[Bulaba Khan Jones]

... So, anyways, back to digital currency, it's interesting how there's a certain irony in the fact that physical currency makes staying under the radar possible and laundering that cash is easy, yet cryptocurrency has some inherent traits to also allow for laundering.

Digital currency does make it easier for authoritarian regimes to track the flow of cash, and it's no surprise the digital yuan in China is developing.

In any case, it feels inevitable. It'll depend on each country how they track their citizens and what that will entail.

[BlutoSays]

Digital money makes it easy to wipe out your property/savings in a "crisis". My trust is at an all time low. See Klaus Schwab and his plans at the World Economic Forum.

[ckaihatsu]

... So, anyways, back to digital currency, it's interesting how there's a certain irony in the fact that physical currency makes staying under the radar possible and laundering that cash is easy, yet cryptocurrency has some inherent traits to also allow for laundering.

Digital currency does make it easier for authoritarian regimes to track the flow of cash, and it's no surprise the digital yuan in China is developing.

In any case, it feels inevitable. It'll depend on each country how they track their citizens and what that will entail.

Digital money makes it easy to wipe out your property/savings in a "crisis". My trust is at an all time low. See Klaus Schwab and his plans at the World Economic Forum.

Gladly drinking the Kool Aid, huh -- ?

Here, while (equity-value) stock markets are *tanking*, we're calmly talking about the economic faction of *savers* / wealth-accumulators / deflationary *rentier*-capital interests -- non-commodity-productive assets and resources, which is *feudal*-like, and extractive of pre-existing values from the larger overall economy ('rent-seeking'). (Don't make me call TTP in here.) (grin)

Remember, if there's no actual commodity production then there's no productivity, and no economic growth, so then 'values' are basically *meaningless* because they're balkanized and no longer *socialized*, as for equity investments, for actual new commodity-production.

Here's the process of commodity production, by the material-economic exploitation of surplus labor value from the labor commodity:


material-economic exploitation

Spoiler: show

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

Businesses accumulate capital goods and put them to use to produce the goods and services they sell. In other words, capital goods make it possible for companies to produce goods, often at a higher efficiency level.

They are generally durable goods that can be used more than once.

---


*However*:

Consumer goods fall into three categories: durable goods, nondurable goods, and services.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer ... r-good.asp

Regarding *for-profit*, *equity*-capital-type usage, does the purchased 'consumer good' of '[labor] services' constitute more of a [1] *durable* good, or a [2] *nondurable* good -- ?

It has its *own* category, of course, because labor *services*, as a productive commodity (though not always -- doctor-vs.-janitor), is *fleeting*. No 'arrows' lead away from the point of production, as when a tangible 'product' / good is produced, because the consumption of the service takes place right there at the point of production, arguably as for *retail*, though 'service' *is* still a commodity, is produced by exploiting labor, and is consumed immediately.

*So* -- !

It's more obvious than ever that the whole capitalist political economy is a stacked-deck -- side-by-side, there's *no plausible comparison* to be made between relatively *durable*, time-sustained equity capital valuations, as in factory buildings and equipment, and day-by-day, *fleeting*, realtime-only valuations of labor, less *lasting* / 'durable' than a produced *good*, even. After wages the rest of that hour-by-hour labor value, from people's actual work, is *fleeced*, from every worker.

So, yeah, 'your' clock ticks *way faster* than mine does, and also *you're* the clock.

[ckaihatsu]

I've been *repeating* F.I.R.E. only because, *like* natural monopolies, they're *non-productive costs / overhead to equity capital*.

The epistemological foundations of Marxism are aggregation of unlike quantities and refusal to make relevant distinctions. This becomes a mental habit that makes clear, rational thought impossible. Finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) are three different sectors that have different characteristics and different mixes of production and privilege based on different economic and market conditions. Understanding them requires disaggregation and analysis of the relevant operational conditions in each sector. Pretending they are all the same thing is just the classic Marxist expedient to prevent understanding and evade the responsibility of clear, rational thought.

The thing they all have *in common* is that they're all *claims* on equity capital, and are non-productive -- no new commodities are produced from finance, insurance, or real estate / land.


---

Because they are not all natural monopolies. Insurance is not a natural monopoly, and neither is banking. Banks' privilege is based on the barrier to entry, not monopoly.

Society / civilization *has* to deal with material-economic realities like consumption, cities, cashflow, economics, land / real estate, *and* the possibility of natural and/or social disasters like hurricanes, flooding, needless deaths, hazards, and so on.

Do you think it can do so by pretending that all those challenges are the same?

My point here is that these are all societal / *civilizational* duties, or 'upkeep'. The world is not going to stop turning tomorrow, so all of these realities, whether social or environmental / natural, have to be addressed 'operationally' by society in one way or another.

Capitalism is failing *miserably* right now, as with energy policy, the Middle East proxy war, immigration, fascism / domestic terrorism, and also economically. My current slogan right now is 'The private sector is not self-sustainable.'

In this way, the *demand* side of things sees nothing *but* natural monopolies -- 'I have to get funding', 'I have to cover risks', 'I have to get a place', and everything else.

That's not what a natural monopoly is.

I'm situating 'natural monopolies' according to one's objective empirical role, materially-economically. The respective interests of 'supply' / owner / seller are *not* the same as 'demand' / buyer.

For the owner, for example, F.I.R.E. is a 'natural monopoly' in the sense that it's *mandatory* for business. (So then likewise for any ground-level consumer as well.)

From the *supply* side of things utilities are *all* natural monopolies,

Depends how you define "utility." Cable TV is a natural monopoly, but broadcast and satellite TV are not.

I mean it in the sense of 'materially mandatory', as with (your favored) *land*, for the sake of equity profit-making.

(business, finance) A natural or legal areal monopoly distributer of a commodity (less often a service) delivered in continuous flows to multiple consumers from a common physical, infrastructural network, such as an electric company or water company; or, the securities of such a provider.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/utility

---

and society / government may very well go *beyond* that benchmark, to provide a single-payer-type administration for not *just* utilities, but also for healthcare (Medicare, NHS, Canada), financing (social policy), insurance (homeowners), real estate (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) -- effectively *nationalizing* such, along with your precious land reforms.

It may. That doesn't mean it would necessarily be wise or moral to do so.

What's *less* wise and moral is the *status quo* -- socialist politics is all about eliminating private-type *overhead*, so that society can simply provide *to itself*, without any private-interest 'middleman', extracting profits from the structuring of that societal material supply.


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

---

So are we *good* here -- would nationalization apply to *all* of F.I.R.E. -- ?

No. There is no plausible rationale for nationalizing the financial intermediation function of private banks, the risk management function of private insurance, or the construction and management of improvements in the private real estate industry.

You're continuing to overstate / overestimate the merits of private equity capital. By supporting the function of *finance capital* (even if solely private-equity), you're *diluting* / polluting your own politics / position of being pro-equity-capital, because finance *isn't* equity capital (in-the-black), rather it's *debt* (in-the-red) for the borrower, at a percentage cost.

Likewise, insurance and real estate are *also* non-commodity-productive draws / drains from private equity capital (and from wages, too), so insurance and real estate are *also* not in-the-black equity capital itself, either.

Your politics winds up supporting private-sector *parasitism* (F.I.R.E.) on your precious equity capital valuations, which *detracts* from your goal of *monetarism*, or strong currency valuations. (And 'monetarism' itself is economically *deflationary* in terms of world trade, making it *contradictory* to the aim of expanding equity capital values, as for additional profitable equity investments.) (Equity capital typically tends to favor *government debt*, for *cheap*, subsidized capital goods, for liquidity for increased 'leveraged' investments.)

The classic historical example is that of colonial *Spain*:

the large volumes of precious metals from America led to inflation, which had a negative effect on the poorer part of the population, as goods became overpriced. This also hampered exports, as expensive goods could not compete in international markets. Moreover, the large cash inflows from silver hindered the industrial development in Spain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_ ... _New_World

---

I don't think nationalization is necessary. Just send each landholder a bill for what they are taking from the community. If they won't pay for it, they don't get to keep it, and must yield the land to someone who will.

*That's* nationalization / 'single-payer' -- the *nation* sends-the-bill, the *nation* uses force, or doesn't, regarding land, etc.

It's not nationalization, as land would be allocated among free private users by the market, not government officials; and there is no way to administer possession and use of land but by force.

You're missing the point -- *any* market, as with the one you're suggesting, *requires* a bourgeois nation-state governmental official apparatus (with government officials), under the political economy of *capitalism*.

The *proof* here is 'What if some of the free private users *disagreed* on something? How would they *resolve* their dispute, as over land boundaries, without the intervention of a greater societal / political authority?'

Free private equity owners would *not* autonomously be able to retain 'order' / viable conditions for commerce -- the historical evidence is World War I and World War II, among other commercial-nationalist disputes and resulting warfare.

The rest is accounting.

No it is not.

As with all 'upheaval'-type politics, though, you have to provide *some* kind of Point-A-to-Point-B, because otherwise it's mere idealism / wishful thinking.

No. Identifying the fact that people need to eat nutritious food to be healthy is not idealism or wishful thinking if I don't also specify exactly what they should eat, where they should get it, how it should be prepared, by whom, etc. I am identifying the fact that to be healthy -- free, just, and prosperous -- a community has to recover for public purposes and benefit the unimproved rental value of land that government and the community create, rather than giving it away to private landowners in return for nothing. This is a political problem, and all politics is local. The political paths to healthy communities have to be found or blazed locally, depending on local conditions and terrain. I'm just identifying the ultimate direction all those paths have to take if they are going to reach the goal of community health.

Bullshit. This is entirely a dead-end -- you're idealistically calling for the 'community' reclamation of all government-privatized land, which is basically bringing back 'the commons', but you're unable to specify *how* your ideal government would actually *reclaim* this worldwide collection of currently *private* land parcels.

In your scenario the government would have to be *monolithic* -- sorry for using that word over and over, but you haven't provided any illustration other than that of the CCP, implicitly.

Local communities can pursue economic health within the legal constraints of their jurisdiction, just as a person can pursue a healthy diet within the constraints of their budget, local food availability, etc.

Nope. Dead-end.

I'll use the example of *abortion*, which is now devolved down to a state-by-state patchwork of inconsistent standards and practices for the 'natural-monopoly need' of abortion-service-provision / healthcare, especially under such conditions of restricted 'supply' of it.


---

Other countries managed to abolish slavery without civil war. There's no need for violence unless those who currently use violence to inflict injustice on others resort to violence to resist justice.

What you're *sidestepping*, though, is the historical, present-day *legacy* of that

No, I am stating the fact that legal ownership of the land continued to confer on the former slave owners a level of legal privilege, entitlement to exploit labor, and consequent economic advantage similar to that which they had enjoyed via legal ownership of the slaves.

So here's the historical sequence -- *you* object to the privilege 'sequence' of chattel-slaves property and privatized land, while *I* object to the privilege 'sequence' of chattel-slaves property, privatized land, *and* privatized means of mass industrial production (factories and equipment) -- (since such allows equity capital ownership to *dispossess* wage laborers of their surplus labor value, for every hour of the workday).

Here's a little comparison chart I whipped up:


labor and capital, side-by-side

Spoiler: show

---

-- slaveowners *were* compensated by the U.S. government for their slaves 'property',

No, they most certainly were not. You simply made that up. They merely discovered, to their general astonishment, that once all the useful land had been appropriated as private property, just owning the land was quite sufficient to sustain the effective master-slave relationships they had become accustomed to.

Compensated emancipation

On April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. This law prohibited slavery in the District, forcing its 900-odd slaveholders to free their slaves, with the federal government paying owners an average of about $300 (equivalent to $8,000 in 2021) for each. In 1863, state legislation towards compensated emancipation in Maryland failed to pass, as did an attempt to include it in a newly written Missouri constitution.[1][7][8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation

And:

However, precisely because it was a bourgeois army of occupation, there was one thing the army could not do—confiscate land to provide the freed slaves with a way of making a living independent of the old masters. Sherman had briefly carried through such a measure, giving land to 40,000 ex-slaves, only to see it overturned by Johnson. From then on, the only land available to former slaves was government-owned land, which was often of inferior quality. Most were forced to rely on the former slave-owners, working as sharecroppers or labourers for them. What had been an oppressed slave class became, for the most part, an oppressed peasant and labouring class.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 353

---

and the South was allowed to continue to participate in the Union:

It was forced to. Duh.

'Forced' -- ? Bullshit:

A component of President Lincoln's plans for the postwar reconstruction of the South, this proclamation decreed that a state in rebellion against the U.S. federal government could be reintegrated into the Union when 10% of the 1860 vote count from that state had taken an oath of allegiance to the U.S. and pledged to abide by Emancipation. Voters could then elect delegates to draft revised state constitutions and establish new state governments.[1] All Southerners except for high-ranking Confederate army officers and government officials would be granted a full pardon. Lincoln guaranteed Southerners that he would protect their private property, though not their slaves.[2] By 1864, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas had established fully functioning Unionist governments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_plan

---

Fast-forward to today, and we could readily *extend* the politics, to include *all equity capital* --

If we wanted to live in Castro's Cuba, Maduro's Venezuela, the USSR, or Maoist China, rather than in free, just, and prosperous geoist communities.

No, that's *fatalism* -- you're conflating nationalist-type *Stalinist* states, with the original Communist-Manifesto concept of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

All for your idealist 'equity heaven' / 'referee government' conception.

can it, and along with it, *workers*, be *liberated*, so that all of everyone's life concerns are no longer *subservient* to it, and/or its statist backing.

Sure, but only through the geoist reforms I already described: abolish the privileges that can be abolished, and require just compensation -- from the privilege holders to the community and from the community to the victims -- for those that can't. Never through socialism.

And I'll just *extend* that objection, through to the private ownership of not just *land*, but also the means of mass industrial production that *sits* on the land, *also* under private, non-collectivized control. Currently the private ownership of such equity capital exploits laborers and oppresses social minorities.

Right on the knife-edge of politics, huh -- ? (If you were any more centrist you'd be at the earth's *core*.) (grin)

I guess maybe I am a centrist. The left is egalitarian, the right elitist. Natural statistical distributions tend to be quite egalitarian (see the normal distribution), but also have room for both small elites and small underclasses.

The point here is 'How do you decide?'

Why should education and healthcare be considered 'natural monopolies' -- and nationalized -- while *not* for 'utilities', according to your stated politics -- ?

Are you open to considering the *demand* side of things more regularly -- in the case of *education* it could be said that paying the cost of *profits* to private sector management of such 'enterprises' / charter schools, only adds to the *expense* of education 'provisioning' (for lack of a better word).

No, that is just more ridiculous Marxist trash. Profit is not an unproductive expense like rent. Profit obtained in open competition is the cost of the efficiency and excellence that only open competition for profits can stimulate. You seem to think we would somehow know how to achieve efficiency and excellence in education without competition. We wouldn't and can't.

To be clear, I'm *not* advocating for any Stalinist-type bureaucratic elitism.

Revolutionary politics *transcends* the typical present-day nationalist politics over monolithic government spending -- it's the world's *workers* who should be the ones to control all social production -- not government or business -- just as *you* advocate for all land stewardship.

Society would get more bang for its buck by *not* outsourcing education (etc.) to the private sector, because of the cost of providing profits ('bribes' to private ownership, in lieu of societal-collective (proletarian) administration over the same, according to some).

No, that is just anti-economic tripe from the Anti-Economist.

Let's just say that the public-sector 'consumer' (of education, etc.) *may disagree* with your estimation of the social value of the private 'profit' cost, to the public.

So, back to previously, is education a *natural monopoly*, or *isn't* it -- ?

You previously said that education *is* a natural monopoly, meaning that leaving it to private market competition would be a 'market failure', so education *should* therefore be nationalized. (But here you're arguing that privatization of education, by market forces, would be a *good* thing.) Your position is *contradictory* and ambiguous.

Ultimately, though, there's no actual 'fine-tuning' possible, of the 'balance' between the state / government / public sector, and the private sector.

Garbage refuted by self-evident fact.

Should the private sector be *self-sustaining*, or not?

How would you address the market-failure of *crashing stock markets*, as we have today -- ?

(In the Western world it's the *bourgeoisie* / merchant class that has prevailed, while in China it's the government bureaucracy that's prevailed.) (Each is either *private*-proprietary or 'state-proprietary' property, regardless, and is *not* made available to the working class.)

You appear to have no experience whatsoever of the working class in either the capitalist West or geoist China.

Am I *incorrect* in saying that both *bourgeois*, *and* bureaucratic-elitist types of political-economy hegemony have *both* disempowered the world's working class -- ?

Yeah, fun, so how about when we get around to talking about *that* kind of "socialism", b.k.a. *Stalinism*, you can bring that up.

When the subject is a nutritious diet, why would I want to talk about the different varieties of poison?

---

[01] How is this 'fair land administration system' *funded* -- ?

By repayment of the community's subsidy to landholding.

And where does the *funding* for that 'repayment' (by government) come from, exactly -- ?

The repayment is by the landowners who receive the subsidy.

If the landowners have to *repay*, then it's *not* a subsidy, since 'subsidy' implies *free*, like a *grant*, and not a loan.

The purpose of requiring the repayment is to end the subsidy by requiring just compensation for the benefit. Duh.

You cannot be that obtuse.

Okay, I misspoke, but again the standing question is *how* the world's current population of private landowners is to be convinced to 'repay' / sell / whatever, to the 'community' -- which you still haven't addressed.

So is it to be loans from an a-priori monolithic beneficient government, or *grants* -- ?

Neither. It's the publicly created unimproved market rental value of the land -- which, by definition, someone is willing to pay in return for the publicly provided economic advantage of exclusive tenure.

---

What if someone says 'no'?

Government revokes their government-issued title of ownership -- and certainly does not permit them to enforce it themselves, as that would be criminal assault -- which they knew from the outset was conditional on keeping the taxes current.

So this is *nationalization* then -- you keep *dodging* this characterization, even though it's accurate.

You would then need *popular support* for what's essentially a *land reform*.

President Árbenz had enacted a major land reform program, where all uncultivated portions of large land holdings were to be appropriated and redistributed to landless peasants. The largest land owner, and the one most affected by the reforms, was the United Fruit Company, from which the Árbenz government had already taken more than 225,000 acres (91,000 ha) of uncultivated land.[55]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Gueva ... ited_Fruit

Presidency of Árbenz and land reform

Further information: Decree 900

The largely free elections of 1950 were won by the popular Árbenz,[40] and represented the first transfer of power between democratically elected leaders in Guatemala.[41] Árbenz had personal ties to some members of the communist PGT, which was legalized during his government,[40] and a couple of members played a role in drafting the new president's policies.[42][43] Nonetheless, Árbenz did not try to turn Guatemala into a communist state, instead choosing a moderate capitalist approach.[44][45] The PGT too committed itself to working within the existing legal framework to achieve its immediate objectives of emancipating peasants from feudalism and improving workers' rights.[46] The most prominent component of Árbenz's policy was his agrarian reform bill.[47] Árbenz drafted the bill himself,[48] having sought advice from economists across Latin America.[47] The focus of the law was on transferring uncultivated land from large landowners to poor laborers, who would then be able to begin viable farms of their own.[47]

The official title of the agrarian reform bill was Decree 900. It expropriated all uncultivated land from landholdings that were larger than 673 acres (272 ha). If the estates were between 224 acres (91 ha) and 672 acres (272 ha), uncultivated land was to be expropriated only if less than two-thirds of it was in use. The owners were compensated with government bonds, the value of which was equal to that of the land expropriated. The value of the land itself was what the owners had declared it to be in their tax returns in 1952. Of the nearly 350,000 private landholdings, only 1,710 were affected by expropriation. The law was implemented with great speed, which resulted in some arbitrary land seizures. There was also some violence, directed at landowners, as well as at peasants that had minor landholdings.[49]

By June 1954, 1,400,000 acres (570,000 ha) of land had been expropriated and distributed. Approximately 500,000 individuals, or one-sixth of the population, had received land by this point. Contrary to the predictions made by detractors, the law resulted in a slight increase in Guatemalan agricultural productivity, and in an increase in cultivated area. Purchases of farm machinery also increased. Overall, the law resulted in a significant improvement in living standards for many thousands of peasant families, the majority of whom were indigenous people.[49] Historian Greg Grandin sees the law as representing a fundamental power shift in favor of the hitherto marginalized.[50]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guat ... and_reform

---

So then how is this 'administration' (government) composed? How are individuals deemed to be 'competent', then hired and trained?

The usual ways.

Enlighten me.

That would require your honest consent to know facts, which you will never give.

Okay, so just to confirm, you're *unable* or *unwilling* to provide any description of the government bureaucracy that you advocate, that would administer over all nationalized land parcels.

Please initial *here*: ____

How would, say, *attempted coups* be prevented, exactly -- ?

The usual ways.

Please do tell.

From the *supply* side of things government intervention, as through oversight of IP, *is* an artificial monopoly -- in the sense of statist-culture / 'mainstream' culture being the final decider / arbiter of what technology is to be officially accepted as 'valid', and what is not.

No it isn't. It is an artificial monopoly in the literal sense that government uses force to stop others from producing the same product.

Okay, I see no dissonance here.

*Any* competitor who doesn't win-out could lodge any number of 'sour-grapes'-type plaintive pleas on behalf of their own *proprietary* interests to get 'Product X' to market, and the system itself certainly isn't perfect, so there's always some ground for particular case argumentation, whatever that may be.

*But*, especially from the 'demand' side of things, the consumer-type role in technological determination is *always* going to be one of relative *passivity*, only being able to vote-with-dollars *after* the official decision has been made regarding patents, and after the business landscape has put certain products into production, to bring to market. Does the consumer need the product from patent #12345678, or does the consumer need *a* computer, for x-y-and-z. So the buyer / consumer obviously has their own, *unique* interests in the transaction, quite independent from the status quo statist and business systems for making goods and services available to whatever market.

Gibberish.

In other words the consumer is *external* to the business-government *provisioning* of 'Product X' -- the consumer is interested in filling their own *void* of need / want, which is a *singular* 'natural monopoly' of specific need or want, just as the worker objectively needs to find an *employer*, *any* employer, which is a natural-monopoly of *need*.

My point here is that, to the consumer / buyer, the particular segment of consumption they're participating in as buyers, *is* more like a 'natural monopoly', because, these days, one *can't* do without a smartphone or computer, or whatever other staples of the current standard of social living happen to be.

Lots of people do without computers or smartphones. You are just makin' $#!+ up.

You're still missing the point -- everyday life these days *requires* housing, food, clothing, transportation, utilities, employment, etc. There's no avoiding any of this, for anyone, so everyone's modern needs are *all* natural-monopolies of *need*.

Yes, the consumer has some relative choice over brand options, and the market is probably far more responsive and real-time than ever before in history -- but that still doesn't change the role-interests of the *buyer*, versus the seller. To the buyer, it's *an appropriate smartphone*, or a *less-than-appropriate smartphone* -- in *that* sense the buyer is facing a *single hilltop* of optimization potentials, meaning a 'natural monopoly' of consumer 'appropriateness' for any given needed staple item in today's society. Either an item *fits*, or it doesn't-really, and the consumer has no interest or obligation to deal with any of the 'externalities' of any supplier's side of things, such as the story of how their product got to market (no offense).

So, *insurance*, too, could be thought-of in the same way, from the perspective of the buyer, since 'everyone' needs to have insurance these days, for whatever, including the basics of life and living, just like *food*, arguably -- though *certainly* in terms of commerce.

Gibberish with no basis in fact.

Business requires F.I.R.E., just as the person / consumer / worker requires *food*, *water*, housing, utilities, etc.

Unmet needs or wants all face a natural-monopoly of *need*, for that specific *void* of unmet need.

Your continued inability to address *all* of F.I.R.E.

Because unlike a Marxist, I am willing to know the fact that FIRE is not all one thing.

You're attempting to *dichotomize* -- my definition of F.I.R.E. (the reason it's a singular acronym), is because finance, insurance, and real estate are all *mandatory costs*, or claims, on equity capital.

means that you're unable to address (obligatory) 'need', especially in business, for *insurance*, for *finance*, and for *technology* (all 'fixed capital', from Marx).

Marx was the Anti-Economist, and everything he said on the subject was wrong.

(See the previous segment.)

Aren't these actually 'natural monopolies', in terms of *need*, since they're *unavoidable*, like existing on land -- ?

No. Our ancestors did without them just fine. None of our ancestors ever did without land.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but we in today's world don't *live* in the world of our ancestors. We live in the *modern* world. Just a reminder.


---

Even if government doesn't run a deficit, to print money, there's still the scenario of *private equity*, which is still finance, and is *not* your cherished equity capital itself.

Private equity is just a layer of ownership. The key issue is not how things are privately owned, but WHAT is privately owned. It doesn't matter if slaves are owned by individuals, corporations, private equity firms, churches, charities, or the government. How many times do I have to explain it?

You're being disingenuous and evasive by using a 'way-out-there' example for your illustration -- it's *obscurantism*, basically.

Garbage. I am illustrating the relevant distinction, which you refuse to make.

The distinction you're *missing* is that private equity debt is *not* the same thing as (in-the-black) equity capital itself. Private equity is *rentier* capital, or finance, which is *non-productive* of commodities, just as land is also non-productive of commodities (since food is an organic need / input to workers, who *do* produce commodities).

