[Hakeer]

That is a bald falsehood. I do not take issue with factually correct statements. If I contradict every single sentence you write, it is because every single sentence you write is false. You might want to ask yourself why that is.

Everyone you argue with on this forum is wrong in every sentence we write, so you must list and contradict every single sentence. Your “facts” are your own ideological beliefs couched in your “geoist” terminology.

I am not an “evil parasite” for buying some land to build my house. That is an opinion on which we disagree, not a fact. It is a fact that the government does not own all the land in 190 of 195 countries in the world. In all those countries, it is legal to own land. We also disagree on human rights, but that’s also a matter of opinion, not fact. The definition and conditions of “justice” is also an opinion, not fact, and has been debated in philosophy for centuries.

[Hakeer]

It is financial capitalism, and finance capitalism shifts taxes from the rentier class onto labour and industry. You wannabe capitalists can't complain. It's built into your 'all's-for-the-best-in-your-best-of-all-possible-worlds' system.

The tax system has the ability to redistribute income and wealth to the billionaire class at the expense of everyone else — both those of us alive today and every baby born tomorrow. That’s what Republicans do in spades every chance they get Reagan, Bush, Trump. That’s what I want to reverse. We can start with Biden’s proposal to raise taxes only on those with $400,000 income. I would do more than that, but it’s a good start and better than Trump giving them $2 trillion in tax cuts and blowing the federal debt even higher through the roof.

[Truth To Power]

If you buy food, gasoline, LAND, hotel stay, etc. and there is a sales tax, the government’s tax is included in the cost of the commodity or service you purchase. That is what I mean by a consumption tax.

No. Land is not consumed. If there is a tax on sale of land -- which I would generally not advocate, as such taxes reduce the liquidity of markets -- it is completely different from a consumption tax, which I also do not advocate, as already explained. What people consume is not what they are taking from the community, because they have already paid the producer for it.

What you call “rents of privilege” the Internal Revenue Service calls “income”,

No, that's completely false. The economic rent of a privilege exists and can be taxed whether it is received as income or not: e.g., the land value portion of a property tax is exactly the same whether the owner is collecting the full rent from a tenant or leaving the land vacant and getting no income whatever from it. And of course, most income is wage income, which is not a rent of privilege.

and if you abolish income tax, the billionaires will get to keep all that money.

No, that's false and absurd. They would be paying tax on the rental value of their privilege, or having its value removed by its abolition. They, like everyone else, would only keep what they earned by commensurate contributions to production, and would consequently be much, much poorer. That is justice, which is why you hate and oppose it.

What I said is that the billionaire will gladly pay consumption tax in exchange for no income tax.

I have not advocated a consumption tax -- which is anti-economic nonsense -- and I have explained why a consumption tax is not a tax on what people take from the community, which is what I do advocate.

[Truth To Power]

Everyone you argue with on this forum is wrong in every sentence we write, so you must list and contradict every single sentence.

Anyone can compare my posts with the original messages I respond to and confirm that your claim is objectively false.

Your “facts” are your own ideological beliefs couched in your “geoist” terminology.

No, that is false. I use technical terms as necessary to identify the relevant facts when conventional terminology is inadequate to the task.

For example, it is a fact that all land started out unowned. It is a fact that all were then at liberty to use it. It is a fact that appropriation of land as private property forcibly removed one of the liberty rights of all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it. I don't think that is geoist terminology. They are just facts, stated in ordinary grammatical English, that you are calling "ideological beliefs" because you have already realized that they prove your ideological beliefs are false and evil.

I am not an “evil parasite” for buying some land to build my house.

IIRC, you have bragged that you have refused to permit others to use land that you own but are not using, because they have not been willing to meet your extortion demands. Abrogating others' rights without making just compensation is evil, and demanding that others pay you just for your permission to use what would otherwise be available for use makes you a parasite.

That is an opinion on which we disagree, not a fact.

No, it is a proven fact. See above.

It is a fact that the government does not own all the land in 190 of 195 countries in the world.

You have never provided any evidence for that claim, and will not be doing so.

In all those countries, it is legal to own land.

It is often legal to hold a land title under various legal frameworks that do not actually confer ownership. In the UK, for example, private landholders typically have a fee simple title, but all land technically still belongs to the Crown. Similar legal frameworks are in place in many countries.

