Universal Basic Income is a scam. - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15193283
Truth To Power wrote:
1) No, that is absurd nonsense you made up.

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

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

And...?



1) Of course it's nonsense, I was having a little fun at your expense.

2) Your link is broken, not that it matters. You want to reduce this to land, I thought pointing out Infilling would make my point, but it went over your head.
#15193297
late wrote:1) Of course it's nonsense, I was having a little fun at your expense.

How is your inevitable resort to absurd, irrelevant nonsense at my expense?? You are the one who ended up looking foolish.
2) Your link is broken, not that it matters.

For some reason the PoFo web navigation software snips off the url's final right parenthesis. Just put it in manually.
You want to reduce this to land,

No, I'm showing why land is so important economically that even its unimproved value is astronomical.
I thought pointing out Infilling would make my point, but it went over your head.

No, infilling is completely irrelevant to my point, so all you did was prove that everything I said is over your head.
#15193307
Steve_American wrote:So, what is your point in the yellow part above?

I made my point: in a genuine empirical science, definitions have to match reality.
Economics is never claimed by anyone to be a true science,

You are certainly incorrect about that.
it is at best a social science.

A social science can still be empirical. But not if people just make up definitions, as mathematicians and logicians can do.
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.

That is how modern mainstream neoclassical economics went so wrong.
Definitions are all true as long as they are accepted.

A definition can't be true or false, only valid or invalid. In empirical science, a definition that does not match reality is invalid.
MMTers are saying that MS Econ. is wrong in many ways, and so MMTers have new "better" definitions.

It remains to be seen if they do or not. So far, I am not impressed.
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,

Yes it does.
because I hear people all the time complaining that inflation is taking their value away, because they money loses its value.

Vernacular usage is not a guide to technical usage.
Even economists say things like this.

See above. They should know better. They should know better about a lot of things.
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.

No, therefore it is an equivocation fallacy. Duh.
You seem to think that buildings can be built in a few weeks.

No, you simply made that up.
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,

Garbage. What happened to the places where they used to live, hmmmm? Did someone burn them down? Bulldoze them?
and there is no guarantee that they would be affordable for that mass of poor workers.

Sure there is: the owners would have to find tenants or lose money.
. . . 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.

Because it wasn't based on liberty or justice.
You keep saying "land" and "tax on land". You have never defined what you mean.

In classical economics, land meant natural resources: the entire physical universe other than people and the products of their labor. I am usually talking about locations on the earth's permanent solid surface.
#15193314
Truth To Power wrote:
I guess that must be why dozens of eminent Western economists including four Nobel laureates bought into it enough to put their names to this:



They don't agree with you.

If you could fundamentally change the way a country works, sure, you could have it any way you want.

The problem is that the West has centuries of doing the way we do it. Law, custom, tradition, would all have to be changed, and that is f***ing impossible.

Ease off the throttle, you keep running off the road.
#15193342
late wrote:They don't agree with you.

They most certainly do.
If you could fundamentally change the way a country works, sure, you could have it any way you want.

And I want justice. You want injustice. You prefer injustice to justice. You think injustice is better than justice. I.e., you think evil is better than good. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.
The problem is that the West has centuries of doing the way we do it. Law, custom, tradition, would all have to be changed, and that is f***ing impossible.

No it isn't, as the example of slavery proves. The problem with landowning is just not as easy to understand as the problem with slavery. You, for example, do not understand it, just as many people did not understand the problem with slavery. They used very much the same "arguments" you use.
Ease off the throttle, you keep running off the road.

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
#15193353
Lurkers,
Note that Truth to Power agrees that MS Econ. Neo-liberal econ. has gone very wrong. So, he and I agree on this.

I reassert that Economics is not a hard science. It is not even a social science IMHO, because it frankly doesn't care about economic history or economic reality. It doesn't try to match its theory to the historical record of economic events and data.

I reassert that "money" is a social creation. It has no basis at all in some "natural" reality.
. . . Therefore, it is what we say it is. ToP has his definitions. I use definitions made up by MMTers. MMTers have PhDs in Economics, and they are mostly tenured profs. of economics. This makes them experts, by definition. ToP also has experts who agree with his definitions.

ToP doesn't seem the realize that here on this site we use vernacular language. We are not constrained to use technical language. He admitted that that his own experts do sometimes say that inflation reduces the value of people's money. Yet, he says that I must toe his line. He can suck eggs.

Truth to Power didn't define what his "land" is, again. Not clearly at least. Points have no size. And the world has plenty of empty land if we count that under ice, on the sides of steep mtns., where if never rains, in the arctic, etc.