But, for the sake of *clarity*, I'll rephrase -- the point here is 'Not all capital is going to be *active* (as equity capital, in ongoing investments), at all times, so whenever capital *isn't* being actively used in the process of commodity production, it's just *sitting around*, and is *rentier* capital, which only *draws* from the pre-existing economy of valuations, and does not *add* any new values to it.

If that was for the sake of clarity, I don't want to see what you concoct for the sake of obscurity.

Okay, you're *forfeiting* any chance for objection or response here -- my point stands that private equity is *rentier*-type capital, used for finance / loans, and is *not* the same thing as actively invested equity capital, for actual commodity-production.

Please initial here: ____

The relevant distinction is not whether any given asset is being used "actively" but whether its very existence inherently makes others worse off.

F.I.R.E. is / can-be private equity that's used to make *claims* on pre-existing, in-the-black equity capital.

Would *you* want to divert part of your 'investable' capital, just to make payments on debt servicing, commercial insurance, and/or *rent* -- ?

So my *question* / issue is: 'How do-you / would you *differentiate* between active equity capital, and *non*-active capital, which could readily be used as *finance* -- ?

Again, the relevant distinction is between saved purchasing power diverted from private consumption, which does not deprive anyone else of anything they would otherwise have,

and newly issued purchasing power a private commercial bank has created to obtain interest income at the expense of the community.

You're *vacillating* again. Do you:

[04] Support private equity, as in deposits at a private commercial bank, which will use it for loans to obtain interest income at the expense of the 'community' (pre-existing equity capital), or not -- ?

I know you're against *government*-issued debt (deficit spending), but where do you stand on the issue of *private equity* / commercial banking -- ? You may want to clarify.

*Your* only concern to-date has been with the overly narrow example of *land* / real estate, and you've been content to *ignore* the full spectrum of *all* rentier capital types, namely F.I.R.E.

No, you simply made that up, as usual. I have explained some of the complexities of the FIRE sector and how it extracts rents, which does not by any means exhaust the taxonomy of rentier privilege.

Okay, then, to clarify, please provide an exhaustive list of *all* kinds of rentier-type privilege, including that of finance, insurance, and real estate.

Because of this blind-spot you're unable to address how to *treat* rentier capital differently, as for your 'equity heaven' monolithic administration politics.

No, that is simply you refusing to make the relevant distinctions. Some "rentier capital" like IP monopolies can simply be abolished.

Okay, if government-backed intellectual property monopolies can be summarily abolished by law, then how will the function of 'validation' (of whatever technology market turf) be *handled* exactly -- ? Would two different companies *both* be able to own the same commercial computer operating system (OS) software -- ?

This is all playing-footsie, anyway, because we know that the private sector doesn't fund its own R&D -- that's what *academia* is for, subsidized by government spending, and the government's *military* is what's most cutting-edge, ultimately, regarding developing new technologies.

Others, like utility and infrastructure monopolies, should be owned by the local community.

You're willing to give-up corporate-bureaucratic *economies of scale*, to backwards-*devolve* such large-scale efficient operations, back down to *localist* scales, like 'state's rights' -- ?

You're now expressing a politics that supports the 'nationalization' (localization), of currently privately owned market monopolies like utilities.

[05] Does your 'nationalization' / localization extend to *all* rentier-type assets, including those of *natural resources*, like utilities, and also finance, insurance, and real estate? If not, where do you draw the line, and why?


---

Issuance of additional money should be taken out of the hands of private banks and made the responsibility of an independent national Mint.

You're going to be pleasantly surprised:

The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve or simply the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States of America. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, after a series of financial panics (particularly the panic of 1907) led to the desire for central control of the monetary system in order to alleviate financial crises.[list 1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

---

And secure, exclusive land tenure should be subject to just compensation both from those who enjoy it to the community and from that community to those who are excluded.

Nationalization / localization via a mass-scale eminent domain action by government.

The hazard here is that as soon as you let private-equity / *finance* into the picture -- which I would argue is *unavoidable* in *any* flavor of capitalism -- then you're no longer dealing with *equity capital itself* -- since it isn't -- and instead you're dealing with valuation-sucking *rentier* capital, or *finance*.

No, because that is not the relevant distinction, as I have explained to you so very patiently, so many times, in clear, simple, grammatical English, and you always refuse to know. The relevant distinction is between assets that inherently deprive others of what they would otherwise have and assets that do not.

[05] Does your 'nationalization' / localization extend to *all* rentier-type assets, including those of *natural resources*, like utilities, and also finance, insurance, and real estate? If not, where do you draw the line, and why?


---

But it's always a trade-off, as for any individual or household -- economically you can have 'stability', but only at the cost of foregoing 'risk' and 'opportunities' altogether, by just letting the value just *sit* there.

Anti-economic nonsense. The value of money doesn't just sit there, it is used for exchange.

Sorry, but this just isn't true --

Yes it is.

if it *was*, we'd already be *in* your idealistic equity-heaven (where all exchange values are actively-invested equity capital, only, all the time).

No, that is a non-sequitur fallacy. You simply made it up.

You've *already* acknowledged that private equity / finance, for making loans, is *not* the same thing as (in-the-black) equity capital actively invested for the sake of commodity production, for profit-making.

That's because loans / finance is *rentier*-type capital (*not* equity capital) -- one aspect of F.I.R.E. -- and is *rent-seeking*.

In *reality*, capital goods, like a factory building, *can* be idle, *and* they can also be *in decline*, ready to be picked-off and sold for scrap -- also *non-productive* economic activity, a *reshuffling* of ownership, at best, which then has its *own* overhead of existing-values-procurement for the process of doing so, hence the 'vulture capitalist' or barbarians-at-the-gate moniker.

Idle capital goods do not deprive anyone else of anything they would otherwise have. Idle land does. I'm quite sure there is no way to state that fact so clearly and simply that you would consent to know it.

*Both* idle capital goods *and* idle / undeveloped real estate are 'lost potentials', materially, since they're both not actively participating in economic activity, or being of any use-value to anyone.

Yes, both are 'depriving' people of potential usage, as in the vacancy rate for available rental apartment units, or an idle factory that *could* potentially be employing people.

Aren't insurance and finance actually *overhead*, non-productive claims ('rent-seeking', if you like), against pre-existing equity capital -- ?

That depends on how they are obtained. Insurance can be used to manage risk, and finance can divert purchasing power from consumption to production.

I wasn't asking about *function* (to capital), I was addressing the mandatory *cost* to equity capital, of F.I.R.E., which is by-definition, a *non-profit-making* 'claim', or 'overhead'.

I don't see

Because you refuse to:

how real estate / land

See? You even refuse to know the difference between land and fixed improvements thereto.

is any different economically from finance or insurance, from the standpoint of equity capital -- they're all different forms of *rentier* capital, and are all *non-productive* of commodities (and commodity-production is what equity capital is *all about*, for some serious potential profit-making, unlike what simpler rentier capital can provide).

The relevant distinction is not whether an asset is being used for production, but whether it inherently takes from others.

Since you're talking about 'lost potentials' via privatization of land, I can readily extend that kind of reasoning from 'lost potential land usage', to 'lost potential employment' (idle capital goods).

In both cases we're talking about capitalism's systemic market-failures.

Business cycles

Macroeconomic business cycles are a part of the market. They are characterized by constant downswings and upswings which influence economic activity. Therefore, this situation requires some kind of government intervention.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fa ... ess_cycles

---

I'm going to call it supply-side-versus-demand-side, since the *capitalist* debt money system (if you like) was the 'supply-side' that required sudden public *underwriting* / bailouts.

I'm not even going to try to explain how comprehensively that misapprehends the situation.

---

No, it *isn't*

Yes it is, as the history of the 20th century proved so very conclusively.

-- one could even say that 'free markets' and Stalinism are somewhat *comparable*, because of all of the 'market failures' under capitalism that then require *government bailouts*, which means that the private sector is *not* self-sustaining, as things are, and have-been.

See? You refuse to distinguish between the competitive private sector and the rent seeking private sector.

It was the *competitive private sector*, through risky bets on *subprime mortgages*, that caused the 2008-2009 financial crisis, requiring a government bailout.

Likewise, any Stalinism / bureaucratic-elitism, is *also* government-backed economic nationalism.

Okay, spell-it-out, then -- what role would finance conceivably have, if government intervention in the money supply no longer happened, per your politics -- ?

My proposal is for a politically independent but nationally owned Mint to directly control the money supply to ensure stable prices. Private banks would function as financial intermediaries and risk managers.

And what if such a system -- known today as Federal Reserve central banking -- should happen to *run out of* liquidity / customers, for its national debt products, like U.S. Treasuries? Then what?

'Competition' could be all-out *warfare*, as has happened historically, which would be *unacceptable* by the axioms of your 'equity-heaven' politics, since warfare is *economically destructive*.

