proposed a 99% (or 999%) tax on all PAC campaign donations and independent political ads, etc.]

Not very plausible.

. . . I'm not sure how to break the monopoly power of landlords, but it will also have been done somehow.

If they have to repay the location subsidy they get from the community, and people's individual liberty rights to use what nature provided for all are restored, landlords' power will be broken because they will have to attract tenants to avoid losing money.

. . . This means I'm assuming that that the landlords can't raise their rents to suck-up all of the UBI.

Landlords have no power to raise rents. The laws of economics do it for them.

. . . If this assumption is true, then I again claim that a "living UBI" will cause certainly inflation. And that taxing the rich to 'pay for it' will not help, because it is the masses who are spending the money that the Gov. took from the rich, who would have otherwise put it in their savings and would not have spent it.**

The rich spend the money bidding up the prices of each other's privileges.

PS (added with edit very soon). Sir, it appears you are making the mistake that all MS Econ. theories make of assuming that money is the same as things.

Money is only the same as things that are generally accepted in exchange, because that is what money is.

So, they assume that a nation can quickly change from exporting fruit to exporting wine (when it has fruit trees and no grape vines at the moment).

I don't see how that is relevant.

Here you are assuming the the rich will spend the same percentage of their income as a the very poor.

No, I am observing that calling an increase in asset prices "a booming market" but an increase in consumer prices and workers' wages "inflation" is inaccurate and dishonest.

So, taxing the rich has the same size effect (only the opposite direction) as giving the resulting money to the poor and everyone else.

Too much is left unspecified in that formulation. The effects of taxes depend on what is taxed, and how.

. ** . Note that MS Econ. theories falsely assume that, or prove that, money being saved is used by banks to make loans that are then spent on investments or just spent. This is not true because banks don't lend the deposits, they create new money with every loan. IIRC, this includes 'loans' made by people using their credit cards.

Yes, the cardholder's new debt is an asset of the card issuer that is balanced by a newly created debt money liability, same as a bank loan.

[late]

Ignoring the crazy for a moment, this isn't hard.

It's a supply and demand issue, increase the supply and landlords will suddenly find themselves fighting for tenants...

[Steve_American]

@Truth To Power,
Sir,
Sorry I brought up courts of law.
We are not in a court of law here. Here when people ask for evidence to back-up your assertions of facts, they are not asking you to re-assert them. They want you to find some other source and link to it or quote it. Sometimes you can just provide a proof like I did above for how a surplus sucks dollars out of the economy. The lurkers can grok it, even though you didn't.

Otherwise, almost all your 2 replies are not worth responding to.

The lurkers may see that Person-B thinks she has money because US bonds are the most liquid asset in the world. They are easy to sell at no loss of value. There are more buyers than sellers.
Your converting my word "money" into "purchasing power" is without value.
In the example, person-A's tax liability was a result of a tax increase to create the surplus. The only reason he had it was that the Gov. wanted a surplus.
Yes, there are other ways for the Gov. to create a surplus, this is the most clear way to see the effects.
I assert that person-B does think she has money. My assertion is as good evidence as is your assertions that she doesn't think she has money. You just have your own definition of 'money', she may disagree with you. She may feel very safe knowing she has all that money saved for a rainy day. I certainly do disagree with you.

I asserted that the Gov. deficit spending will on average be spent twice before it reaches the hands of someone who saves it. Do you disagree? All the old people get Soc. Sec. dollars and they spend them. Many of those $$ are spent or used to pay wages which are then spent. Etc. Etc.
----------

If all landlords have a new expense in the form on a large new tax, then the 'market rent' will be increased to cover that expense. The landlords will not just choose to loose money, when *ALL* other landlords are in the same situation. Your assertions are just plain wrong IF WE ARE ASSUMING THAT LANDLORDS HAVE MONOLOPY POWER. Which *you* are assuming in all of your rants on this subject.

My assumption that the whole situation has been changed so that my 2 programs become laws, is necessary to look at the effects of the 2 laws on the economy.
. . . If the rich still control the Gov. then my MMT-JGP will not have passed. And, your large tax on landlords will not have passed, either. A UBI may have passed, but your tax will not have been passed into law. So, what is to stop the landlords from raising rents, when all other landlords are paying the same new tax?
.

[Steve_American]

Ignoring the crazy for a moment, this isn't hard.

It's a supply and demand issue, increase the supply and landlords will suddenly find themselves fighting for tenants...