We also disagree on human rights, but that’s also a matter of opinion, not fact.

I would characterize it as a matter of fact which has not yet been satisfactorily settled.

The definition and conditions of “justice” is also an opinion, not fact, and has been debated in philosophy for centuries.

Just because something has been debated for centuries doesn't mean the debate can never be settled one way or another. I define justice as benefits commensurate with contributions and costs commensurate with deprivations. If you think you have a better definition, you can offer it.

[Hakeer]

Anyone can compare my posts with the original messages I respond to and confirm that your claim is objectively false.

No, that is false. I use technical terms as necessary to identify the relevant facts when conventional terminology is inadequate to the task.

For example, it is a fact that all land started out unowned. It is a fact that all were then at liberty to use it. It is a fact that appropriation of land as private property forcibly removed one of the liberty rights of all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it. I don't think that is geoist terminology. They are just facts, stated in ordinary grammatical English, that you are calling "ideological beliefs" because you have already realized that they prove your ideological beliefs are false and evil.

IIRC, you have bragged that you have refused to permit others to use land that you own but are not using, because they have not been willing to meet your extortion demands. Abrogating others' rights without making just compensation is evil, and demanding that others pay you just for your permission to use what would otherwise be available for use makes you a parasite.

No, it is a proven fact. See above.

You have never provided any evidence for that claim, and will not be doing so.

It is often legal to hold a land title under various legal frameworks that do not actually confer ownership. In the UK, for example, private landholders typically have a fee simple title, but all land technically still belongs to the Crown. Similar legal frameworks are in place in many countries.

I would characterize it as a matter of fact which has not yet been satisfactorily settled.

Just because something has been debated for centuries doesn't mean the debate can never be settled one way or another. I define justice as benefits commensurate with contributions and costs commensurate with deprivations. If you think you have a better definition, you can offer it.

Unlike you, I don’t have the time or interest to go through every sentence you write. But since you brought up land laws in the UK, I will just say that 92% of the land in the UK is privately owned (not leased from the government or anyone else) and most definitely not available for you to pitch your tent on it.

“Yes, over 92% of England's land is privately owned and not accessible to the public. This is due to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act of 2000, which only implemented the "right to roam" on certain areas of uncultivated and upland land. This means that the majority of the English countryside is inaccessible to the public.”

https://www.google.com/search?q=land+la ... s-wiz-serp


Your “otherwise liberty right to use” phrase begs the question. Who says you have these “liberty rights”. YOU. Other than the 5 remaining communist countries in the world, it is legal to own land.

Now, your other argument is that, if we had no land laws, you would be “at liberty” to use whatever undeveloped land you want. Says who? Let’s go back to the Clallam Indians who were the first humans to ever settle on the Olympic Peninsula. Assume the anthropologists are correct on that. Assume also that they settled, as they are today, on the best land for hunting, fishing, and agriculture. Assume also that they were well settled into the area for 100 years before another tribe arrived on the peninsula. Now, let’s say the leader of the second tribe tried to invoke “liberty rights” to plant his damn totem pole 10 feet in front of the Clallam tribe leader’s home against his protests. The Clallam tribe insisted that the second tribe settle farther down the river where there is still good hunting and fishing, but not quite as good the Clallam tribe who claims their territory on the simple principle “We got here first.”

As I said, it is the same thing if we go look at other primates. Monkeys establish and defend their claimed territory against other bands.

In all these examples (modern law, prehistoric societies, or other primates), once a piece of land is claimed, you will have a fight on your hands – literally or in court – if you claim “liberty rights” to land 10 feet from my home.

Is that right and just? You say no, but that is no more than YOUR OPINION upon which most of the world disagrees. Your opinion is not a fact.

[JohnRawls]

Anyone can compare my posts with the original messages I respond to and confirm that your claim is objectively false.

No, that is false. I use technical terms as necessary to identify the relevant facts when conventional terminology is inadequate to the task.

For example, it is a fact that all land started out unowned. It is a fact that all were then at liberty to use it. It is a fact that appropriation of land as private property forcibly removed one of the liberty rights of all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it. I don't think that is geoist terminology. They are just facts, stated in ordinary grammatical English, that you are calling "ideological beliefs" because you have already realized that they prove your ideological beliefs are false and evil.

IIRC, you have bragged that you have refused to permit others to use land that you own but are not using, because they have not been willing to meet your extortion demands. Abrogating others' rights without making just compensation is evil, and demanding that others pay you just for your permission to use what would otherwise be available for use makes you a parasite.

No, it is a proven fact. See above.

You have never provided any evidence for that claim, and will not be doing so.

It is often legal to hold a land title under various legal frameworks that do not actually confer ownership. In the UK, for example, private landholders typically have a fee simple title, but all land technically still belongs to the Crown. Similar legal frameworks are in place in many countries.

I would characterize it as a matter of fact which has not yet been satisfactorily settled.

Just because something has been debated for centuries doesn't mean the debate can never be settled one way or another. I define justice as benefits commensurate with contributions and costs commensurate with deprivations. If you think you have a better definition, you can offer it.

Next question about China and Geoism. China household income/consumption is very very very low compared to lets say EU or US. I don't remember the exact numbers by Consumption of local population is around
20% in China and is like 60% in the EU and 70% in the US of gdp. How does Geoism explain then that Chinas whole economic policy is basically favouring manufacturing and ignoring the households/people.

There is a reason why industry moved out of Europe and US to China obviously, if you devalue your currency, provide subsidies to industries, prevent higher income growth by legal means those are all policies that damage household income and basically subsidise the manufacturing sector at the expense of household incomes/household consumption.

This creates its own problems later on but how does Geoism explain that or deal with it so you won't get stuck in a middle income trap forever basically or even worse go in to a Japan style stagnation/recession while being still relatively poor?

[Truth To Power]

China household income/consumption is very very very low compared to lets say EU or US. I don't remember the exact numbers by Consumption of local population is around
20% in China and is like 60% in the EU and 70% in the US of gdp. How does Geoism explain then that Chinas whole economic policy is basically favouring manufacturing and ignoring the households/people.

That can't be right. Do you mean consumption/income? It would be helpful if you could provide a source, so I could identify and explain where you have gone wrong, as I did with your external debt statistic on Luxembourg.

There is a reason why industry moved out of Europe and US to China obviously, if you devalue your currency, provide subsidies to industries, prevent higher income growth by legal means those are all policies that damage household income and basically subsidise the manufacturing sector at the expense of household incomes/household consumption.

Yes, Japan, South Korea and other countries did similar things to bootstrap industrial development. But they are democracies, so it couldn't be kept up indefinitely. In China, who knows what will happen? Xi seems to think Kim Jong Un has the right ideas.

This creates its own problems later on but how does Geoism explain that or deal with it so you won't get stuck in a middle income trap forever basically or even worse go in to a Japan style stagnation/recession while being still relatively poor?

Geoism is just one aspect of economic policy, and China is a dictatorship that does not permit publication or even collection of accurate economic data. I can't hope to understand everything they have done, or why.

[JohnRawls]

That can't be right. Do you mean consumption/income? It would be helpful if you could provide a source, so I could identify and explain where you have gone wrong, as I did with your external debt statistic on Luxembourg.

Yes, Japan, South Korea and other countries did similar things to bootstrap industrial development. But they are democracies, so it couldn't be kept up indefinitely. In China, who knows what will happen? Xi seems to think Kim Jong Un has the right ideas.

Geoism is just one aspect of economic policy, and China is a dictatorship that does not permit publication or even collection of accurate economic data. I can't hope to understand everything they have done, or why.

I mean consumption as percentage of GDP



These numbers are a bit hard to count but usually they vary between 60-70% for US, 50-60% for EU and 20-30% i guess a bit more like 25-35% for China nowadays.

[QatzelOk]

No. Although Marx dismissed geoism as "capitalism's last ditch" (i.e., its final defense against socialism) geoism is not capitalism any more than it is socialism. ...

The reason I mentionned Geoism... was not to criticize it.

I was mentionning that, rather then doing anything about our upcoming national bankruptcy, our elites will encourage us to distract attention from it. By not paying attention to our debt, we will go bankrupt.

The two main techniques for getting people to ignore their upcoming doom are:

1. Tell them that deficits don't matter (neither does death or extinction, I guess)

2. Distract them with entertainment (Disney movies, porn, tell them about Geoism....)

In both cases (don't matter, and distraction) the purpose is to continue indebting the population so that all the national assets can be bought for pennies-on-the-dollar by banksters.

Ukraine and Russia were "bought up" by oligarchs after collapse, and the West hates Putin because he renationalized the oil in Russia after the Rothschilds had gotten one of their local oligarchs to buy it up.

So we in the West are being set up for a collapse leading-to fire sale for oligarchs.

[Deutschmania]

Ukraine and Russia were "bought up" by oligarchs after collapse, and the West hates Putin because he re-nationalized the oil in Russia after the Rothschilds had gotten one of their local oligarchs to buy it up.

So we in the West are being set up for a collapse leading-to fire sale for oligarchs.

I hadn't heard of this before , so I looked into it further . As it turns out , the Rothschild family , via their company , Bnito , along with a number of other multinational corporations , and investors , has had a long history in the extraction and exportation of Russian oil/ petroleum , even throughout the Soviet era , and up to now . The nationalization of much of the oil industry has done little to change this relationship , only that now the Kremlin controls a sizable share of the assets as well . For reference , here are my sources of information .

https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/research-projects/transnational-origins-russian-oil-industry-rothschilds-bnito-and-baku-naphtha , https://www.rbth.com/business/326217-black-gold-how-russian-oil , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Russia#Russia's_oil_refineries , https://www.rbth.com/business/2014/05/06/gazprom_beats_apple_to_top_global_ranking_amid_rothschild_interest_36441.html , https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60564265 , https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66021325 , https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-russian-oil-is-reaching-the-u-s-market-through-a-loophole-in-the-embargo , https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/03/03/fact-check-no-evidence-putin-banned-rothschild-family-russia/6979745001/

[Truth To Power]

I was mentionning that, rather then doing anything about our upcoming national bankruptcy, our elites will encourage us to distract attention from it. By not paying attention to our debt, we will go bankrupt.

Governments cannot go bankrupt by owing debt denominated in money they are empowered to issue. They can, however, consequently acquire legal liabilities that require them to divert an increasing fraction of GDP in interest payments to banksters and other rich, greedy parasites who hold the debt.

The two main techniques for getting people to ignore their upcoming doom are:

1. Tell them that deficits don't matter (neither does death or extinction, I guess)

One of the absurdities of modern mainstream neoclassical economics is the assumption that debt, banking and money are irrelevant to the "real economy."

2. Distract them with entertainment (Disney movies, porn, tell them about Geoism....)

That is an especially bizarre claim, as it is only geoism that focuses people's attention on the crucial, central fact of economics that both socialism and capitalism seek to obscure: the difference between rightful property in the fruits of one's labor and wrongful property in others' rights to liberty.

In both cases (don't matter, and distraction) the purpose is to continue indebting the population so that all the national assets can be bought for pennies-on-the-dollar by banksters.

That does not require debt or bankruptcy, although they do make convenient rationalizations for it.

Ukraine and Russia were "bought up" by oligarchs after collapse, and the West hates Putin because he renationalized the oil in Russia after the Rothschilds had gotten one of their local oligarchs to buy it up.

The collapse of the USSR, conversion of the Soviet republics to capitalism, and consequent purchase of natural resources by oligarchs for pennies on the dollar did not occur as a result of bankruptcy, and the money was not used to repay sovereign debt.

So we in the West are being set up for a collapse leading-to fire sale for oligarchs.

That has already been done to many small countries that undertook debt denominated in currencies they could not issue, mainly $US. This has been analyzed in detail in "Superimperialism" by Prof Michael Hudson, and described on a more concrete and personal level by John Perkins in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." It is also being done to Eurozone countries that cannot issue euros, but it cannot be done to countries like the USA that have the power to issue the currency their debts are denominated in.

[Truth To Power]

I mean consumption as percentage of GDP



These numbers are a bit hard to count but usually they vary between 60-70% for US, 50-60% for EU and 20-30% i guess a bit more like 25-35% for China nowadays.

OK, that is at least plausible: China consumes about half as much of its GDP as the USA. Part of that, of course, is that the Chinese government and state-owned enterprises account for a larger fraction of GDP. But much of it is diversion of households' purchasing power into the real estate bubble. For some reason, construction of thousands of high-rise apartment buildings that no one will ever live in does not count as consumption.

[JohnRawls]

OK, that is at least plausible: China consumes about half as much of its GDP as the USA. Part of that, of course, is that the Chinese government and state-owned enterprises account for a larger fraction of GDP. But much of it is diversion of households' purchasing power into the real estate bubble. For some reason, construction of thousands of high-rise apartment buildings that no one will ever live in does not count as consumption.

Partially, the problem is also that Chinese policies favour the manufacturing sector aka depressed wages, less restrictions, subsidies for manufacturers and industrial policy on mass, etc etc etc.

That obviously comes at the expense of households.

[Skynet]

@JohnRawls Luxebourg is an microcountry with a large banking sector comparable to Singapur. Switzerland has just 35% of the GDP debts.

Where did you get the 3800% Luxembourg debts.
I found just this 25.7 %

Government Debt to GDP in Luxembourg averaged 15.40 percent of GDP from 1995 until 2023, reaching an all time high of 25.70 percent of GDP in 2023 and a record low of 7.40 percent of GDP in 2002.


https://tradingeconomics.com/luxembourg ... 0in%202002.

Private debts in Luxembourg may be high but I think their debts are the debts of Banks who take debts and lend money to higher interess rates.


170% of GDP federal debts is commonly seen as the limit a country can pay back

[JohnRawls]

@JohnRawls Luxebourg is an microcountry with a large banking sector comparable to Singapur. Switzerland has just 35% of the GDP debts.

Where did you get the 3800% Luxembourg debts.
I found just this 25.7 %



Private debts in Luxembourg may be high but I think their debts are the debts of Banks who take debts and lend money to higher interess rates.


170% of GDP federal debts is commonly seen as the limit a country can pay back

Total external debt meaning both government and private sector and people. Which is the worst kind of debt by the way.

[ingliz]

@JohnRawls

Luxembourg's debt using the latest World Bank numbers (2023) ...

Domestic credit to private sector - 96.2% of GDP

Households Debt - 68.90% of GDP

Government Debt - 25.70% of GDP

[JohnRawls]

@JohnRawls

Luxembourg's debt using the latest World Bank numbers (2023) ...

Domestic credit to private sector - 96.2% of GDP

Households Debt - 68.90% of GDP

Government Debt - 25.70% of GDP

A country's gross external debt (or foreign debt) is the liabilities that are owed to nonresidents by residents.[1]: 5  The debtors can be governments, corporations or citizens.[1]: 41–43  External debt may be denominated in domestic or foreign currency.[1]: 71–72  It includes amounts owed to private commercial banks, foreign governments, or international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

External debt measures an economy's obligations to make future payments and, therefore, is an indicator of a country's vulnerability to solvency and liquidity problems.[1]: xi–xii  Another useful indicator is the net external debt position, which equals gross external debt minus external assets in the form of debt instruments.[1]: 1–2  A related concept is the net international investment position (net IIP). Provided that debt securities are measured at market value, the net external debt position equals the net IIP excluding equity and investment fund shares, financial derivatives, and employee stock options.[1]: 44, 82 


https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/l ... ernal-debt

https://tradingeconomics.com/luxembourg ... ebt-to-gdp

https://data.ecb.europa.eu/data/dataset ... T._X.N.ALL

The last one is ECB and provided to ECB by Luxembourg so their own central bank data.

[Truth To Power]

Where did you get the 3800% Luxembourg debts.

I already explained that JohnRawls's data were for TOTAL debt, both public and private, and were not netted against debt owed TO Luxembourg. So private Luxembourg banks could borrow trillions from other countries to buy up the debt of still other countries, and it would only show as an INCREASE in Luxembourg's external debt.

Having some numbers doesn't do you much good if you can't be bothered finding out what they mean.

[ingliz]

@JohnRawls

So what?

The UK's gross external debt as of March 2024 is GBP 7,767,200,000,000.00.





Reason for edit: Counting the pennies

[Truth To Power]

Total external debt meaning both government and private sector and people. Which is the worst kind of debt by the way.

The worst kind of debt is consumer debt: debt undertaken to purchase things that yield no return. Unfortunately, especially in the USA, this often includes medical debt undertaken to purchase treatment for patients who then do not recover.

Or maybe a worse kind is debt undertaken by a national government to wage a war of aggression that it then loses.