See? You even refuse to know the difference between competition and combat.

Competition and combat are *both* destructive of equity values, because they're both caught-up with *ownership* concerns, rather than with commodity production itself -- they both divert funding *away* from investment in production, for socially needed commodities.


---

Please address this inconsistency in your monetarist line.

There is no inconsistency, only willingness to make the relevant distinctions: i.e., to know the fact that the things you say are the same are actually different.

For anyone, like yourself, who's *pro-capitalist*, it's a *Catch-22* -- how are you going to consolidate *market share* from rivals when the *expense* of such economically-destructive competition / combat reduces *liquidity* and availability for equity investment?

(Also, from previously, ideologically desired strong monetarist-type valuations cuts against economic *competitiveness*, because one's production for export will be valued as *more-expensive* on international markets, than similar products from rival exporters with *cheaper* national currency valuations.)


---

Insurance is problematic and complex as explained above. Land and money are by comparison easy to understand -- but you refuse to understand them, either, even when I have explained them to you, very patiently, multiple times, in clear, simple, grammatical English. So I won't even try to get into the problem of insurance.

Okay, so just to *confirm*, you're *forfeiting* any claims to politically address the areas of *insurance*, and *balkanization*. (Several different currencies may wind up being in *competition*, in circulation with each other, like the various cryptocurrencies of today.)

All you have confirmed is that you have no alternative but to just make $#!+ up and falsely attribute it to me.

No, I just *asked* for *confirmation*

Of something you made up and falsely attributed to me.

No, again, I *didn't* summarily 'attribute' anything to you -- I asked you to *confirm*.

I'll restate my position that insurance, like *all* of F.I.R.E., is a rentier, rent-seeking-type *claim*, and *expense* for pre-existing equity capital that will definitely *not* make any profits.

-- I did *not* just interject something of my choosing.

Yes you did.

If insurance is a 'problem', then how would insurance *detract* from your equity-heaven scenario?

Insurance is a problem because of privilege. Absent privilege, it's just a risk management service.

From where does insurance derive *its* privilege? (As compared to the private privilege of *land* ownership, for instance.)

Liberty, justice and truth are not *economics*, though

They are genuine economics, not socialist or capitalist "economics."

No, they're *politics*.

-- there's still the *material world* that any proposed political economy would have to deal-with.

Which has nothing to do with Marxist blather.

*Your* equity-heaven economics relies on *exchange values*, and also must maintain a stable *pricing regime* on-paper, regardless of what volatilities may be taking place in the real-world.

The volatilities even out over time.

You're implying that the private sector alone could economically address *all* contingencies from Mother Nature, *without* requiring government-debt-money-type bailouts.

Would the private sector really be stepping-forward to respond to a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina, or Hurricane Sandy?


---

No, I merely observe that a stable exchange medium is advantageous for production.

*Of course* it is -- that's why your position *requires* it, based as it is in capitalistic *exchange values*.

Capitalism is defined by ownership, not exchange.

All I said was that 'a stable exchange medium' would be capitalist *exchange values* / currency. Is that so objectionable?

Capitalism is defined by *both* ownership, *and* exchange.

And look at what lengths the U.S. government has had to go to, to prevent a liquidity crunch from unsold U.S. Treasury bonds (March 2020).

Don't try to pretend you know anything about it.

Snide.

You *do* advocate capitalism because you advocate an economic system based on *exchange values* -- as soon as there's a single transaction / exchange, there's *exchange values*, either explicit or *implicit* (barter).

Capitalism is defined by ownership, not exchange.

You're not disagreeing -- capitalism *valuates* according to exchange values, an abstraction of values that then requires its own stable *pricing regime*, which does *not* happen intrinsically.

You're content to dispense with government deficit financing, but then the system would have to revert back to being dependent on the *private sector* for bailouts:

To instill public confidence, Rockefeller phoned Melville Stone, the manager of the Associated Press, and told him that he would pledge half of his wealth to maintain U.S. credit.[38]

Stock exchange nears collapse

Despite the infusion of cash, the banks of New York were reluctant to make the short-term loans they typically provided to facilitate daily stock trades. Prices on the exchange began to crash, owing to the lack of funds to finance purchases. At 1:30 p.m. Thursday, October 24, Ransom Thomas, the president of the New York Stock Exchange, rushed to Morgan's offices to tell him that he would have to close the exchange early. Morgan was emphatic that an early close of the exchange would be catastrophic.[39][40]

Morgan summoned the presidents of the city's banks to his office. They started to arrive at 2 p.m.; Morgan informed them that as many as 50 stock exchange houses would fail unless $25 million was raised in 10 minutes. By 2:16 p.m., 14 bank presidents had pledged $23.6 million to keep the stock exchange afloat. The money reached the market at 2:30 p.m., in time to finish the day's trading, and by the 3 o'clock market close, $19 million had been loaned out. Disaster was averted. Morgan usually eschewed the press, but as he left his offices that night he made a statement to reporters: "If people will keep their money in the banks, everything will be all right".[41]

Friday, however, saw more panic on the exchange. Morgan again approached the bank presidents, but this time was only able to convince them to pledge $9.7 million. In order for this money to keep the exchange open, Morgan decided the money could not be used for margin sales. The volume of trading on Friday was 2/3 that of Thursday. The markets again narrowly made it to the closing bell.[42]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_ ... _P._Morgan

---

Equity capital isn't *hostage* to land, as you're making it out to be

Yes it is, as the price of a vacant building lot in almost any major city proves.

(See the next segment.)

-- real estate, like the rest of F.I.R.E., finance and insurance, is a *cost* to capital.

Some parts are. You refuse to know which.

[03] What about the rest of F.I.R.E. -- will land leasees continue to be made economically subservient to the equity costs of *insurance*, and *finance* -- ?

So is keeping the lights on at the office. Your politics *fetishizes* the overhead of *land*, to the point of making it sound like the sole *burden* in business practice.

You made that up. But the astronomical cost of a vacant building lot proves land is a bigger burden than you will admit.

(See the previous segment.)

Noted, but I'll argue that it's still something of a red-herring, since the material *reality* of necessary 'tech' acquisition will continue to exist, for anyone and for any commercial entity. (See the earlier segment on this.)

Nope. Information is inherently free.

I didn't *say* 'information', I said *technology*, which is a component part of 'fixed capital', or non-labor equity capital investments.

While, concurrently, *equity* capital, and rentier capital both extract value from the labor commodity.

No, that's false, as already proved. By providing the factory, which would not otherwise have been available for production, the factory owner increases production by more than the portion of it that he retains as compensation for his contribution.

It's *not* false -- wages have to pay for *rent* for the worker, for humane-necessary *housing*, which is a rentier-type *extraction* of value, while equity values / the employer also extract *surplus labor value* from the worker, for every hour of the workday.

A worker who is sufficiently productive can produce an output value greater than what it costs to hire him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value#Theory

---

<absurd Marxist tripe snipped>

Still name-calling. Stick to the *points*, maybe.

You don't have any points to offer, just absurd Marxist tripe.

Here they are:

[01] How is this 'fair land administration system' *funded* -- ?

[02] How is it *composed* -- is it a *technocracy*, by any chance -- ?

[03] What about the rest of F.I.R.E. -- will land leasees continue to be made economically subservient to the equity costs of *insurance*, and *finance* -- ?

[04] Support private equity, as in deposits at a private commercial bank, which will use it for loans to obtain interest income at the expense of the 'community' (pre-existing equity capital), or not -- ?

[05] Does your 'nationalization' / localization extend to *all* rentier-type assets, including those of *natural resources*, like utilities, and also finance, insurance, and real estate? If not, where do you draw the line, and why?

[ckaihatsu]

My previous point stands:

the South was allowed to continue to participate in the Union

viewtopic.php?p=15236205#p15236205

---

Profit is not an unproductive expense like rent.

This is the crux of it -- I've previously said 'Salarize all ownership!', meaning that the corporate pyramid could be *flattened* tremendously.


---

Private equity is *rentier* capital, or finance, which is *non-productive* of commodities

viewtopic.php?p=15237167#p15237167

Clarification: I've been dealing with the mode of *non-active*, in-the-black private equity capital, but not all private equity is necessarily *rentier* capital, as I've been using it.

[Rancid]

@ckaihatsu what the fuck dude. no one is going to read that massive post.

Anyway, to @BlutoSays point. If it came to the point where all your property/assets are wiped out due to digital money. You will likely have much bigger problems to worry about than your money. Things like food/water/guns will be more important anyway.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu what the fuck dude. no one is going to read that massive post.

You mean *you're* not going to read the massive post. There's a difference there.

Anyway, to @BlutoSays point. If it came to the point where all your property/assets are wiped out due to digital money. You will likely have much bigger problems to worry about than your money. Things like food/water/guns will be more important anyway.

What the hell are you interjecting? Some out-of-the-blue doomsday scenario? Upgrade to a *smart fort*, dude.

[ckaihatsu]

Revolutionary politics *transcends* the typical present-day nationalist politics over monolithic government spending -- it's the world's *workers* who should be the ones to control all social production -- not government or business -- just as *you* advocate for all land stewardship.

CORRECTION: I don't mean to suggest that you, TTP, are advocating for workers control over all land stewardship.

[Rancid]

What the hell are you interjecting? Some out-of-the-blue doomsday scenario? Upgrade to a *smart fort*, dude.

Yes. The point being that people care about money/assets to a point that is unreasonable. That is to say, if the world really ever goes to complete shit and all your assets become worth 0. Odds are, there is something far more pressing going on in the world than the concept of property and assets. Namely, existence.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes. The point being that people care about money/assets to a point that is unreasonable. That is to say, if the world really ever goes to complete shit and all your assets become worth 0. Odds are, there is something far more pressing going on in the world than the concept of property and assets. Namely, existence.

Still got that *zombie* movie script in ya -- ? You could make it *political*.

(grin)

[Truth To Power]

My previous point stands:

Nope.

This is the crux of it -- I've previously said 'Salarize all ownership!', meaning that the corporate pyramid could be *flattened* tremendously.

And production commensurately reduced. Profit is simply revenue less expenses. As such, it is the most accurate incentive for the entrepreneur and business owner to produce more valuable products while consuming less valuable resources. The problem with profits under capitalism is that government-issued and -enforced privilege makes greedy, privileged parasites' permissions one of the "resources" the productive are obliged to "consume" in the course of production.

Clarification: I've been dealing with the mode of *non-active*, in-the-black private equity capital, but not all private equity is necessarily *rentier* capital, as I've been using it.

But you unfortunately have no idea what you are talking about.

[Truth To Power]

The thing they all have *in common* is that they're all *claims* on equity capital, and are non-productive -- no new commodities are produced from finance, insurance, or real estate / land.

But as usual, your claims are just objectively false. All fixed improvements to land -- housing, commercial and industrial space, etc. -- are produced by the real estate sector. Just not the landowner qua landowner.

My point here is that these are all societal / *civilizational* duties, or 'upkeep'. The world is not going to stop turning tomorrow, so all of these realities, whether social or environmental / natural, have to be addressed 'operationally' by society in one way or another.

Capitalism is failing *miserably* right now, as with energy policy, the Middle East proxy war, immigration, fascism / domestic terrorism, and also economically. My current slogan right now is 'The private sector is not self-sustainable.'

See? You can't tell the difference between the private sector and capitalism.

I'm situating 'natural monopolies' according to one's objective empirical role, materially-economically. The respective interests of 'supply' / owner / seller are *not* the same as 'demand' / buyer.

For the owner, for example, F.I.R.E. is a 'natural monopoly' in the sense that it's *mandatory* for business. (So then likewise for any ground-level consumer as well.)

See? You can't tell the difference between finance, insurance and real estate, nor between financial intermediation and money issuance, nor between land and fixed improvements thereto.

I mean it in the sense of 'materially mandatory', as with (your favored) *land*, for the sake of equity profit-making.

But that's not what it means, and what you mean by it has no economic significance.

What's *less* wise and moral is the *status quo*

No, that's false, as history proves. Societies that follow your plan reliably turn into hell-holes.

-- socialist politics is all about eliminating private-type *overhead*, so that society can simply provide *to itself*, without any private-interest 'middleman', extracting profits from the structuring of that societal material supply.

And how has that been working out for you? Oh, wait, that's right: it has failed 100% of the time.

Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

Absurd Marxist tripe with no connection to reality.

You're continuing to overstate / overestimate the merits of private equity capital.

No, I am identifying the fact, which you refuse to know, that while land would still be there without the landowner, the factory would not still be there without the factory owner. You just permanently refuse to know such facts because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

By supporting the function of *finance capital* (even if solely private-equity), you're *diluting* / polluting your own politics / position of being pro-equity-capital, because finance *isn't* equity capital (in-the-black), rather it's *debt* (in-the-red) for the borrower, at a percentage cost.

See? You can't even tell the difference between debt resulting from intermediation between savers and investors and debt resulting from private commercial banks' issuance of new money to finance rentiers' acquisition of privileges.

Likewise, insurance and real estate are *also* non-commodity-productive draws / drains from private equity capital (and from wages, too), so insurance and real estate are *also* not in-the-black equity capital itself, either.

Why do you think anyone buys insurance? Where do you think fixed improvements like houses come from?

Your politics winds up supporting private-sector *parasitism* (F.I.R.E.) on your precious equity capital valuations,

No, because unlike you, I can tell the difference between someone who is paid for building a house and someone who is merely paid for their permission to build a house.

which *detracts* from your goal of *monetarism*, or strong currency valuations.

That's neither monetarism nor my goal.

(And 'monetarism' itself is economically *deflationary* in terms of world trade, making it *contradictory* to the aim of expanding equity capital values, as for additional profitable equity investments.) (Equity capital typically tends to favor *government debt*, for *cheap*, subsidized capital goods, for liquidity for increased 'leveraged' investments.)

Anti-economic gibberish.

The classic historical example is that of colonial *Spain*:

See? You can't even tell the difference between specie inflation and debt money inflation.

You're missing the point -- *any* market, as with the one you're suggesting, *requires* a bourgeois nation-state governmental official apparatus (with government officials), under the political economy of *capitalism*.

That's false.

The *proof* here is 'What if some of the free private users *disagreed* on something? How would they *resolve* their dispute, as over land boundaries, without the intervention of a greater societal / political authority?'

That doesn't prove anything except that you do not know what a proof is. Government administers possession and use of land in any case because that is what government is: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. The question is, will it discharge that function in the interest of the people, justly compensating them for the removal of their liberty rights to use the land (geoism), those who seize political power (socialism), or greedy, privileged, parasitic private landowners (capitalism)?

Free private equity owners would *not* autonomously be able to retain 'order' / viable conditions for commerce -- the historical evidence is World War I and World War II, among other commercial-nationalist disputes and resulting warfare.

That is not evidence for anything but your inability to understand history as well as economics.

Bullshit.

Fact.

This is entirely a dead-end --

Except that it has worked beautifully everywhere it has ever been tried, to the extent that it has been tried.

you're idealistically calling for the 'community' reclamation of all government-privatized land,

No, just its publicly created value.

which is basically bringing back 'the commons',

No it isn't.

See? You can't even tell the difference between market allocation and traditional allocation.

but you're unable to specify *how* your ideal government would actually *reclaim* this

That is false. I have specified it very clearly: just send the current landholders a bill for what they are taking.

worldwide collection of currently *private* land parcels.

I specifically stated that it is a problem that can only be solved locally, one jurisdiction at a time, not worldwide.

Nope. Dead-end.

Refuted above.

I'll use the example of *abortion*, which is now devolved down to a state-by-state patchwork of inconsistent standards and practices for the 'natural-monopoly need' of abortion-service-provision / healthcare, especially under such conditions of restricted 'supply' of it.

There is no such natural monopoly. You are just trying to change the subject.

So here's the historical sequence -- *you* object to the privilege 'sequence' of chattel-slaves property and privatized land, while *I* object to the privilege 'sequence' of chattel-slaves property, privatized land, *and* privatized means of mass industrial production (factories and equipment) --

No, ownership of what you produce is not a privilege, it is justice. A privilege is a legal entitlement to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation.

(since such allows equity capital ownership to *dispossess* wage laborers of their surplus labor value, for every hour of the workday).

No, that's false, as I have already proved to you many times. When the factory owner contributes the factory to the production process, he adds value by increasing the workers' production above what it would have been without the factory. He therefore does not take any value the workers add, and it is just a bald falsehood to claim that he dispossesses them of anything. It is of course -- as you know but always refuse to know -- the landowner who has dispossessed them of their liberty rights to use the land.

Here's a little comparison chart I whipped up:
labor and capital, side-by-side

Spoiler: show

Which is as ridiculous and disinformative as all your other charts.

And:

Which proves me right and you wrong. The slave owners of the Confederate states were never paid any compensation for the removal of their property.

'Forced' -- ? Bullshit:

It is a self-evident historical fact. Your claims are just objectively false. The passage you cite proves me right and you wrong, as usual.

No, that's *fatalism*

No, it's just willingness to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, something that you cannot possibly even begin to understand.

-- you're conflating nationalist-type *Stalinist* states, with the original Communist-Manifesto concept of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

No I'm not. I'm stating the fact that in practice they are the same thing because a dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently impossible, and is therefore useless for any purpose other than as an excuse to seize power.

All for your idealist 'equity heaven' / 'referee government' conception.

The difference: my conception has always worked in practice, while yours never has.

And I'll just *extend* that objection, through to the private ownership of not just *land*, but also the means of mass industrial production that *sits* on the land, *also* under private, non-collectivized control.

Because unlike the land it was created by its initial owners, so its private ownership does not deprive anyone of anything they would otherwise have.

Currently the private ownership of such equity capital exploits laborers and oppresses social minorities.

No it doesn't, as proved, repeat, PROVED by the fact that they would be no better off -- would in fact be far worse off -- if the factory owners and thus the factories they contribute had never existed.

The point here is 'How do you decide?'

By valuing liberty, justice and truth.

Why should education and healthcare be considered 'natural monopolies' -- and nationalized -- while *not* for 'utilities', according to your stated politics -- ?

Health care and education are market failures, not natural monopolies, and should not be nationalized because competitive private providers achieve greater efficiency and excellence. The market failure is best addressed by the community purchasing such services from competing private providers for those of its citizens who can best benefit by them.

To be clear, I'm *not* advocating for any Stalinist-type bureaucratic elitism.

You are advocating something even worse: direct control of land and capital by workers' collectives.

Revolutionary politics *transcends* the typical present-day nationalist politics over monolithic government spending -- it's the world's *workers* who should be the ones to control all social production -- not government or business --

Why? They didn't create the land. Why should they own everyone else's rights to use it? They didn't create the factories, either. Why should they own the fruits of others' labor?

just as *you* advocate for all land stewardship.

I advocate control and stewardship of the land by those who pay the community for what they are thereby taking from the community.

Let's just say that the public-sector 'consumer' (of education, etc.) *may disagree* with your estimation of the social value of the private 'profit' cost, to the public.

Fine. Let them start up their worker-owned collective school, and see if they can deliver better academic performance at lower cost than a competitive private education industry (hint: they can't).

So, back to previously, is education a *natural monopoly*, or *isn't* it -- ?

No. Natural monopoly is only one kind of market failure.

You previously said that education *is* a natural monopoly,

No I didn't. You simply made that up.

meaning that leaving it to private market competition would be a 'market failure', so education *should* therefore be nationalized.

No I didn't. Education's market failure condition can be resolved by public funding; public provision is neither necessary nor desirable.

(But here you're arguing that privatization of education, by market forces, would be a *good* thing.) Your position is *contradictory* and ambiguous.

No. What I said only contradicts what you falsely claim I said.

Should the private sector be *self-sustaining*, or not?

It doesn't have to be, because the fact is, there is a perfectly successful balance between the public and private sectors in effectively all advanced democratic countries with market economies.

How would you address the market-failure of *crashing stock markets*, as we have today -- ?

That's a completely different issue. Stock markets are crashing because under finance capitalism, the debt-money system's positive feedback is inherently destabilizing.

Am I *incorrect* in saying that both *bourgeois*, *and* bureaucratic-elitist types of political-economy hegemony have *both* disempowered the world's working class -- ?

Yes, because it is another case of your refusal to make the relevant distinctions. The mechanisms are entirely different, and have to be reformed in entirely different ways.

Okay, I misspoke, but again the standing question is *how* the world's current population of private landowners is to be convinced to 'repay' / sell / whatever, to the 'community' -- which you still haven't addressed.

Same way slave owners were convinced to give up their ownership of others' rights to liberty.

So this is *nationalization* then -- you keep *dodging* this characterization, even though it's accurate.

No; nationalization implies permanent, direct government control and management, not market allocation to independent private users.

You would then need *popular support* for what's essentially a *land reform*.

Yes, hence the educational effort here. The Big Lie of socialism is just as much a barrier to liberty, justice and prosperity as the Big Lie of capitalism -- because it is exactly the same Big Lie.

Okay, so just to confirm, you're *unable* or *unwilling* to provide any description of the government bureaucracy that you advocate, that would administer over all nationalized land parcels.

No; if you are interested in the minutiae of how a typical property tax office works, you can consult any number of sources. I am not going to give you chapter and verse on hiring criteria, pay grades, the layout of the office, or the design of the relevant forms.

Please do tell.

Please do not waste my time with any more irrelevancies than you absolutely have to. Potential coups pose similar problems for any reformer, so it is a red herring to ask me about them.

In other words the consumer is *external* to the business-government *provisioning* of 'Product X' -- the consumer is interested in filling their own *void* of need / want, which is a *singular* 'natural monopoly' of specific need or want, just as the worker objectively needs to find an *employer*, *any* employer, which is a natural-monopoly of *need*.

That's not what natural monopoly means.

You're still missing the point -- everyday life these days *requires* housing, food, clothing, transportation, utilities, employment, etc.

No it doesn't. It just requires food and clothing, which can be obtained from charities, and housing, which requires land -- and in case you missed it, the homeless even do without that.

There's no avoiding any of this, for anyone,

I know people who avoid some of those things, so you are just makin' $#!+ up again.

so everyone's modern needs are *all* natural-monopolies of *need*.

That's not what natural monopoly means.

Business requires F.I.R.E., just as the person / consumer / worker requires *food*, *water*, housing, utilities, etc.

Wrong again. Business just requires land.

Unmet needs or wants all face a natural-monopoly of *need*, for that specific *void* of unmet need.

That's not what natural monopoly means.

You're attempting to *dichotomize* -- my definition of F.I.R.E. (the reason it's a singular acronym), is because finance, insurance, and real estate are all *mandatory costs*, or claims, on equity capital.

No, that's not why it's a singular acronym. It's a singular acronym because all three sectors are highly dependent on consistent, predictable investment yield and the associated financial technology and expertise.

(See the previous segment.)

Ditto.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but we in today's world don't *live* in the world of our ancestors. We live in the *modern* world. Just a reminder.

That is irrelevant to the fact that many modern people, including some I know personally, do just fine without the things you falsely claim they need, but none of them can ever do without land.

The distinction you're *missing* is that private equity debt is *not* the same thing as (in-the-black) equity capital itself.

No, that's the distinction you are missing, because you can't tell the difference between rent and profit.

Private equity is *rentier* capital, or finance,

No it isn't.

which is *non-productive* of commodities,

No it isn't.

just as land is also non-productive of commodities

No it isn't. Our remote ancestors survived for millions of years on the commodities land produced.

(since food is an organic need / input to workers, who *do* produce commodities).

Non sequitur fallacy.

Okay, you're *forfeiting* any chance for objection or response here -- my point stands that private equity is *rentier*-type capital, used for finance / loans, and is *not* the same thing as actively invested equity capital, for actual commodity-production.

No it isn't. It's simply a form of ownership.

F.I.R.E. is / can-be private equity that's used to make *claims* on pre-existing, in-the-black equity capital.

Or not.

Would *you* want to divert part of your 'investable' capital, just to make payments on debt servicing, commercial insurance, and/or *rent* -- ?

Sure, if it enabled me to make more money.

You're *vacillating* again.

I can be accused of many things, but vacillation is not one of them.

Do you:
[04] Support private equity, as in deposits at a private commercial bank, which will use it for loans to obtain interest income at the expense of the 'community' (pre-existing equity capital), or not -- ?

Yes, because unlike debt money, that is not at the expense of the community, only the borrower.

I know you're against *government*-issued debt (deficit spending),

I'm against a national government undertaking debt denominated in currency it can't issue -- and if it can issue the currency, what is the purpose of the debt? Junior governments should generally avoid debt because it is rarely productive.

but where do you stand on the issue of *private equity* / commercial banking -- ? You may want to clarify.

I have no objection to banking as intermediation.

Okay, then, to clarify, please provide an exhaustive list of *all* kinds of rentier-type privilege, including that of finance, insurance, and real estate.

No. There are too many. It is enough to know the most important ones -- land and other natural resource/location ownership, IP monopolies, and bank licenses -- as they probably account for >90% of the total by value.

Okay, if government-backed intellectual property monopolies can be summarily abolished by law, then how will the function of 'validation' (of whatever technology market turf) be *handled* exactly -- ?

Much like academic priority in science: you get credit for your discovery, but you can't stop anyone else from using it.

Would two different companies *both* be able to own the same commercial computer operating system (OS) software -- ?

Sure. Why not?

This is all playing-footsie, anyway, because we know that the private sector doesn't fund its own R&D -- that's what *academia* is for, subsidized by government spending, and the government's *military* is what's most cutting-edge, ultimately, regarding developing new technologies.

Which is why it should all be in the public domain, except military secrets.

You're willing to give-up corporate-bureaucratic *economies of scale*, to backwards-*devolve* such large-scale efficient operations, back down to *localist* scales, like 'state's rights' -- ?

Depends on the type of operation. Some are most efficient when local, others gain from larger scale.

You're now expressing a politics that supports the 'nationalization' (localization), of currently privately owned market monopolies like utilities.

In most cases of natural monopoly, public ownership is more efficient.

[05] Does your 'nationalization' / localization extend to *all* rentier-type assets, including those of *natural resources*, like utilities, and also finance, insurance, and real estate? If not, where do you draw the line, and why?

Utilities are not natural resources, and finance, insurance and real estate are not natural monopolies.

You're going to be pleasantly surprised:

No, I am not surprised at all that you have no understanding whatever -- none -- of the function of the US Federal Reserve or its relation to issuance of money in the private banking system.

Nationalization / localization via a mass-scale eminent domain action by government.

No, just a tax bill calculated to zero out the subsidy.

[05] Does your 'nationalization' / localization extend to *all* rentier-type assets, including those of *natural resources*, like utilities, and also finance, insurance, and real estate? If not, where do you draw the line, and why?

See above.

You've *already* acknowledged that private equity / finance, for making loans, is *not* the same thing as (in-the-black) equity capital actively invested for the sake of commodity production, for profit-making.

That's because loans / finance is *rentier*-type capital (*not* equity capital) -- one aspect of F.I.R.E. -- and is *rent-seeking*.

No it isn't. You just refuse to know the difference between saving money and issuing money.

*Both* idle capital goods *and* idle / undeveloped real estate are 'lost potentials', materially, since they're both not actively participating in economic activity, or being of any use-value to anyone.

Wrong again. Idle capital goods do not deprive anyone else of anything they would otherwise have. Idle land does. I'm quite sure -- and you just proved it -- that there is no way to state that fact so clearly and simply that you would consent to know it.

You are simply assuming that you know better than the owner of the producer goods how they would best be allocated. Maybe you are right, and they could be used productively to create more value than would be consumed in the production; if so, then you can jolly well pay the owner for them, take responsibility for your decisions, and earn the resulting profits, like any honest business person. But maybe you are wrong, and the value produced would be less than the value consumed. You simply believe that you have a right to decide how the fruits of other people's labor should be used even though you did not pay for them, and will bear no responsibility if the result of your decision is aggravated rather than reduced scarcity for the community.

Yes, both are 'depriving' people of potential usage, as in the vacancy rate for available rental apartment units,

No, that is just objectively false. The apartment units would not exist if the original owners had not built and owned them, and therefore no one is deprived of anything they would otherwise have by the current owners' ownership of them. You are just assuming that apartment units somehow exist by magic, or naturally, like land, and would otherwise be available. But they do not, and would not.

or an idle factory that *could* potentially be employing people.

Or running it could just waste resources. You simply believe that you know better than the owner how to use the factory, and that -- unlike an honest business person who, in your position, would pay the owner for it and take responsibility for the decision to buy and operate it -- you have a right to decide how it is used even though you have not paid him for it and will take no responsibility if the result is just a waste of resources. You just want power with no associated responsibility.

I wasn't asking about *function* (to capital), I was addressing the mandatory *cost* to equity capital, of F.I.R.E., which is by-definition, a *non-profit-making* 'claim', or 'overhead'.

Your premise is false. Whether a claim is non-productive rent or productive profit is not determined by the sector it is in, but by how it is obtained.

Since you're talking about 'lost potentials' via privatization of land,

No I'm not. I'm talking about forcible removal, without just compensation, of people's liberty rights to use it, and the injustice that proceeds from that.

I can readily extend that kind of reasoning from 'lost potential land usage', to 'lost potential employment' (idle capital goods).

No you can't, because the idle capital goods are only there at all because their initial owner took the responsibility of creating them in order to own them. The potential is something you would not otherwise have, and therefore have no right to allocate to your favored purposes.

In both cases we're talking about capitalism's systemic market-failures.

Wrong again. If I pay to build a factory and then leave it idle, no one else is harmed. No one is any worse off than if I had not built it. By contrast, if I obtain ownership of land and leave it idle, everyone who would otherwise be at liberty to use that land is made worse off. I am absolutely certain -- and you just proved it again -- that there is no way to state that fact so clearly and simply that you would consent to know it.

It was the *competitive private sector*, through risky bets on *subprime mortgages*, that caused the 2008-2009 financial crisis, requiring a government bailout.

No it wasn't. It was the debt money system, whose positive feedback effect inherently destabilizes the economy.

Likewise, any Stalinism / bureaucratic-elitism, is *also* government-backed economic nationalism.

I.e., socialism.

And what if such a system -- known today as Federal Reserve central banking

No it isn't. You obviously know nothing whatever about the Fed or its relation to private commercial banking.

-- should happen to *run out of* liquidity / customers, for its national debt products, like U.S. Treasuries? Then what?

It can't run out of liquidity and thus has no reason to issue debt instruments.

Competition and combat are *both* destructive of equity values, because they're both caught-up with *ownership* concerns, rather than with commodity production itself -- they both divert funding *away* from investment in production, for socially needed commodities.

Garbage. How are producers going to compete without investing in producer goods, hmmmmmmm?

For anyone, like yourself, who's *pro-capitalist*,

I have stated explicitly, many times, that that is false. You simply make the same false claim again.

it's a *Catch-22* -- how are you going to consolidate *market share* from rivals when the *expense* of such economically-destructive competition / combat reduces *liquidity* and availability for equity investment?

Your premise is false.

(Also, from previously, ideologically desired strong monetarist-type valuations cuts against economic *competitiveness*, because one's production for export will be valued as *more-expensive* on international markets, than similar products from rival exporters with *cheaper* national currency valuations.)

OK, so you don't understand comparative advantage, either. That fits.

No, again, I *didn't* summarily 'attribute' anything to you

Yes you did.

-- I asked you to *confirm*.

What you made up and falsely attributed to me. Like being pro-capitalist.

I hope anyone else reading this is learning about socialism from your despicable behavior.

I'll restate my position that insurance, like *all* of F.I.R.E., is a rentier, rent-seeking-type *claim*, and *expense* for pre-existing equity capital that will definitely *not* make any profits.

And I'll restate the fact that you are wrong. There is no reason risk management can't be a profitable service.

From where does insurance derive *its* privilege? (As compared to the private privilege of *land* ownership, for instance.)

It's complicated. People need a lot more insurance because of other privileges, like medical IP monopolies, limited corporate liability, etc.

No, they're *politics*.

Wrong.

You're implying that the private sector alone could economically address *all* contingencies from Mother Nature, *without* requiring government-debt-money-type bailouts.

Not all, but certainly the price effects.

Would the private sector really be stepping-forward to respond to a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina, or Hurricane Sandy?

Of course.

All I said was that 'a stable exchange medium' would be capitalist *exchange values* / currency. Is that so objectionable?

Yes, because it has nothing to do with capitalism.

Capitalism is defined by *both* ownership, *and* exchange.

No it isn't.

You're not disagreeing -- capitalism *valuates* according to exchange values, an abstraction of values that then requires its own stable *pricing regime*, which does *not* happen intrinsically.

Wrong. Capitalism has often coexisted with unstable currencies.

You're content to dispense with government deficit financing,

Debt, not deficits. There is a difference (which you can't tell).

but then the system would have to revert back to being dependent on the *private sector* for bailouts:

No.

(See the next segment.)

It still proves you wrong.

[03] What about the rest of F.I.R.E. -- will land leasees continue to be made economically subservient to the equity costs of *insurance*, and *finance* -- ?

No, because a market lease is not a significant asset.

(See the previous segment.)

Already proved wrong.

I didn't *say* 'information', I said *technology*, which is a component part of 'fixed capital', or non-labor equity capital investments.

Acquisition of technology refers to information, not machinery.

It's *not* false

Of course it is.

wages have to pay for *rent* for the worker, for humane-necessary *housing*, which is a rentier-type *extraction* of value,

No it isn't. Only the location portion is an extraction. The improvements portion is payment for a contribution that would not otherwise exist.

while equity values / the employer also extract *surplus labor value* from the worker, for every hour of the workday.

Already proved false. When a factory owner increases workers' production tenfold, gives one part of the increase to the workers, five parts to the landowner, pays two parts in taxes, and keeps one part in profits, that is not extracting surplus labor value. It is CREATING surplus labor value.

Here they are:

Those aren't points; they are disingenuous questions I have already answered multiple times.