Sir, the Gov. tried that back in the late 60s and early 70s. It created massive newly built slums, with crime so high the police only went there in dozens. It isn't easy to do, in the central city or out in the suburbs.

I just saw a report the the citizens of Berlin, Germany just voted on and passed a non-binding plan to use eminent domain to buy all the rental units owned by someone with 1000+ units and then to rent them out as affordable housing. This is a lot easier to do. And either way the landlords will oppose the plan because they don't want the competition or to keep their units.

PS, added with edit very soon.
Sir, the reason person-B cashed in her bond is because it came due. She had no choice, but she could buy a new (or 'used') bond from some source.
.

[late]

Sir, the Gov. tried that back in the late 60s and early 70s. It created massive newly built slums

Could you do me a favor and kill the sir? TIA..

You do know the world has learned some things over the last half century??

The first step is changing zoning.

[late]

Otherwise, almost all your 2 replies are not worth responding to.

There is a type of libertarian that has screwy ideas about economics. Like this guy, they talk about land a lot.

I can't tell you much about it because you don't see it much, and no one with common sense would buy into it. But man oh man, are you right about that.

[Steve_American]

@Truth To Power,

I wrote: Taxes suck money out of the economy.

ToP wrote: No they don't. They just transfer purchasing power from the private to the public sector. Repaying private commercial bank loan principal sucks money out of the economy. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.

Taxes transfer purchasing power from the private to the public sector by sucking money out of the economy.
. . . Why can't he see this?

I had also wrote: Gov. spending puts it (money) back [into the economy].

ToP replied: No it doesn't. It just prioritizes spending for public purposes over private ones.

Gov. spending puts the money back into the economy. It (Gov. spending) does this by causing transactions where the Gov. trades money for the labor of Gov. workers or for something made by some private comp., etc.
. . . Why can't he see this?

Both statements seem self-evident to me and to Dr. Stephanie Kelton, a very well known MMTer. She is my source.
.

[Truth To Power]

Ignoring the crazy for a moment, this isn't hard.

I guess that must be why you, like 99% of people, do not understand it.

It's a supply and demand issue, increase the supply

It is impossible to increase (or reduce) the supply of land. That is very much the point.

and landlords will suddenly find themselves fighting for tenants...

If landlords can make money while holding land vacant -- which they can, as long as the tax cost is less than the expected land appreciation -- why would they bother with troublesome tenants? It's only because they have to make the interest payments on their mortgages that they want tenants at all.

[Truth To Power]

Taxes transfer purchasing power from the private to the public sector by [b]sucking money out of the economy.
. . . Why can't he see this?

Like most MMT advocates, you have allowed yourself to be hypnotized by an accounting sleight-of-hand. Money government spends goes into the economy just as much as money that private citizens spend. It's just spent on different things. The only way taxes can "suck money out of the economy" is if the national government deletes the reserves it receives from banks when people pay their taxes and doesn't replace them, or if the tax revenue is spent on imports, thus exiting the domestic economy.

Gov. spending puts the money back into the economy. It (Gov. spending) does this by causing transactions where the Gov. trades money for the labor of Gov. workers or for something made by some private comp., etc.
. . . Why can't he see this?

?? How is that different from what I said?

Both statements seem self-evident to me and to Dr. Stephanie Kelton, a very well known MMTer. She is my source.

I couldn't care less who your source is. MMT is generally accurate as a description of how the national governments of many advanced capitalist countries arrange their money and taxation, but it conflates an accounting sleight-of-hand with economic reality, with potentially very harmful consequences.

[Truth To Power]

Here when people ask for evidence to back-up your assertions of facts, they are not asking you to re-assert them. They want you to find some other source and link to it or quote it.

Almost everything I assert is either self-evident and indisputable fact or the inescapable logical implication thereof. What sort of "evidence" could convince you that land was already here, ready to use, before any human being, let alone landowner? Which of the logical implications of that fact do you dispute?

Sometimes you can just provide a proof like I did above for how a surplus sucks dollars out of the economy. The lurkers can grok it, even though you didn't.

I showed it depended on how the surplus was obtained.

Otherwise, almost all your 2 replies are not worth responding to.

More accurately, you can't refute a single sentence of them.

The lurkers may see that Person-B thinks she has money because US bonds are the most liquid asset in the world.

But they aren't. You can't spend them. You have to liquidate them first.

They are easy to sell at no loss of value.

False. If interest rates rise, they lose value.

There are more buyers than sellers.

That is true of pretty much any product.

You are simply incorrect that a US government bond is money.

Your converting my word "money" into "purchasing power" is without value.

Wrong. I chose that term deliberately to distinguish it from money because there is not a 1:1 correspondence between them.

In the example, person-A's tax liability was a result of a tax increase to create the surplus.

No, there was no tax increase, just a liability, and any assumed surplus or deficit had nothing to do with it. All taxes are to transfer purchasing power from the private to the public sector.

The only reason he had it was that the Gov. wanted a surplus.

No, the government wanted to reduce his purchasing power so that its spending would not be inflationary.

Yes, there are other ways for the Gov. to create a surplus, this is the most clear way to see the effects.

When you pretend there is no other way for government to have a surplus, you are creating a false impression regarding a crucial fact.

I assert that person-B does think she has money.

But she is wrong.

My assertion is as good evidence as is your assertions that she doesn't think she has money.

I offered no opinion as to what she thinks, other than that if she thinks her bond is money, she is wrong.

You just have your own definition of 'money', she may disagree with you.

It is not "my own" definition, it is the correct definition.

She may feel very safe knowing she has all that money saved for a rainy day.

Equivocation fallacy.

I certainly do disagree with you.

And you are as wrong as she is.

I asserted that the Gov. deficit spending will on average be spent twice before it reaches the hands of someone who saves it. Do you disagree?

I see no evidence for such an assertion, and it seems a rather low estimate.

All the old people get Soc. Sec. dollars and they spend them. Many of those $$ are spent or used to pay wages which are then spent. Etc. Etc.

Are you talking about velocity? That depends on what the money is created for, by whom, how, and who gets it first.

If all landlords have a new expense in the form on a large new tax, then the 'market rent' will be increased to cover that expense.

No it won't. Google "Law of Rent" and start reading. A tax on an item in fixed supply cannot, repeat, CANNOT be passed on to anyone else. If landlords could increase rents, why don't they do it now, without the tax?

The landlords will not just choose to loose money, when *ALL* other landlords are in the same situation.

They would not have a choice, because all other landlords are NOT in the same situation: the effect of the tax depends on how well the owner is already utilizing the advantages of his location. Owners who are not using the land productively would have to either start using it productively, sell it to someone who would, or suffer guaranteed losses by holding onto the land. Because it forces landlords to either attract more tenants or lose money, a tax on land rent would increase the supply and therefore REDUCE the price of accommodation, just as it has done everywhere it has ever been tried.

Your assertions are just plain wrong IF WE ARE ASSUMING THAT LANDLORDS HAVE MONOLOPY POWER. Which *you* are assuming in all of your rants on this subject.

Landowners definitely have monopoly power because every land parcel is unique, and the supply cannot be increased. But it is a special kind of monopoly where supply cannot be reduced either. That is the crucial fact whose implications you cannot understand.

My assumption that the whole situation has been changed so that my 2 programs become laws, is necessary to look at the effects of the 2 laws on the economy.

Same with any other proposed reform.

. . . If the rich still control the Gov. then my MMT-JGP will not have passed. And, your large tax on landlords will not have passed, either. A UBI may have passed, but your tax will not have been passed into law. So, what is to stop the landlords from raising rents, when all other landlords are paying the same new tax?

People won't pay it because unlike other monopolized goods, the supply of land cannot be reduced. As they cannot either reduce supply or increase demand, landowners are therefore completely powerless to increase the price. If they try, tenants will just leave, and deal with landlords who have a better understanding of economics.

[Truth To Power]

There is a type of libertarian that has screwy ideas about economics. Like this guy, they talk about land a lot.

Talking about land a lot is the best evidence that one understands some economics, as its value proves.

I can't tell you much about it because you don't see it much,

No, because you don't know anything about it and don't want to.

and no one with common sense would buy into it.

I guess that must be why dozens of eminent Western economists including four (count 'em, four) Nobel laureates bought into it enough to put their names to this:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_let ... chev_(1990)

It talks a lot about land. In fact, it is ALL about land. And history has proved them absolutely right: Russia ignored their advice, privatized the land, and immediately became a stagnant fascist plutocracy, while China has soared from strength to strength by keeping all land in public ownership.

[Steve_American]

Like most MMT advocates, you have allowed yourself to be hypnotized by an accounting sleight-of-hand. Money government spends goes into the economy just as much as money that private citizens spend. It's just spent on different things. The only way taxes can "suck money out of the economy" is if the national government deletes the reserves it receives from banks when people pay their taxes and doesn't replace them, or if the tax revenue is spent on imports, thus exiting the domestic economy.

?? How is that different from what I said?

I couldn't care less who your source is. MMT is generally accurate as a description of how the national governments of many advanced capitalist countries arrange their money and taxation, but it conflates an accounting sleight-of-hand with economic reality, with potentially very harmful consequences.

Oh, I now see our problem.

I left out a word when I wrote:
"Taxes transfer purchasing power from the private to the public sector by sucking money out of the [private] economy." I put it back.

So, I meant to separate the Gov. from the economy, and you think there is just 1 economy that includes both. For MMTers, they speak of 3 sectors of the economy; they are 1] the Gov. sector (incl. all levels), 2] the private sector, and 3] the foreign sector. Based on your reply there, you have just 2 sectors; they are 1] the nation, and 2] the rest of the world.
. . . Actually, I'm not sure why MMTers don't leave the state and local govs. in the private sector, because they also are users of the money issued by the national Gov.
. . . MMTers have 3 sectors because they want to show how a national Gov. deficit is a private sector surplus, or a Gov. surplus in a private deficit. Your way of seeing things hides this very important fact.
. . . You didn't spell out what you are referring to in your last sentence, so maybe you like hiding the fact that a Gov. surplus is by accounting definition a private deficit, (if the foreign sector is very small). Is this the sleight-of-hand you're referring to?
.

[Steve_American]

Almost everything I assert is either self-evident and indisputable fact or the inescapable logical implication thereof. What sort of "evidence" could convince you that land was already here, ready to use, before any human being, let alone landowner? Which of the logical implications of that fact do you dispute?

I showed it depended on how the surplus was obtained.

More accurately, you can't refute a single sentence of them.

But they aren't. You can't spend them. You have to liquidate them first.

False. If interest rates rise, they lose value.

That is true of pretty much any product.

You are simply incorrect that a US government bond is money.

Wrong. I chose that term deliberately to distinguish it from money because there is not a 1:1 correspondence between them.

No, there was no tax increase, just a liability, and any assumed surplus or deficit had nothing to do with it. All taxes are to transfer purchasing power from the private to the public sector.

No, the government wanted to reduce his purchasing power so that its spending would not be inflationary.

When you pretend there is no other way for government to have a surplus, you are creating a false impression regarding a crucial fact.

But she is wrong.

I offered no opinion as to what she thinks, other than that if she thinks her bond is money, she is wrong.

It is not "my own" definition, it is the correct definition.

Equivocation fallacy.

And you are as wrong as she is.

I see no evidence for such an assertion, and it seems a rather low estimate.

Are you talking about velocity? That depends on what the money is created for, by whom, how, and who gets it first.

No it won't. Google "Law of Rent" and start reading. A tax on an item in fixed supply cannot, repeat, CANNOT be passed on to anyone else. If landlords could increase rents, why don't they do it now, without the tax?

They would not have a choice, because all other landlords are NOT in the same situation: the effect of the tax depends on how well the owner is already utilizing the advantages of his location. Owners who are not using the land productively would have to either start using it productively, sell it to someone who would, or suffer guaranteed losses by holding onto the land. Because it forces landlords to either attract more tenants or lose money, a tax on land rent would increase the supply and therefore REDUCE the price of accommodation, just as it has done everywhere it has ever been tried.

Landowners definitely have monopoly power because every land parcel is unique, and the supply cannot be increased. But it is a special kind of monopoly where supply cannot be reduced either. That is the crucial fact whose implications you cannot understand.

Same with any other proposed reform.

People won't pay it because unlike other monopolized goods, the supply of land cannot be reduced. As they cannot either reduce supply or increase demand, landowners are therefore completely powerless to increase the price. If they try, tenants will just leave, and deal with landlords who have a better understanding of economics.

===============================================================
Starting at the bottom and working up ---
OK, I now see where we are looking at the problem from different POVs.
. . . You seem to mostly see landlords are owners of farm land, woods, grassland, etc; while I was mostly seeing the landlords who own rental units. I did this because the receivers of a UBI don't want to rent a 20' by 20' camping site, they want to rent an apartment or house to put their furniture in. I really don't see how you can go on about a UBI and empty land in the same paragraph. Houses and apts. can be increased in number (and are every day in the US), and empty land is useless to almost every person who gets the UBI.

The market value of the rents of apts. & houses for rent depends on 2 main factors. 1] the expenses of the owner and 2] the amount the renter can afford to pay. If you impose a new tax on the owners of rental units and give the renters a UBI payment, then both 1] & 2] are increased, so I predict that the rents demanded will increase.
. . . The owners of rental units can't raise their rents higher 'now' because the renters can't pay more according to the market. However, as the real estate market drives up the value of housing units and many of their owners have higher costs because of the mortgages they took out to buy them, rents are going up now. They can't go too high because the renters can't afford to pay too much more.

Again, empty land is useless to the people who want to rent an apt. to put their furniture in.
. . . So, again you and I were talking past each other because we had different definitions of "landlord".

I think that this is also true on our definitions of "money". For you bonds are not money, while MMTers see them as interest bearing money. Does money stop being money when it is deposited into a savings account?
. . . Besides which ME Econ/ theory does see bonds as a sort of money in some cases, specifically in the 80s and 90s as huge deficits were rung up, MS Econ. was pointing out that inflation is a result of "Too much money, chasing too few goods"; but at that time there was no QE so the Fed. was not buying a lot of bonds. So, ME economists were seeing the bonds as being a sort of money in that case.
. . . BTW, both euros and dollars are money, and yet when you change either into the other you loose value (because there are fees). You say that a bond looses value when it is converted into cash dollars only if the interest rate had increased, while I would claim that the value of a bond changes every time (second) the interest rate changes, and it doesn't matter if it is sold or held. This is the same as land or land with a house on it. The value changes all the time as prices of comparable things change, mostly increase.
. . . I'm not aware of fees being charged when bonds change hands, but you didn't claim there are such fees. In any case, if fees are charged to convert 2 forms of money (euros & $$), then the fact that fees are charged to convert bonds into cash $$ is not proof that bonds are not 'money'.

Who's correct definition on 'money' are you using? Who gets to decide the 'correct' definition?
. . . MMTers say that they are making a paradigm shift. This means they are allowed to use different definitions for words. This is an example.
. . . So, both definitions are "correct" when used on one side (i.e., the correct side) of the paradigms in economics. There is an obvious problem when 2 people are talking from opposite sides of the paradigm shift. This is our problem here. I don't know how to resolve this. However, I already found a counter example for your 'proof' that bonds are not 'money'. And, I claimed that the value of bonds changes all the time, but inflation changes the value of money also in some, but not all, contexts. So, just because bonds can change in value in some contexts is not proof that they are not money. [Sorry for the double negative.]

Again, what matters is the assumed fact, that the Gov. has a surplus. It really doesn't matter how the surplus came about. I just used the example that person-A's taxes had been increased (the rate) as a result of the Gov. wanting to have a surplus. This makes it clear that the money to pay off the bond that person-B owned when it came due came from person-A as a result of a decision of the Gov.
. . . Again, I assert, that it doesn't matter how the Gov. sector's surplus came about. The macro effect is the same. Money is being removed from the private sector by taxes, and money is being put back when the Gov. spends. If the net of these 2 operations is a Gov. deficit, then the private sector has a surplus (which it likes), if the Gov. has a surplus, then the private sector has a deficit, and this means there is less buying of things, and so less income going to the sellers, and so the GDP drops. If this drop is large enough and lasts for 2 quarters (enough time), we call that a recession or depression.

. . . To the lurkers, I could assume things like MS Econ. does to make this clearer. I could assume that person-A is all those who's taxes had been increased and person-B is all those who hold bonds; the 2 groups being converted into 1 person each to 'simplify' the complicated situation. MS Econ. does this when it makes all people into 1 person and all corps, into 1 corp. [Who owns the corp. is not clear in ME Econ. theory. If the 1 person owns it then the situation has been over simplified because the owner could just take from her corp. and would not need to sell things to herself. This assumption is an example of a false assumption that MS Econ. uses to prove conclusions are true when they are false in reality.]
.

[Truth To Power]

Oh, I now see our problem.

I left out a word when I wrote:
"Taxes transfer purchasing power from the private to the public sector by sucking money out of the [private] economy." I put it back.

OK.

So, I meant to separate the Gov. from the economy, and you think there is just 1 economy that includes both.

And I am correct.

For MMTers, they speak of 3 sectors of the economy; they are 1] the Gov. sector (incl. all levels), 2] the private sector, and 3] the foreign sector.

That misses the difference between the monetary sovereign national government and junior governments that cannot issue money.

Based on your reply there, you have just 2 sectors; they are 1] the nation, and 2] the rest of the world.

Those are the two basic divisions, because the national economy all uses the same money, is subject to the same regulations and tax laws, etc.

. . . Actually, I'm not sure why MMTers don't leave the state and local govs. in the private sector, because they also are users of the money issued by the national Gov.

Agreed. Not distinguishing between them is an error.

. . . MMTers have 3 sectors because they want to show how a national Gov. deficit is a private sector surplus, or a Gov. surplus in a private deficit. Your way of seeing things hides this very important fact.

It's important, but IMO not as important as MMTers think it is. Governments also produce, consume and invest in things, just generally different things from the ones firms and households produce, consume and invest in.

. . . You didn't spell out what you are referring to in your last sentence, so maybe you like hiding the fact that a Gov. surplus is by accounting definition a private deficit, (if the foreign sector is very small).

Having interpreted many corporate financial statements and edited an accounting textbook as part of my profession, I'm not hypnotized by accounting definitions. Unlike many MMTers, I don't think the private sector's desire for safe investment vehicles that yield income without contributing to production is a persuasive reason for governments to issue debt.

Is this the sleight-of-hand you're referring to?

No, the sleight-of-hand is the deletion of money the national government receives in taxes, and its replacement by new money spent into circulation.

[Truth To Power]

. . . You seem to mostly see landlords are owners of farm land, woods, grassland, etc; while I was mostly seeing the landlords who own rental units.

No, landlords are people who have tenants. Landowners are people who own land. Two different things.

I did this because the receivers of a UBI don't want to rent a 20' by 20' camping site, they want to rent an apartment or house to put their furniture in.

But that apartment or house has to be built at a location, that location is land, and its publicly created advantages are a large part of the cost of rent.

I really don't see how you can go on about a UBI and empty land in the same paragraph. Houses and apts. can be increased in number (and are every day in the US), and empty land is useless to almost every person who gets the UBI.

That is very much the point. Land kept vacant for speculation is useless -- to everyone but the owner. In fact, it greatly increases the cost of rent and infrastructure. If every owner of residential land had to either attract the maximum permitted number of tenants or lose money, there would be ample affordable rental accommodation available, and a double-digit vacancy rate to keep it that way.

The market value of the rents of apts. & houses for rent depends on 2 main factors. 1] the expenses of the owner and 2] the amount the renter can afford to pay.

No it does not. The owner's expenses are completely irrelevant. The two factors that determine the market rent of accommodation are supply and demand.

If you impose a new tax on the owners of rental units

I have not proposed any such thing. A tax on land value is completely unaffected by the presence, number and condition of rental units. That is very much the point. You just don't understand its implications.

and give the renters a UBI payment, then both 1] & 2] are increased, so I predict that the rents demanded will increase.

UBI creates an additional advantage of location (you have to live near shopping to spend it conveniently), so it will increase residential rents. Imposing a tax on rental units would increase rents because owners would reduce supply. Imposing a tax on land cannot increase rents because owners cannot affect supply.

. . . The owners of rental units can't raise their rents higher 'now' because the renters can't pay more according to the market.

No. Almost all renters can pay more. They just don't have to because some other landlord is willing to rent to them at the market rent, as he has mortgage interest to pay every month. But THE HIGHER THE TAX ON LAND, THE MORE DESPERATE LANDOWNERS WILL BE FOR TENANTS TO HELP THEM PAY IT whether they also have mortgages to pay or not.

However, as the real estate market drives up the value of housing units and many of their owners have higher costs because of the mortgages they took out to buy them, rents are going up now. They can't go too high because the renters can't afford to pay too much more.

Rents are going up because vast amounts of money have been added to the money supply.

Again, empty land is useless to the people who want to rent an apt. to put their furniture in.
. . . So, again you and I were talking past each other because we had different definitions of "landlord".

No, we are talking past each other because you do not understand what fixed supply means.

I think that this is also true on our definitions of "money". For you bonds are not money, while MMTers see them as interest bearing money.

They are just incorrect.

Does money stop being money when it is deposited into a savings account?

Money in a savings account can be spent, is generally accepted in exchange, and it does not go up or down in value when interest rates change.

. . . Besides which ME Econ/ theory does see bonds as a sort of money in some cases, specifically in the 80s and 90s as huge deficits were rung up, MS Econ. was pointing out that inflation is a result of "Too much money, chasing too few goods"; but at that time there was no QE so the Fed. was not buying a lot of bonds. So, ME economists were seeing the bonds as being a sort of money in that case.

Because they didn't understand that almost all the money we use consists of outstanding private commercial bank loan principal, not government- or central-bank-issued fiat money or debt instruments.

. . . BTW, both euros and dollars are money, and yet when you change either into the other you loose value (because there are fees).

Equivocation fallacy. You have to pay a fee. The money does not lose value.

You say that a bond looses value when it is converted into cash dollars only if the interest rate had increased, while I would claim that the value of a bond changes every time (second) the interest rate changes, and it doesn't matter if it is sold or held.

No, I agree with you: the bond changes value inversely with interest rate changes whether it is sold or not. That makes it not money.

This is the same as land or land with a house on it. The value changes all the time as prices of comparable things change, mostly increase.

That is completely different. A bond is an obligation, real estate is a physical object.

. . . I'm not aware of fees being charged when bonds change hands, but you didn't claim there are such fees. In any case, if fees are charged to convert 2 forms of money (euros & $$), then the fact that fees are charged to convert bonds into cash $$ is not proof that bonds are not 'money'.

Right: it's the fact that you cannot spend bonds that makes them not money.

Who's correct definition on 'money' are you using? Who gets to decide the 'correct' definition?

The correct definitions of words are determined by expert usage.

. . . MMTers say that they are making a paradigm shift. This means they are allowed to use different definitions for words. This is an example.

Scientists are not allowed to just make up new definitions whenever they feel like engaging in a question begging fallacy. That is how modern mainstream neoclassical economics went so far wrong. In a genuine empirical science, definitions must correspond to the particulars of interest in objective physical reality. I.e., they must identify categories or classes of things, qualities, relationships, etc. that are functionally equivalent in the real world.

. . . So, both definitions are "correct" when used on one side (i.e., the correct side) of the paradigms in economics.

In a genuine empirical science, there is only one correct definition for each technical term.

However, I already found a counter example for your 'proof' that bonds are not 'money'.

No you didn't. You can't spend a bond at the grocery store. Therefore, bonds are not money.

And, I claimed that the value of bonds changes all the time, but inflation changes the value of money also in some, but not all, contexts.

Equivocation fallacy. Inflation does not change the value of money because value is measured in money. Inflation changes the value of everything else.

So, just because bonds can change in value in some contexts is not proof that they are not money. [Sorry for the double negative.]

See above.

Again, what matters is the assumed fact, that the Gov. has a surplus. It really doesn't matter how the surplus came about. I just used the example that person-A's taxes had been increased (the rate) as a result of the Gov. wanting to have a surplus. This makes it clear that the money to pay off the bond that person-B owned when it came due came from person-A as a result of a decision of the Gov.

Huh? MMT says the money to redeem the bond is created de novo, and the tax payment deleted from the system. But either way, it doesn't change what money is.

. . . Again, I assert, that it doesn't matter how the Gov. sector's surplus came about. The macro effect is the same. Money is being removed from the private sector by taxes, and money is being put back when the Gov. spends.

No, there is a macro difference between a surplus obtained by deleting money and one obtained by redeeming bonds in cash. The former reduces the money supply, the latter does not.

If the net of these 2 operations is a Gov. deficit, then the private sector has a surplus (which it likes), if the Gov. has a surplus, then the private sector has a deficit, and this means there is less buying of things, and so less income going to the sellers, and so the GDP drops.

Two corrections to make there: paying off bondholders in cash puts money into the private sector; and government purchases add to GDP just as much as private ones.

[Steve_American]

No, landlords are people who have tenants. Landowners are people who own land. Two different things.

But that apartment or house has to be built at a location, that location is land, and its publicly created advantages are a large part of the cost of rent.

That is very much the point. Land kept vacant for speculation is useless -- to everyone but the owner. In fact, it greatly increases the cost of rent and infrastructure. If every owner of residential land had to either attract the maximum permitted number of tenants or lose money, there would be ample affordable rental accommodation available, and a double-digit vacancy rate to keep it that way.

No it does not. The owner's expenses are completely irrelevant. The two factors that determine the market rent of accommodation are supply and demand.

I have not proposed any such thing. A tax on land value is completely unaffected by the presence, number and condition of rental units. That is very much the point. You just don't understand its implications.

UBI creates an additional advantage of location (you have to live near shopping to spend it conveniently), so it will increase residential rents. Imposing a tax on rental units would increase rents because owners would reduce supply. Imposing a tax on land cannot increase rents because owners cannot affect supply.

No. Almost all renters can pay more. They just don't have to because some other landlord is willing to rent to them at the market rent, as he has mortgage interest to pay every month. But THE HIGHER THE TAX ON LAND, THE MORE DESPERATE LANDOWNERS WILL BE FOR TENANTS TO HELP THEM PAY IT whether they also have mortgages to pay or not.

Rents are going up because vast amounts of money have been added to the money supply.

No, we are talking past each other because you do not understand what fixed supply means.

They are just incorrect.

Money in a savings account can be spent, is generally accepted in exchange, and it does not go up or down in value when interest rates change.

Because they didn't understand that almost all the money we use consists of outstanding private commercial bank loan principal, not government- or central-bank-issued fiat money or debt instruments.

Equivocation fallacy. You have to pay a fee. The money does not lose value.

No, I agree with you: the bond changes value inversely with interest rate changes whether it is sold or not. That makes it not money.

That is completely different. A bond is an obligation, real estate is a physical object.

Right: it's the fact that you cannot spend bonds that makes them not money.

The correct definitions of words are determined by expert usage.

Scientists are not allowed to just make up new definitions whenever they feel like engaging in a question begging fallacy. That is how modern mainstream neoclassical economics went so far wrong. In a genuine empirical science, definitions must correspond to the particulars of interest in objective physical reality. I.e., they must identify categories or classes of things, qualities, relationships, etc. that are functionally equivalent in the real world.

In a genuine empirical science, there is only one correct definition for each technical term.

No you didn't. You can't spend a bond at the grocery store. Therefore, bonds are not money.

Equivocation fallacy. Inflation does not change the value of money because value is measured in money. Inflation changes the value of everything else.

See above.

Huh? MMT says the money to redeem the bond is created de novo, and the tax payment deleted from the system. But either way, it doesn't change what money is.

No, there is a macro difference between a surplus obtained by deleting money and one obtained by redeeming bonds in cash. The former reduces the money supply, the latter does not.

Two corrections to make there: paying off bondholders in cash puts money into the private sector; and government purchases add to GDP just as much as private ones.

So, what is your point in the yellow part above?
Economics is never claimed by anyone to be a true science, it is at best a social science.
MS Econ. theories are made up. They are based on logic and not observing reality. They start with assumptions, many of which are false; and use them to 'prove' conclusions.
All of the definitions are made up also as a part of the assumptions. Definitions are all true as long as they are accepted.
MMTers are saying that MS Econ. is wrong in many ways, and so MMTers have new "better" definitions.

You wrote: "Equivocation fallacy. Inflation does not change the value of money because value is measured in money. Inflation changes the value of everything else."
Whether or not that is true by definition in MS Econ., doesn't matter, because I hear people all the time complaining that inflation is taking their value away, because they money loses its value. Even economists say things like this. It seems like they want to have it both ways. I'm Ok with letting them have it both ways, but I get to have it both ways also. Therefore, it is NOT as equivocation fallacy.

You seem to think that buildings can be built in a few weeks. The US has a million homeless who had a home 2 years ago. They need a place to live now. It would take about 2 years for your program [whatever it is] to make us see finished rental units, and there is no guarantee that they would be affordable for that mass of poor workers.
. . . As I pointed out the 'late', we tried to build low rent housing in black neighborhoods in the 60s and 70s. It didn't work well. The US will find it very hard to build such housing in the suburbs because people fear poor people and so the value of nearby houses will drop a lot. [I suppose the US Gov. could pay those owners $2000/mo minus the distance in feet (as $$) from the center of their land to the edge of the new low rent project.

You keep saying "land" and "tax on land". You have never defined what you mean. Possible examples of what you mean are ---
1] Vacant land
. . a] Land planted in crops
. . b] Land planted in trees
. . c] Land growing grass that animals are eating
. . d] Land sitting there not being used for anything (in the US this is almost nonexistent).
2] The land under buildings
. . 1] Under houses [owner occupied or rental houses are 2 sub-classes]
. . 2] Under factories
. . 3] Under office buildings
. . 4] Under retail sales commercial buildings
. . 5] Under parking lots
. . 6] Others
3] Land owned by a gov. or the Gov.

Until you define what you mean I'm not going to reply again.

[late]

It is impossible to increase (or reduce) the supply of land. That is very much the point.

And all buildings have to be one story high...

This is one of the reasons your goofy faux economics is goofy. Much of Europe has been working on increasing population density while improving liveability for 30 or 40 years...

[Truth To Power]

And all buildings have to be one story high...

No, that is absurd nonsense you made up.

This is one of the reasons your goofy faux economics is goofy.

No, all competent and honest economists agree with me. Here is an explanation of why they agree with me, signed by dozens of eminent, hoest Western economists, including four (count 'em, four) Nobel laureates:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_let ... chev_(1990)

Much of Europe has been working on increasing population density while improving liveability for 30 or 40 years...

And...?