As a result of his not being clear in the definition [he also has never AFAIK said what his program about land is], so, I'll just keep replying to him with, "ToP is just wrong about everything."

One final new point. The US national debt can't be paid OFF by the US Gov. having a surplus and using tax-receipt dollars to do the paying. It can only be paid OFF with newly created electronic dollars deposited into bank accounts.
. . . It has been said that "when you owe the bank $10K, the bank has you by the shot hairs; but if you owe the bank $100B (that are not secured), you have the bank by the short hairs." Now!, US bonds are not secured! The bondholders can't go to court and get some thing like a house or bars of gold. The bondholders therefore, can only let the US Gov. roll their bonds over, forever. They have no other choice. [Well yes, the choice of taking newly created electronic dollars in their bank accounts, but they think that would be very, very, very inflationary.]
. . . It has also been said that "all debts that can't be paid, will not be paid." This is the situation with the US national debt. This is why the US national debt is not really a debt, it is just a form of money that the US Gov. chooses to pay interest on.

This why the current "debt limit" crisis is just stupid.
.
#15193369
Steve_American wrote:

Truth to Power didn't define what his "land" is, again.




There is a libertarian economic idea (theory is too strong a word) that he is using. But I don't think he knows enough economics to use it. I doubt he even knows it's name..

It centers around land.
#15193451
late wrote:You sound like a salesman that doesn't understand the product he's trying to sell.

No, you simply made that up. You claimed they don't agree with me, but offered no evidence to that effect. Because you cannot dispute anything I have said -- that would require facts or logic -- you simply deny it.
#15193452
late wrote:There is a libertarian economic idea (theory is too strong a word) that he is using. But I don't think he knows enough economics to use it. I doubt he even knows it's name..

It centers around land.

Were you under an erroneous impression that the above could be of some informational value to someone?
#15193459
Steve_American wrote:I reassert that Economics is not a hard science. It is not even a social science IMHO, because it frankly doesn't care about economic history or economic reality. It doesn't try to match its theory to the historical record of economic events and data.

You conflate modern mainstream neoclassical economics (MMNE) with economics per se. They are not the same thing. Economics does have a modest foundation in empirical fact.
I reassert that "money" is a social creation. It has no basis at all in some "natural" reality.

Money has its basis in the fact that people naturally engage in arm's-length exchanges, and need a generally accepted medium in which to conduct such exchanges efficiently. Money is therefore a social creation in the sense that people in some given community have to generally accept it in exchange.
. . . Therefore, it is what we say it is. ToP has his definitions. I use definitions made up by MMTers. MMTers have PhDs in Economics, and they are mostly tenured profs. of economics. This makes them experts, by definition. ToP also has experts who agree with his definitions.

When you change a definition in empirical science, you change the reality that it is possible to talk about. That is one way MMNE has gone so wrong: they changed the definitions of terms like "capital" and "rent," making it impossible to identify the relevant facts of economics.
ToP doesn't seem the realize that here on this site we use vernacular language. We are not constrained to use technical language. He admitted that that his own experts do sometimes say that inflation reduces the value of people's money. Yet, he says that I must toe his line. He can suck eggs.

I am trying for clarity. Some people don't like clarity because it means they can't get away with certain fallacies. I am not one of them.
Truth to Power didn't define what his "land" is, again. Not clearly at least.

I most certainly did.
Points have no size.

I didn't mention points. You simply made that up.
And the world has plenty of empty land if we count that under ice, on the sides of steep mtns., where if never rains, in the arctic, etc.

<sigh> Of course there is plenty of empty land, just as there are plenty of lonely people seeking partners on dating sites. But there are good reasons most of that land is empty, just as there are good reasons most of those lonely people don't have partners; and the abundance of undesirable land is no more relevant to the scarcity of desirable land than the abundance of undesirable partners is to the scarcity of desirable ones.

GET IT??
As a result of his not being clear in the definition [he also has never AFAIK said what his program about land is],

<sigh> If I specify my proposed measures in every thread where they are relevant, people will just accuse me of being redundant, or spamming. How about if I just say my program about land is justice in land tenure institutions and taxation?
so, I'll just keep replying to him with, "ToP is just wrong about everything."

?? Huh? Yeah, that sure makes sense....
One final new point. The US national debt can't be paid OFF by the US Gov. having a surplus and using tax-receipt dollars to do the paying.

False. It could be done via inflation, by issuing a lot of money by spending it into circulation, then taxing it back to pay off bondholders with inflated dollars.
It can only be paid OFF with newly created electronic dollars deposited into bank accounts.

False, as proved above. It could easily be done indirectly, and IMO probably will be.
US bonds are not secured! The bondholders can't go to court and get some thing like a house or bars of gold.

Because the bonds do not entitle them to any such thing. They entitle them to money.
The bondholders therefore, can only let the US Gov. roll their bonds over, forever. They have no other choice. [Well yes, the choice of taking newly created electronic dollars in their bank accounts, but they think that would be very, very, very inflationary.]

That is presumably why they bought the bonds: to get their money back with the scheduled interest payments.
. . . It has also been said that "all debts that can't be paid, will not be paid." This is the situation with the US national debt. This is why the US national debt is not really a debt, it is just a form of money that the US Gov. chooses to pay interest on.

US government debt does yield interest; but it is not money.
#15193460
Truth To Power wrote:
Were you under an erroneous impression that the above could be of some informational value to someone?



I was right.

You can't even name the idea you are using...
#15193470
Truth to Power gave his definition as, "In classical economics, land meant natural resources: the entire physical universe other than people and the products of their labor. I am usually talking about locations on the earth's permanent solid surface."

He used the word 'locations'. A location is a point. At least in engineering. Also, in math on a graph, a location is a point, defined by the x-number and the y-number.

So, he was striving (so he claimed) for 'clarity' and used a word which is not clear.

Again, he claims that economics is an 'empirical science'. I had asserted that money has no basis in the natural world, and he agreed with that. However, then he claimed that money is a 'something?' and so Econ. is an empirical science. Go figure.
. . . It doesn't matter at all for econ. what happens in an empirical science IF Econ. isn't one.

He still has not told us just what his "land program" is. I have asked him twice, now.

Because my argument is with what he calls MMNE (Neo-liberalism) and also Neo-Keynesism (N-K), I don't care at all what some earlier Econ. theory said. My problem with the modern political world is that it is infested with Neo-liberalism and to a much lesser extent N-K. Those older theories of Econ. are no longer being used. So, they don't matter at this time. Most lurkers believe in MS Econ. to some extent. So, my arguments are aimed at MS Econ. theories.
. . . I happen to like MMT, and ToP agrees that it is a good description of economic reality.

I can't refute ToP points about the econ. theory he is using and about his 'land program'; because he has never detailed either. :?: :?:

Therefore, I can use the redefined terms of MMT to talk on this site. ToP agrees that his MMNE has already redefined terms. I would add 'free market' to his list.
. . . I'm not really trying to convince ToP, I'm trying to convince you, the lurkers.
.
#15193700
Steve_American wrote:Truth to Power gave his definition as, "In classical economics, land meant natural resources: the entire physical universe other than people and the products of their labor. I am usually talking about locations on the earth's permanent solid surface."

He used the word 'locations'. A location is a point. At least in engineering. Also, in math on a graph, a location is a point, defined by the x-number and the y-number.

So, he was striving (so he claimed) for 'clarity' and used a word which is not clear.

If you think, "Location, location, location!" could refer to mathematical points, then you have more problems with clarity than I can help you with.
Again, he claims that economics is an 'empirical science'.

If it's not, at least aspirationally, then what is the point of it -- other than as an exercise in propaganda (which, granted, MMNE seems to be)?
I had asserted that money has no basis in the natural world, and he agreed with that. However, then he claimed that money is a 'something?' and so Econ. is an empirical science.

I drew no such inference. You simply made it up. Economics is an empirical science because its subject matter exists in objective physical reality.
Go figure.

Oh, I have. Count on it.
. . . It doesn't matter at all for econ. what happens in an empirical science IF Econ. isn't one.

If we give up even trying for empirical validity, the propagandists have already won.
He still has not told us just what his "land program" is. I have asked him twice, now.

I advocate location subsidy repayment (LSR) with a universal individual exemption (UIE) analogous to the universal individual income tax exemption. Each exclusive land tenure holder would repay the unimproved rental value of their location to the government and community of those excluded that create it, less the UIE amount multiplied by the number of citizens residing at that location.
Because my argument is with what he calls MMNE (Neo-liberalism) and also Neo-Keynesism (N-K), I don't care at all what some earlier Econ. theory said.

Those who do not know any history are doomed to repeat it.
My problem with the modern political world is that it is infested with Neo-liberalism and to a much lesser extent N-K. Those older theories of Econ. are no longer being used. So, they don't matter at this time.

They matter if you want to understand how MMNE went so far off the rails and avoid making the same mistakes again.
Therefore, I can use the redefined terms of MMT to talk on this site. ToP agrees that his MMNE has already redefined terms. I would add 'free market' to his list.

I agree. They call a capitalist market where people own and buy and sell others' rights to liberty a "free market" when that is actually a better description of a slave market.
. . . I'm not really trying to convince ToP, I'm trying to convince you, the lurkers.

Yes, the active disputants can rarely find a willingness to know the fact that they have been proved objectively wrong, and just go on repeating their proved-false claims.
#15193716
Truth To Power wrote:If you think, "Location, location, location!" could refer to mathematical points, then you have more problems with clarity than I can help you with.

If it's not, at least aspirationally, then what is the point of it -- other than as an exercise in propaganda (which, granted, MMNE seems to be)?

I drew no such inference. You simply made it up. Economics is an empirical science because its subject matter exists in objective physical reality.

Oh, I have. Count on it.

If we give up even trying for empirical validity, the propagandists have already won.

I advocate location subsidy repayment (LSR) with a universal individual exemption (UIE) analogous to the universal individual income tax exemption. Each exclusive land tenure holder would repay the unimproved rental value of their location to the government and community of those excluded that create it, less the UIE amount multiplied by the number of citizens residing at that location.

Those who do not know any history are doomed to repeat it.
They matter if you want to understand how MMNE went so far off the rails and avoid making the same mistakes again.

I agree. They call a capitalist market where people own and buy and sell others' rights to liberty a "free market" when that is actually a better description of a slave market.

Yes, the active disputants can rarely find a willingness to know the fact that they have been proved objectively wrong, and just go on repeating their proved-false claims.

Well, now ToP, we are getting somewhere.

It doesn't matter that some economic theories 'aspire' to be objective natural sciences. Until some Econ. theory succeeds in that objective, it follows that no econ. theory *IS* an objective natural science. To be a true science it must make predictions, do experiments, and see if the predictions are accurate.
. . . IF no Econ. theory can do this, it follows that Econ. can at best be like geology and paleontology. These just look at reality, hopefully new observation of places with exposed geology or new bones found, etc. For, Econ. this would be studying the numbers that describe the economic reality in various nations over time as different policies are implemented by those nation's Govs.
. . . I most strongly point the lurkers to the work of Prof. Steve Keen. He has groked that "chaos theory" [which was discovered in the 70s] has the tools that will now allow computer simulations of the supposed economic reality. Chaos theory is a sub-theory of math, that "solves" the non-linear iterated equations that are so common in reality. It is the theory that put forward the famous "butterfly effect". Some examples are weather prediction and population dynamics. Clearly, the economy is a series of iterated transactions of buying, selling, paying wages, paying taxes, investing, and saving, etc.
. . . Prof. Keen lets you download for free his program to see how his supposed economy works. The program shows the chaos that gave the theory its name. That is the economy can move around its strange attractor for years and then for no apparent reason (no outside perturbation) suddenly move to a different strange attractor.

. . . Currently, only MMT has made many predictions that have been proven accurate. A few other isolated economists have made some correct predictions but they are isolated and so are not yet schools of economics with theories. MS Economists failed to predict the GFC/2008; they were wrong to predict for 29 -30 years that Japan would see high inflation, high bond yields, no money for private investment, and Gov. insolvency; they were wrong to predict the tax breaks for the rich would trickle down to the working poor; they were wrong to predict that tax breaks would cause corps. to give raises to their workers, and they have been wrong in the current covid recession with their predictions of hyperinflation being right around the corner.
. . . Please, lurkers show me places where the consensus of either Neo-liberal or Neo-Keynesian economists have made any correct predictions. I have yet to be told of any.
. . . [ToP, I'm not asking you because you have agreed that most or all MS Econ. theories are just propaganda, i.e. lies to sway the masses so that the liars or their paymasters win.]

ToP said that I need to learn the history of economics, or I'll repeat mistakes.
OK, what old economic theory do you (ToP) claim is a natural science?
. . . You do realize that it was rejected by almost all economists. It could not have been that good at proving its theory to be objectively true, if it was abandoned in favor of a different theory. What accurate predictions did it make? Why was it abandoned?
.
Last edited by Steve_American on 08 Oct 2021 23:43, edited 1 time in total.
#15193790
late wrote:I asked first, and you couldn't do it.

Thanks for the proof.

:lol: :lol: :lol: No, son, you can't dodge that easily. You claimed, absurdly, that I didn't know the name for the views I espouse. You can't make such an idiotic claim, wait for me to tell you, then claim you knew it all along. If you had bothered to look at my posting history, you would have found ample evidence that you are wrong.

Post the word you claim I don't know. If you are right, I won't be able to point you to a previous post of mine where I identify my views by that name. If you are wrong, I will.

See how that works?

Now get busy or get lost.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It has always been this way. Zionists have always […]

...You are a supporter of the genocide against th[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]