How the Rentier Class Cannibalizes the Economy

[Dresta]

lol @ the tools that think what we have now is capitalism.

The same tools that think the state will solve all these problems, when it created most of them in the first place, and it is widely acknowledged that an altruistic politician is about as common as an honest burglar.

Stop putting your faith in government and politicians!

[K]

lol @ the tools that think what we have now is capitalism.

The same tools that think the state will solve all these problems, when it created most of them in the first place, and it is widely acknowledged that an altruistic politician is about as common as an honest burglar.

Stop putting your faith in government and politicians!

Land and capital are privately owned ergo what we have is capitalism.

[Dresta]

[QUOTE=K

[I<3NBA]

If you read more of the OP's posts on here, you'd see his problem doesn't lie in whether or not wealth is created or not; simply that he isn't part of the money being moved around to him.

not really. read it again. the complaint is about unproductive activity. there's nothing productive about sitting on a land and then collecting rent on it. productive economic activity has always been industry and manufacturing. you're producing real goods that boosts the quality of life. collecting rent is a parasitic economic activity. produces absolutely nothing.

Holy christ that is dumb.

Moving money around creates nothing of value? You know how many small businesss and even large ones start from loans? People dont have enough money to enterprise their good idea on their own so they borrow. The peole who lend need a reason to take the risk of lending money so they collect interest. This is like the most basic fundamental economic principle. I mean seriously, how retarded and salty must one be not to get this???

maybe i've not been clear, so i'll make it clearer. the act itself of moving money around creates nothing. it's the activity after this which creates something. so the one who deserves the tax breaks are the ones who create, not the ones who move the money around. who gets all the tax breaks? is it the inventors and innovators?

We also have a democracy. The people can impose their collective will by informing themselves and voting. You can vote property taxes up or down. Hardly anybody in America does that. Successful people take advantage of Americas opportunity and the rest just complain and never do anything. Your beef is with the inherent inequality resulting from a free system. You dont have the guts to call out the little guy so you wrongly take aim at the big guy. Thats simply testice-less f@ggotry.

the system you have now isn't free nor is it true democracy. the big guy you so idolize do deserve to be put down seeing as the same activity you consider fa990try is being done by them.

government bailout being the biggest fa990try of all. lol, you're getting screwed and you're defending the one screwing you. holy christ, that is what's really dumb.

[Sarcastic]

Pure capitalism, and pure socialism is pretty much impossible to ever implement in the real world. What we have in this country is closer to the capitalism end of the spectrum. Anyone who denies that is pretty much delusional, and not worth debating with.

[K]

And it is controlled by the state and state-sustained monopolistic corporations, ergo, not capitalism.

What we have now is closer to the Mercantilism of the 17th century rather than the capitalism forwarded by the likes of A. Smith.

Try to read in the future rather than just parroting trivial platitudes.

All an economy requires for it to be capitalist is that the means of production are privately owned (land and capital). Landowning is always a state enforced legal entitlement (BTW,
'Ownership' itself is defined as A protecting B's right to C against D). State-sustained monopolistic corporations are not contradictory to capitalism. Mercantilism is capitalist. State protection against competition (intellectual property, etc.) can be a part of capitalism.

I suggest you take your own advise, since I just schooled you.

BTW, Adam Smith also shared some of my views:

"Both ground- rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents, and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them." - Adam Smith

[Blue&Orange]

Do chicks just openly laugh in your face when you try to talk to them?? You are the softest, whiniest, unmanliest loser. The people who sit around complaining about capitalism are the ones who are crazy insecure, effeminate, pathetic, and cant compete.

In short, you are a retarded bitch woman.

Obvious if you tried to argue, you know i would make you look like that incredible retarded you are, like i did many times before, so you just go for the insult this time, because you got nothing else.

Talk about pathetic, retarded, effeminate and insecure loser.




Go ahead ph@ggot try to argue facts with me, make my day bitch.

[Dresta]

Pure capitalism, and pure socialism is pretty much impossible to ever implement in the real world. What we have in this country is closer to the capitalism end of the spectrum. Anyone who denies that is pretty much delusional, and not worth debating with.

Ah, yes, 'i'm so sure i'm right that no one that holds the contrary opinion is worth debating with.' What an argument you have there: really mature and insightful.

There is a difference between 'pure capitalism' and a system that best utilises the strengths of capitalism to increase capital accumulation, enhance labour productivity, and thus increase the living standards of all. The increases in living standards in the West have all been a result of capitalism, and not the socialist policies that are now somehow conflated with capitalism. You actually think what we have is capitalism?:

The state spends almost 40% of total GDP; it has the ability to print money as it likes, and as a result inflation has spiralled, diminishing savings and leading to excessive risk taking; the compulsory nature of social security takes the ability to save out of the hands of individuals and grants this power to the state; the blind adherence to the socialist doctrine of progressive taxation, that is so readily accepted that it would be impossible to revoke (this increases inequality btw, it doesn't reduce it, and leads to quasi-monopolies who last long past their sell-by date); the state control over education and the dissemination of information to the young; the protection of agriculture at the expense of everyone else; the granting of special privileges to certain groups.

This you call capitalism? That is like calling a $80 smartphone an iphone because it looks a bit like one and works in a fairly similar way. It is erroneous to say the least.

At the moment we have a disgusting hybrid that combines the worst elements of capitalism with the worst of socialism to make the corrupted crap-heap we have today.

[QUOTE=K

[K]

Your definition of capitalism is so broad that the word is rendered completely meaningless.

Wrong. My definition of capitalism is correct. Private ownership of the means of production, capital and land.

And i'm not surprised Adam Smith agrees with you considering he spent half his time attacking Mercantilism, and as what we have now is a type of corporate mercantilism where government and big business combine to **** over the rest. But to put down what you're complaining about to 'the evils of capitalism' or some other such hokum is to be misleading and disingenuous to say the least.

Landowning is enforced by the state and is necessary for an economic system to be called capitalist, it is therefore always inherently corrupt. This will naturally lead to wealth inequality not because of unequal contributions but because but because of state enforced monopolies, which landowning always is: A monopoly. Supply can't be increased and each location is unique. Naturally, the privileged will seek for other monopolies too. You're under the false impression that the state is naturally not involved in capitalism.

"The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price." - Adam Smith

Almost everything we have and value is a product of capitalism, and it's about time the masses of morons who protest against it realised this; they are not making the problem better, they are making it worse. But then i wouldn't expect any intellectual maturity from someone who goes around declaring that he 'schooled' people.

Can dish it but can't take it.

[K]

Capitalism > Socialism

Geoism >>>>>>>>> Capitalism

[KingBeasley08]

OP is beta as f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck

[K]

OP is beta as f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck

Lack of content noted.

[K]

OP is beta as f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck

That's the kind of evil you support by being an apologist for privilege. These children in Bangladesh have no right to exist anywhere because all the good land is private property, so they have no choice but to do slave labor for a landowner somewhere to help themselves and their family get mere subsistence. This is what happens when landowner privilege takes it's natural course with the government intervening very little or not at all to rescue the landless from it. They effectively become slaves as the law of rent pushes them down to subsistence level. But I'm sure you favor the immoral property rights in land over the right of these people to exist somewhere and keep what they earn rather than be forced to give most of it to parasitic landowners or go to starve.

[K]

I'm not going to let the rent seeking apologists get away from this thread so easily.

[K]

Rent seeking:

"When a company, organization or individual uses their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits back to society through wealth creation."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp


"rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent, (i.e., the portion of income paid to a factor of production in excess of that which is needed to keep it employed in its current use), by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking