Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-16-2013, 06:51 PM   #31
DCL
NBA rookie of the year
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,078
DCL is popular on this boardDCL is popular on this boardDCL is popular on this boardDCL is popular on this board
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSkoolball#52
That's the point. Anyone can afford it in California, because they don't require you to work for anything.

For instance, I guarantee you are one of the people I referenced, who was bussed out to California by his own state which didn't want him, and California gladly welcomed you to come sleep on a bench by a busy intersection in the middle of the day. They're so proud of themselves for inviting you do come do that. In fact, they probably give you welfare on top of it. And you're probably using the internet at the public library right now, picking your nose openly and wearing the same dirty clothes you showed up in.

Just wait and see. For those who think CA's current financial struggles are bad, it's only going to get much worse. Because they refuse to fix it. Too many voters depend on the government for their bloated, excessive salaries (teacher unions, police unions,) or for their entitlements (people who basically make money by having more kids for a living).

Y'all are too soft to stand up to individuals and say "Hey buddy, be accountable." You're scared to do it. You're a weak and timid crowd. The natural soft liberal beta male. He loves California. He convinces himself he's "progressive" because he tolerates any and all bullshit, but really it's just a cover because he knows he's too afraid and weak to stand up to any of it anyway.


you seem to be quite knowledgeable with these buses. Is that how you got here and back to your farm in Texas?

I'm pretty sure I'm spot on in my assessment that you're just another renter who's hating on everything because you're blaming everyone else but yourself for your crappy life. You talk down on things like "big evil businesses" and multi-home ownership when you have no idea what investment or capital appreciation means. I think you are the hippie because you are likely pretty broke yet you have no economic ambition. Are you on food stamps?

California is too expensive for you.

Last edited by DCL : 07-16-2013 at 07:29 PM.
DCL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 06:56 PM   #32
AlphaWolf24
Bringer of Rain
 
AlphaWolf24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,964
AlphaWolf24 has decent reputationAlphaWolf24 has decent reputation
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSkoolball#52
That's the point. Anyone can afford it in California, because they don't require you to work for anything.

For instance, I guarantee you are one of the people I referenced, who was bussed out to California by his own state which didn't want him, and California gladly welcomed you to come sleep on a bench by a busy intersection in the middle of the day. They're so proud of themselves for inviting you do come do that. In fact, they probably give you welfare on top of it. And you're probably using the internet at the public library right now, picking your nose openly and wearing the same dirty clothes you showed up in.

Just wait and see. For those who think CA's current financial struggles are bad, it's only going to get much worse. Because they refuse to fix it. Too many voters depend on the government for their bloated, excessive salaries (teacher unions, police unions,) or for their entitlements (people who basically make money by having more kids for a living).

Y'all are too soft to stand up to individuals and say "Hey buddy, be accountable." You're scared to do it. You're a weak and timid crowd. The natural soft liberal beta male. He loves California. He convinces himself he's "progressive" because he tolerates any and all bullshit, but really it's just a cover because he knows he's too afraid and weak to stand up to any of it anyway.


California by itelf is the 7th largest economy in the world...Home to star wars, Tesla, Space X, disney,Silicon Valley , Apple, Yahoo and Google...not to mention the Billion dollar Agri inusty

in the upcoming decade California will foster the next Oil boom of the century with newer EOR techniques.....we set the precedent for technology and industrial imagination


- California is the standard to wich the World strives.....we are like Water....from soft Librals to stiff Republicans.....

- From Ulimate Fighters Chuck Lidell an Bruce Lee to the Ultimate Lovers Marilyn Monroe and Natalie wood.....

From Tiger woods to George Lucas.....from sunny beaches to snow covered mountains.....california has it all......




that's why property is so cot damn high!
AlphaWolf24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 06:58 PM   #33
OldSkoolball#52
Banned
 
OldSkoolball#52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,537
OldSkoolball#52 has a very bad reputationOldSkoolball#52 has a very bad reputationOldSkoolball#52 has a very bad reputationOldSkoolball#52 has a very bad reputationOldSkoolball#52 has a very bad reputation
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCL
you seem to be quite knowledgeable with these buses. Is that how you got here and back to your farm in Texas?

I'm pretty sure I'm spot on in my assessment that you're just a poor butthurt renter who's still hating on everything because you're blaming everyone else but yourself for your crappy life. You talk down of "big evil businesses" and things like multi-home ownership when you have no idea what investment means. I think you are the hippie because you are likely pretty broke as a joke. Are you on food stamps?

California is too expensive for you.


I'm single and in my twenties, of course I still rent. However I do have a good job with a good company in a reliable industry, and will only continue to move up from here. However, I subscribe online to a variety of local newspapers from various major cities, and the things I read in the LA times makes me more than any other paper I read. The direction California is going in is absurd and pathetic. I'm sure you are one of the most fervent champions of this ludicrous direction. In fact, there is no doubt about it whatsoever.

What is it that you do for a living, partner?

Last edited by OldSkoolball#52 : 07-16-2013 at 07:03 PM.
OldSkoolball#52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 07:00 PM   #34
joe
College star
 
joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,157
joe is considered somewhat cooljoe is considered somewhat cool
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

My Uncle makes a great argument that landowning is evil. Made me question my support of free market capitalism a little bit. I think in the end it's just an impossible question. This is what I mean.

Some people think landowning is perfect system. Some people think it's evil. Most people don't think about it.

Some people think it should be done THIS way. Some people think it should be done THIS way. Most with strong opinions on the topic have different ideas of how it should be done.

In the end, what can be done about it? You can become a philosopher and maybe in 200 years your ideas will start to show some sort of effect, but probably not. Other than that... you have no say.. this is just the systems humans have come out with.

I think property rights are natural to an extent however. I think people naturally claim property as their own, and I think it's unnatural to say, "this land is everyone's." I think the latter would almost always come about by force.
joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 07:01 PM   #35
OldSkoolball#52
Banned
 
OldSkoolball#52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,537
OldSkoolball#52 has a very bad reputationOldSkoolball#52 has a very bad reputationOldSkoolball#52 has a very bad reputationOldSkoolball#52 has a very bad reputationOldSkoolball#52 has a very bad reputation
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaWolf24
California by itelf is the 7th largest economy in the world...Home to star wars, Tesla, Space X, disney,Silicon Valley , Apple, Yahoo and Google...not to mention the Billion dollar Agri inusty

in the upcoming decade California will foster the next Oil boom of the century with newer EOR techniques.....we set the precedent for technology and industrial imagination


- California is the standard to wich the World strives.....we are like Water....from soft Librals to stiff Republicans.....

- From Ulimate Fighters Chuck Lidell an Bruce Lee to the Ultimate Lovers Marilyn Monroe and Natalie wood.....

From Tiger woods to George Lucas.....from sunny beaches to snow covered mountains.....california has it all......




that's why property is so cot damn high!


I agree with you that as of right now, there are many lucrative people, properties, and proprieties in California. But that's almost entirtely due to past draws to that state. Yes, California is still enjoying the fruits of many of those businesses, and enjoying their tax revenues even more, but I am talking about prognosticating the future. Things don't last forever. Especially not with your policies.

Check the stats. Businesses are leaving California, not rushing to go set up shop there. It's a gradual process. Just because you're swirling around at the top of the bowl right now, doesn't mean you're not swirling. Without a significant change in course, you'll eventually end up down the drain. Give it 10-15 years.
OldSkoolball#52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 07:14 PM   #36
AlphaWolf24
Bringer of Rain
 
AlphaWolf24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,964
AlphaWolf24 has decent reputationAlphaWolf24 has decent reputation
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSkoolball#52
I agree with you that as of right now, there are many lucrative people, properties, and proprieties in California. But that's almost entirtely due to past draws to that state. Yes, California is still enjoying the fruits of many of those businesses, and enjoying their tax revenues even more, but I am talking about prognosticating the future. Things don't last forever. Especially not with your policies.

Check the stats. Businesses are leaving California, not rushing to go set up shop there. It's a gradual process. Just because you're swirling around at the top of the bowl right now, doesn't mean you're not swirling. Without a significant change in course, you'll eventually end up down the drain. Give it 10-15 years.


ok...nothing last forever..

- but to say no one is rushing to set up shop?...it depends.

- California is going through an oil boom, this will help if laws are set in place and Oil/Gas companies can make a profit.....it would help boost economy and create a standard to wich all Oil companies should abide bye.

- California will remain a technological HUB....Lets face it....Cali ( west coast in general) has the foundation laid down....that isn't going anyhwere.

- Califonia has many problems.....too many to list. But considering the size and resources.....It will continue to grow and set the standar for our country future....hopefully are planets future.....

- Pollicies are rough......but we Californians have done many great things for the planet and its species.....thanks to those stupid pollicies.....


Besides....Right now I live in the Hapiest place in America ( According to Oprah)....Thanks Cali!
AlphaWolf24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 10:17 PM   #37
Königspinguin
LandValueTax=Future
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Locked self out of ISH. BYE!
Posts: 1,023
Königspinguin has decent reputationKönigspinguin has decent reputation
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue&Orange
correct, anyone that have a house just to live in, should be evicted and the house should be given to someone that will do something with it.

Strawman.
Königspinguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 10:35 PM   #38
Königspinguin
LandValueTax=Future
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Locked self out of ISH. BYE!
Posts: 1,023
Königspinguin has decent reputationKönigspinguin has decent reputation
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe
My Uncle makes a great argument that landowning is evil. Made me question my support of free market capitalism a little bit. I think in the end it's just an impossible question. This is what I mean.

Free market capitalism is a self-contradictory term as capitalism requires private ownership of land, which is always inherently a monopoly because of land's fixed supply and the role it plays in the economy.

Quote:
Some people think landowning is perfect system. Some people think it's evil. Most people don't think about it.

Some people think it should be done THIS way. Some people think it should be done THIS way. Most with strong opinions on the topic have different ideas of how it should be done.

In the end, what can be done about it? You can become a philosopher and maybe in 200 years your ideas will start to show some sort of effect, but probably not. Other than that... you have no say.. this is just the systems humans have come out with.

I think property rights are natural to an extent however. I think people naturally claim property as their own, and I think it's unnatural to say, "this land is everyone's." I think the latter would almost always come about by force.

You should read 'Progress and Poverty' by Henry George. He makes a very compelling argument.

If you don't want to read the whole book, it's free online, you can at least read chapter 26 and chapter 27, which addresses what constitutes rightful property and how property in land enslaves others.

http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp26.htm
http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp27.htm

Here is an excerpt (the beginning) from chapter 27:

Quote:
Chapter 27

The Enslavement of Labor


AS CHATTEL SLAVERY, the owning of people, is unjust — so private ownership of land is unjust. Ownership of land always gives ownership of people. To what degree, is measured by the need for land. When starvation is the only alternative, the ownership of people involved in the ownership of land becomes absolute. This is simply the law of rent in different form.

Place one hundred people on an island from which there is no escape. Make one of them the absolute owner of the others — or the absolute owner of the soil. It will make no difference — either to owner or to the others — which one you choose. Either way, one individual will be the absolute master of the other ninety-nine. Denying permission to them to live on the island would force them into the sea.

The same cause must operate, in the same way and to the same end, even on a larger scale and through more complex relations. When people are compelled to live on — and from — land treated as the exclusive property of others, the ultimate result is the enslavement of workers. Though less direct and less obvious, relations will tend to the same state as on our hypothetical island. As population increases and productivity improves, we move toward the same absolute mastery of landlords and the same abject helplessness of labor. Rent will advance; wages will fall. Landowners continually increase their share of the total production, while labor's share constantly declines.

To the extent that moving to cheaper land becomes difficult or impossible, workers will be reduced to a bare living — no matter what they produce. Where land is monopolized, they will live as virtual slaves. Despite enormous increase in productive power, wages in the lower and wider layers of industry tend — everywhere — to the wages of slavery (i.e., just enough to maintain them in working condition).

There is nothing strange in this fact. Owning the land on which — and from which — people must live is virtually the same as owning the people themselves. In accepting the right of some individuals to the exclusive use and enjoyment of the earth, we condemn others to slavery. We do this as fully and as completely as though we had formally made them chattel slaves.
Königspinguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 10:41 PM   #39
Königspinguin
LandValueTax=Future
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Locked self out of ISH. BYE!
Posts: 1,023
Königspinguin has decent reputationKönigspinguin has decent reputation
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCL
so you're still a poor butt hurt renter

"So you're still a poor butt hurt slave. Stop whining. Just save up some money and buy your liberty."
Königspinguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 10:47 PM   #40
Königspinguin
LandValueTax=Future
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Locked self out of ISH. BYE!
Posts: 1,023
Königspinguin has decent reputationKönigspinguin has decent reputation
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_Theorem

The Henry George Theorem by Joseph Stiglitz demonstrates that aggregate spending by government is about equal to aggregate land rent, in certain ideal conditions, meaning whatever is not wasted by corruption or spend on blowing up people in others countries. But whatever is spend on beneficial infrastructure, social services, etc. raises rent of land, meaning it goes into the pockets of those who own land in those locations. Land titles are essentially a license to pocket other people's taxes, either as a part of what is paid to a landlord (the part which is charged for the land rather than improvements, i.e. a building,etc.), or at the sale of land which is just future expected land rent capitalized at the present.

Last edited by Königspinguin : 07-16-2013 at 10:58 PM.
Königspinguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 11:26 PM   #41
Königspinguin
LandValueTax=Future
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Locked self out of ISH. BYE!
Posts: 1,023
Königspinguin has decent reputationKönigspinguin has decent reputation
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

Landowning enslaved a large part of the black populace even after chattel slavery was abolished, since all the good land was already taken:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old negroes, who said to me: "Mas George, you say you sot us free; but 'fore God, I'm wus off than when I belonged to your father." The planters, on the other hand, are contented with the change. They say: "How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves." How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have got all the work out of him they can." - letter from George M. Jackson
Königspinguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 11:31 PM   #42
Königspinguin
LandValueTax=Future
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Locked self out of ISH. BYE!
Posts: 1,023
Königspinguin has decent reputationKönigspinguin has decent reputation
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

This is also a great read:

http://schalkenbach.org/library/henr...lems/sp15.html

Excerpt:

Quote:
Robinson Crusoe, as we all know, took Friday as his slave. Suppose, however, that instead of taking Friday as his slave, Robinson Crusoe had welcomed him as a man and a brother; had read him a Declaration of Independence, an Emancipation Proclamation and a Fifteenth Amendment, and informed him that he was a free and independent citizen, entitled to vote and hold office; but had at the same time also informed him that that particular island was his (Robinson Crusoe's) private and exclusive property. What would have been the difference? Since Friday could not fly up into the air nor swim off through the sea, since if he lived at all he must live on the island, he would have been in one case as much a slave as in the other. Crusoe's ownership of the island would be equivalent to his ownership of Friday.

[03] Chattel slavery is, in fact, merely the rude and primitive mode of property in man. It only grows up where population is sparse; it never, save by virtue of special circumstances, continues where the pressure of population gives land a high value, for in that case the ownership of land gives all the power that comes from the ownership of men, in more convenient form. When in the course of history we see the conquerors making chattel slaves of the conquered, it is always where population is sparse and land of little value, or where they want to carry off their human spoil. In other cases, the conquerors merely appropriate the lands of the conquered, by which means they just as effectually, and much more conveniently, compel the conquered to work for them. It was not until the great estates of the rich patricians began to depopulate Italy that the importation of slaves began. In Turkey and Egypt, where chattel slavery is yet legal, it is confined to the inmates and attendants of harems. English ships carried negro slaves to America, and not to England or Ireland, because in America land was cheap and labor was valuable, while in western Europe land was valuable and labor was cheap. As soon as the possibility of expansion over new land ceased, chattel slavery would have died out in our Southern States. As it is, Southern planters do not regret the abolition of slavery. They get out of the freedmen as tenants as much as they got out of them as slaves. While as for predial slavery -- the attachment of serfs to the soil -- the form of chattel slavery which existed longest in Europe, it is only of use to the proprietor where there is little competition for land. Neither predial slavery nor absolute chattel slavery could have added to the Irish landlord's virtual ownership of men -- to his power to make them work for him without return. Their own competition for the means of livelihood insured him all they possibly could give. To the English proprietor the ownership of slaves would be only a burden and a loss, when he can get laborers for less than it would cost to maintain them as slaves, and when they are become ill or infirm can turn them on the parish. Or what would the New England manufacturer gain by the enslavement of his operatives? The competition with each other of so-called freemen, who are denied all right to the soil of what is called their country, brings him labor cheaper and more conveniently than would chattel slavery.

[04] That a people can be enslaved just as effectually by making property of their lands as by making property of their bodies, is a truth that conquerors in all ages have recognized, and that, as society developed, the strong and unscrupulous who desired to live off the labor of others, have been prompt to see. The coarser form of slavery, in which each particular slave is the property of a particular owner, is fitted only for a rude state of society, and with social development entails more and more care, trouble and expense upon the owner. But by making property of the land instead of the person, much care, supervision and expense are saved the proprietors; and though no particular slave is owned by a particular master, yet the one class still appropriates the labor of the other class as before.
Königspinguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 11:48 PM   #43
Königspinguin
LandValueTax=Future
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Locked self out of ISH. BYE!
Posts: 1,023
Königspinguin has decent reputationKönigspinguin has decent reputation
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeFromDust
lmao land ownership and property rights are some of the most fundamental elements of the American way. Don't like it GTFO or STFO

Actually, plenty of them recognized the inherent injustice in landownership and that it's not a natural right and different from other property:

Quote:
Thomas Paine

it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.
..........
Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue.


A land value tax was included in the Articles of Confederation to address this inherent injustice:

Quote:
Articles of Confederation

Article VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the united States in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united States in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the united States in congress assembled.

Landed interests protested and threatened the destruction of the United States and so it got removed in the U.S. Constitution which replaced the Articles of Confederation.
Königspinguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 08:24 AM   #44
joe
College star
 
joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,157
joe is considered somewhat cooljoe is considered somewhat cool
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

Quote:
Free market capitalism is a self-contradictory term as capitalism requires private ownership of land, which is always inherently a monopoly because of land's fixed supply and the role it plays in the economy.


That's a twisted sentence. I think the rest of your post was better.

A product having a fixed supply doesn't make it inherently a monopoly. Monopoly means one person or business owns an entire market of something. Not one person owns all the land, so it's not a monopoly. Even today that's not the case.

To the extent that one group does own all the land, that would be the government, which breaks the market rule of voluntary trade.

Quote:
You should read 'Progress and Poverty' by Henry George. He makes a very compelling argument.


I'm working on not caring about politics/economics/philosophy for a while, so I don't have the drive to read anything outside of this page. I shouldn't even be responding to this, I'm breaking my own rule.

Quote:
AS CHATTEL SLAVERY, the owning of people, is unjust — so private ownership of land is unjust. Ownership of land always gives ownership of people. To what degree, is measured by the need for land. When starvation is the only alternative, the ownership of people involved in the ownership of land becomes absolute. This is simply the law of rent in different form.

Owning people does not = owning land. They're not morally on the same level. But the idea that owning land means you will VICARIOUSLY own people, I think is also wrong. Just look around you in America, anyone with a job and a bank loan can afford to buy a house and own property. My parents own property, and they've been lower middle class people their whole lives. The only thing that interferes with it is having to pay property taxes, on land they rightfully should own. The free market of property ownership worked fine for my lower class parents, the government intervention is the only thorn in their side to this day.




I don't want to shoo away all your arguments because I think the chapter you posted was very interesting. I think there are great arguments for why land ownership is "evil." My Uncle and I had some great discussions about it.

But I also think:

1) There's no way to enforce a society without land ownership, without the use of force. You can't tell everyone they can only own X land, without that demand being backed by threats of force. And now who do we hire to run this bureaucracy? Think of all the corruption and evil that will be done by a group with that much power. We've seen it too many times in this century, but people keep making the mistake in assuming "it will work here, the other guys weren't as smart as us."

2) And I also think land ownership is a fairly natural extension of human thinking.

Being natural doesn't make something right, but in this case I think it's important. Humans naturally, IMO, understand the idea of property. If I work for something it's mine, if you work for something it's yours. If I buy a TV it's mine, everyone understands it. Even little kids understand that idea before they have any education on the subject. So people aren't going to naturally accept a society without land ownership- it would have to come through the use of force.

Anyway, I'm not holding a doctorate on the subject, I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I just believe in people not forcing others to do things if they aren't bothering you. And to that end I don't think it's right to tell someone they can't own X amount of land because you think that's "too much." If they rightfully aquire that property and actively use it, I don't think it's anyones right to kick them off. Just my current opinion as I float through this gay world.

Last edited by joe : 07-17-2013 at 08:36 AM.
joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 08:29 AM   #45
joe
College star
 
joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,157
joe is considered somewhat cooljoe is considered somewhat cool
Default Re: Landowning: the main cause of wealth inequality

Is it right for the bank to do what it does? Claim it owns a piece of land, and then sell it to people at market prices? Since the bank now owns the land, who are we to tell them it's wrong? You must assume that somewhere down the line, they got the property fairly- unless you can prove otherwise. And now they sell it for what the market will bare. What other system is there? Tell the bank they don't own the land? By what authority? And even if you could, what would happen once we stripped the bank of the land? What if someone new lives on the land, but then decides to go on a vacation. Can a 3rd party now walk on that land, tear down the vacationing guys house and build his own with no consequences?

I don't get what the alternative to land ownership is supposed to be, besides hiring Joseph Stalin to divvy up all of our property, tell us where we work, and decide how much food we're allowed to eat per day. No thanks.

Last edited by joe : 07-17-2013 at 08:32 AM.
joe is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:43 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy