Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These people push their children hard. The best of the Caucasian kids are more naturally bright, creative and inventive. Caucasians tend works smart not hard.
There is a massive difference between enterprise and appropriating common wealth.
Ayn Rand is lauded by extreme right-wing USAians.
This is where you and I will depart ways as before, no race is smarter than another in my opinion, everything comes down to work ethic and the surrounding culture/environment one is raised in.
Chinese children dont do better than Caucasian kids due to some inherent latent superiority, but because they work harder and Confuscian values extol the virtues of hard work (the article I cited pointed out they put in 6 hours more work per week than their teenage peers).
Likewise external historical oppression of European Jewry resulted in the successful literary and scientific culture they have developed in Europe today. Sephardi Jewry (Mizrahim) havent been half as successful by comparison, as they in the main inhabited less developed largely pre-industrial nations in Africa and the Middle East (Environmental context also makes a big difference)
Finally your statement implicitly acknowledges that they are more academically successful and hardworking (due to their immigrant drive) which is what London is largely benefitting from.
"There is a massive difference between enterprise and appropriating common wealth" please elaborate..
If I have understood you correctly you are referring to rent-seeking over the development of an innovative idea? I assure you that most wealthly individuals today are because of the latter and not the former.
Again my point to you is still the same and you cannot ignore it because you dont like Rand. Property Rights are a fundamental part of a functioning developed society, the inherited wealth of another is not your concern, it is theirs not yours to do with as you see fit. As soon as you start questioning what individuals do with private wealth you are going down a slippery slope to who knows where..
Although I am no fan of Thatcher, she was correct when she said "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money"
As for you intentions, looking at your last posts they are now clear when you state "we should stop pouring money into London". London generates all of the money which is spent on it and you ducked my question on why money which is generated in London should not largely be spent on London??
So I ask you again, why should money generated in London, not be spent on London? Unlike you I am not advocating that money shouldn't be increased on infrastructure/development in the North in an us or them type situation.
I think our discussion has already highlighted the significant cultural differences between London and some parts of England. I find myself finding more common ground with an Alaskan commenter than some of my own fellow Brits..
Last edited by nograviti; 10-14-2014 at 01:38 AM..
This is where you and I will depart ways as before, no race is smarter than another in my opinion,
I go on fact not opinion. Some races are clearly brighter than others.
London was doing very well before mass immigration.
Quote:
"There is a massive difference between enterprise and appropriating common wealth" please elaborate.
If I have understood you correctly you are referring to rent-seeking over the development of an innovative idea?
Economic rent. This when there is no enterprise or costs of production. In short someone else created that wealth and invariably it will be the community. Those who appropriate economic rent legally steal. They take from society.
Those who engage in pure enterprise are constructive and put into society.
Quote:
Property Rights are a fundamental part of a functioning developed society, the inherited wealth of another is not your concern, it is theirs not yours to do with as you see fit. As soon as you start questioning what individuals do with private wealth you are going down a slippery slope to who knows where..
You are right inherited wealth is not my or anyone else's concern. What individuals do with their wealth is their concern. But no one should appropriate economic rent, which is our collective wealth. Currently the super rich are rich mainly because they appropriate economic rent.
Mentioning Thatcher will have people thinking you are mad. Do not do it.
Wealth which is generated in London should be spent in London. Wealth generated in Leeds should stay in Leeds, not spent on London's Overground. Read the link to my post on how London milks the rest dry.
Many need to understand some basic aspects of economics. Unless you understand these you will be going around in circles all your life.
The version of Capitalism we use is clearly flawed being prone to boom and bust with most of the wealth trickling up to a few percent at the top. The best economic system is Geonomics. A brief explanation...
Firstly these must be understood:
The three products of production (note: land is different to the other two):
LAND (Can't be made - in finite in supply)
LABOUR (in much supply)
CAPITAL (what men make. Can be made and more of if needed)
The combination of Labour + Capital means wealth soaks into the land forming as land values - that is what Geonomics reclaims. Geonomics reclaims all forms of economic rent from all sources.
Economic rent. This when there is no enterprise or costs of production. In short someone else created that wealth and invariably it will be the community. Those appropriate economic rent legally steal.
Income tax is a tax on your earnings - your work. It penalises your productivity. It is a destructive tax referred to as a bad tax. Geoism reclaims commonly created wealth to pay for common services, leaving private wealth in private pockets, eliminating income and sales taxes.
Full Geoism is:
Reclaiming "economic rent" from all sources - most will be in the form of the increment in land values.
No income or sales tax only reclaiming the commonly created values of all land not the buildings
Pigovian taxes on alcohol, tobacco, etc.
Fees for resource extraction and use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Geonomics is highly capitalistic based on the free market - with no boom and busts so vitally stable. Geonomics halts the destructive land cycle which has an 18 years cycle. The business cycle follows the land cycle. The values of land are taxed, or more accurately reclaimed, because land has the unique quality to absorb the economic activity of a community.
What the left hate about the capitalist system with justification is:
The boom and busts.
It needs excessive control.
The wealth ends up in the hands of a few percent of people.
A layer of grinding poverty is created, which is out of proportion to the collective wealth of the nation.
It creates economic parasites.
Geonomics eliminates all the five points above. Geonomics is self controlling to a large degree and spreads wealth around more evenly. It vastly reduces the destructive trickle down effect (which is more trickle up) promoting economic production and growth, using commonly created wealth to pay for common services. The productive are rewarded. The economic parasites are eliminated.
I go on fact not opinion. Some races are clearly brighter than others.
London was doing very well before mass immigration.
Economic rent. This when there is no enterprise or costs of production. In short someone else created that wealth and invariably it will be the community. Those who appropriate economic rent legally steal. They take from society.
Those who engage in pure enterprise are constructive and put into society.
You are right inherited wealth is not my or anyone else's concern. What individuals do with their wealth is their concern. But no one should appropriate economic rent, which is our collective wealth. Currently the super rich are rich mainly because they appropriate economic rent.
Mentioning Thatcher will have people thinking you are mad. Do not do it.
Wealth which is generated in London should be spent in London. Wealth generated in Leeds should stay in Leeds, not spent on London's Overground. Read the link to my post on how London milks the rest dry.
Many need to understand some basic aspects of economics. Unless you understand these you will be going around in circles all your life.
The version of Capitalism we use is clearly flawed being prone to boom and bust with most of the wealth trickling up to a few percent at the top. The best economic system is Geonomics. A brief explanation...
Firstly these must be understood:
The three products of production (note: land is different to the other two):
LAND (Can't be made - in finite in supply)
LABOUR (in much supply)
CAPITAL (what men make. Can be made and more of if needed)
The combination of Labour + Capital means wealth soaks into the land forming as land values - that is what Geonomics reclaims. Geonomics reclaims all forms of economic rent from all sources.
Economic rent. This when there is no enterprise or costs of production. In short someone else created that wealth and invariably it will be the community. Those appropriate economic rent legally steal.
Income tax is a tax on your earnings - your work. It penalises your productivity. It is a destructive tax referred to as a bad tax. Geoism reclaims commonly created wealth to pay for common services, leaving private wealth in private pockets, eliminating income and sales taxes.
Full Geoism is:
Reclaiming "economic rent" from all sources - most will be in the form of the increment in land values.
No income or sales tax only reclaiming the commonly created values of all land not the buildings
Pigovian taxes on alcohol, tobacco, etc.
Fees for resource extraction and use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Geonomics is highly capitalistic based on the free market - with no boom and busts so vitally stable. Geonomics halts the destructive land cycle which has an 18 years cycle. The business cycle follows the land cycle. The values of land are taxed, or more accurately reclaimed, because land has the unique quality to absorb the economic activity of a community.
What the left hate about the capitalist system with justification is:
The boom and busts.
It needs excessive control.
The wealth ends up in the hands of a few percent of people.
A layer of grinding poverty is created, which is out of proportion to the collective wealth of the nation.
It creates economic parasites.
Geonomics eliminates all the five points above. Geonomics is self controlling to a large degree and spreads wealth around more evenly. It vastly reduces the destructive trickle down effect (which is more trickle up) promoting economic production and growth, using commonly created wealth to pay for common services. The productive are rewarded. The economic parasites are eliminated.
Hmm well then facts would suggest the average white British child (ceteris paribus) is dimmer than Chinese, Indian and Jewish kids both here and in the US, do you see how nonsensical such thinking is??
Also speaking of brighter races, how is that inherent racial superiority working out for Liverpudlians you love or better yet the northern English who reside in the whitest part of the country??
You realise you are trotting out your nonsensical views devoid of facts as the world's largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity today is a non-white one in the guise of China?
As for London doing fine before mass immigration. When? before the migration of Jews into London in the late 19th century or perhaps the Huguenots?
Yes, London was wealthy in times of Empire, when resources were looted through violence around the globe. Its not so easy to compete when you dont have captive markets and actually need to live by your wits for a living rather than looting far flung populations. There is a reason why Britain has slipped down the list of global powers as the empire crumbled. The same applies to former imperial nations like Spain and Portugal.
London was in decline like the rest of the country until the late 1980s, when the 'Big Bang' and the arrival of global finance in the form of FOREIGN money revitalised a declining former Imperial city. Also the wealth of the London of Empire still pales in comparison to the wealth generated in the diverse London of today.
Geoconomics, I have heard of it to be honest and I dislike all 'ISMs' as they are for simple people.
Usually a gross simplification of a complex situation, that works in theory but not in reality. What part of what I am saying do you not understand, wealth ends up in the hands of the few as a result of hardwork and industriousness. In today's society the 1% is primarily a byproduct of a successful meritocracy (which creates an inequality all of its own, but thats another discussion). What you are advocating is some form redistribution for the 'community' (as defined by whom I would ask?) which in short is socialism.
While you espouse another doomed doctrine, I will get back to talking about the real economy not another 'pie in the sky' idea
Hmm well then facts would suggest the average white British child (ceteris paribus) is dimmer than Chinese, Indian and Jewish kids both here and in the US, do you see how nonsensical such thinking is??
Moderator cut: inflammatory. The British discovered just about everything in physics that leads to the modern high-tech world. In engineering they invented just about everything that changed the modern world. They gave the world the systems they use today, like even the internet, world wide web, postal service and Boy Scouts. They even discovered parts of the world unknown to the western world. The British created the major trade routes we have today and founded major trading points like Singapore, Hong Kong, Cape Town, Calcutta, etc, and policed those trade route free to the world. The British university system is the yardstick all others are compared to.
All this makes nonsense of what you write.
Immigrants came to the UK mainly for economic reasons. Latching onto the economies the locals made. Some did well. They came here because they could not do it where they came from.
To say the 'Big Bang' saved London is bordering on madness.
Geoconomics, is not an ism. It is an economic system. A simple one based on using commonly created wealth to pay for common services, leaving private wealth in private pockets.
Moderator cut: Inflammatory
Last edited by Gungnir; 10-16-2014 at 02:20 AM..
Reason: Removed inflammatory and personal attacks.
Moderator cut: inflammatory. The British discovered just about everything in physics that leads to the modern high-tech world. In engineering they invented just about everything that changed the modern world. They gave the world the systems they use today, like even the internet, world wide web, postal service and Boy Scouts. They even discovered parts of the world unknown to the western world. The British created the major trade routes we have today and founded major trading points like Singapore, Hong Kong, Cape Town, Calcutta, etc, ad policed those trade route free to the world. The British university system is the yardstick all others are compared to.
All this makes nonsense of what you write.
Immigrants came to the UK mainly for economic reasons. Latching onto the economies the locals made. Some did well. They came here because they could not do it where they came from.
To say the 'Big Bang' saved London is bordering on madness.
Geoconomics, is not an ism. It is an economic system. A simple one based on using commonly created wealth to pay for common services, leaving private wealth in private pockets.
Moderator cut: inflammatory
I obviously struck a nerve, but when you say the 'British discovered just about everything' I am sorry but I have to laugh and switch off entirely.
I think you need to revisit history, world history contrary to your belief did not start with the British. Who invented gunpowder, the compass, modern Algebra, movable type, paper, the concept of zero, the alphabet, standardized examinations, hell even the concept of a university as a place of learning? I assure you it wasn't the British or even Europeans for that matter. Every people has had their time in the sun and going on current British scientific triumphs that time has sadly long since passed.
As for trades routes you do realise that the Chinese and Indians had maritime trade links long before the British arrived? But don't let facts get in the way of your arguments hmm?
Anyway, before you stray further into stormfront.org territory, please go back to the subject matter at hand.
As for London I think you need to brush up on the economic history of London as well as reviewing population data for London charting a clear post war population decline and rise.
As I have mentioned before you may not like my points but they hold..
Your knowledge of history is very lacking. Sad but true. The British made the modern world. That is indisputable. The British catapulted the world into what we have now.
I go on fact not opinion. Some races are clearly brighter than others.
London was doing very well before mass immigration.
Economic rent. This when there is no enterprise or costs of production. In short someone else created that wealth and invariably it will be the community. Those who appropriate economic rent legally steal. They take from society.
Those who engage in pure enterprise are constructive and put into society.
You are right inherited wealth is not my or anyone else's concern. What individuals do with their wealth is their concern. But no one should appropriate economic rent, which is our collective wealth. Currently the super rich are rich mainly because they appropriate economic rent.
Mentioning Thatcher will have people thinking you are mad. Do not do it.
Wealth which is generated in London should be spent in London. Wealth generated in Leeds should stay in Leeds, not spent on London's Overground. Read the link to my post on how London milks the rest dry.
Many need to understand some basic aspects of economics. Unless you understand these you will be going around in circles all your life.
The version of Capitalism we use is clearly flawed being prone to boom and bust with most of the wealth trickling up to a few percent at the top. The best economic system is Geonomics. A brief explanation...
Firstly these must be understood:
The three products of production (note: land is different to the other two):
LAND (Can't be made - in finite in supply)
LABOUR (in much supply)
CAPITAL (what men make. Can be made and more of if needed)
The combination of Labour + Capital means wealth soaks into the land forming as land values - that is what Geonomics reclaims. Geonomics reclaims all forms of economic rent from all sources.
Economic rent. This when there is no enterprise or costs of production. In short someone else created that wealth and invariably it will be the community. Those appropriate economic rent legally steal.
Income tax is a tax on your earnings - your work. It penalises your productivity. It is a destructive tax referred to as a bad tax. Geoism reclaims commonly created wealth to pay for common services, leaving private wealth in private pockets, eliminating income and sales taxes.
Full Geoism is:
Reclaiming "economic rent" from all sources - most will be in the form of the increment in land values.
No income or sales tax only reclaiming the commonly created values of all land not the buildings
Pigovian taxes on alcohol, tobacco, etc.
Fees for resource extraction and use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Geonomics is highly capitalistic based on the free market - with no boom and busts so vitally stable. Geonomics halts the destructive land cycle which has an 18 years cycle. The business cycle follows the land cycle. The values of land are taxed, or more accurately reclaimed, because land has the unique quality to absorb the economic activity of a community.
What the left hate about the capitalist system with justification is:
The boom and busts.
It needs excessive control.
The wealth ends up in the hands of a few percent of people.
A layer of grinding poverty is created, which is out of proportion to the collective wealth of the nation.
It creates economic parasites.
Geonomics eliminates all the five points above. Geonomics is self controlling to a large degree and spreads wealth around more evenly. It vastly reduces the destructive trickle down effect (which is more trickle up) promoting economic production and growth, using commonly created wealth to pay for common services. The productive are rewarded. The economic parasites are eliminated.
Your knowledge of history is very lacking. Sad but true. The British made the modern world. That is indisputable. The British catapulted the world into what we have now.
John - I think you're a little confused. You talk about "economic rent" all the time, as if all economic problems would just vanish if people only understood what it is, and for all policy to stem from this tiny piece of economics. The truth is that economic rent is just another term for unearned income, which could be considered today's banking culture, winning the lottery (Ironically "Geonomics" is the name of a London based lottery company who represent the perfect example of economic rent!), additional income through political action rather than productivity (unions), welfare, even investments to some extent. Most of what goes on in today's complex financial markets could be considered economic rent. A big reason for low workforce participation is that fewer people are needed to manufacture or produce anything, and the rapid increase in technological innovations as a replacement (look at Instagram who employed 13 people versus Kodak who employed 150,000).
All the people Gugnir mentioned earlier did not appropriate common wealth. You're confusing the withdrawl from GDP with appropriation. Taxes are paid on income (albeit inefficiently) partly to fund public services, but also to offset the centralization of resources in an economy. The wealthy people listed gained their wealth through capitalism, not taking from an already existing "wealth pot". We could certainly argue the merits of some of this income but it is not appropriated "common wealth" whatever you mean by that.
And as to speak about certain "races being smarter than others"; this is just preposterous! I suppose you believe in American exceptionalism? Some races have created wealth faster than others, or contributed more in terms of innovations than others, but the reasons are far more complicated than your shallow claims.
Your comments on the UK and its "influences on the modern world" are a joke. Period.
John - I think you're a little confused. You talk about "economic rent" all the time, as if all economic problems would just vanish if people only understood what it is, and for all policy to stem from this tiny piece of economics. The truth is that economic rent is just another term for unearned income, which could be considered today's banking culture, winning the lottery.
Believe me I have full clarity of thought. You are right, economic rent is a form of unearned income. This is what should be reclaimed and taxed, not people's wages, or what they buy. A nation like the UK easily generates enough commonly created wealth to pay for common services. This what the government should be looking at for its revenue, not steal off hard working people's incomes.
A union negotiating improved wages or conditions in a free market is not unearned income. Neither is money in a bank. If that money is used to lend to enterprises - in a full Geonomics system it would be - the saver is remotely investing in companies.
A lot of what goes on in today's complex financial markets is unearned income for sure. Private banks print money. If it is unearned then it is taxed rather than productive people via their wages. But the shambles of the financial sector is a rather separate issue to using commonly created wealth to pay for common services. Penalizing productive people via income tax and trade via sales taxes is exactly what we should not be doing. It penalises production. Those who take out of society we penalize. Those who put in we let them keep their gains.
All the people Gugnir, who is rather confused on this matter, mentioned earlier did appropriate common wealth. They may have started out in enterprise and highly productive but once they had lots of surplus money you will find the money moved into economic rent seeking. The biggest examples were the British 1800s industrialists, who turned their millions to buying large landed estates, taking in rent from tenant farmers - a parasite activity. It is no secret that surplus wealth ends up in the land market. McDonalds by their own admission are now a land company. Their wealth is in the land they own. Sam Smiths pubs in the UK is the same. The brewery is not worth much, but the land under the hundreds of pubs is worth a fortune. The land values under the premises of these companies keeps rising and rising. The wealth that soaks into the land was created by "us". Land has this ability to absorb community created economic growth. These companies then become a mixture of enterprise and economic rent seeking, many move over to mostly rent seeking.
You need to know where commonly created wealth is created, where it ends up and how it is appropriated. This is not clear in your mind.
What productive companies and people earn in enterprise is their business and we have no right to take it from them. Once they appropriate common wealth then that is our business, as it is our wealth.
Quote:
Your comments on the UK and its "influences on the modern world" are a joke. Period.
You need to read some modern world history. The British made the modern world, without a shadow of a doubt.
I think there is a similarity between the US and UK here that our largest cities get too much attention at the expense of the rest of the country. London, even though it's over-exposed compared to the rest of UK, has high quality culture and urban life. New York, on the other hand, is an overrated hellhole that's full of big names with big mouths that think their city is the "Centre of the World"!
From what I have seen there looks to be an incredible amount of poverty in London. That being said there also seems to be a lot of wealth elsewhere too.
I think that what is being said is too much of a generalisation, some of the wealthiest people live in London yes, but there are also a huge amount of very wealthy people living in the South, North, East and West.
As with most countries wealth is disproportioned and unfairly distributed throughout, capital cities often attract the wealthiest as its where the business and luxury are often found, but this cannot be truly explained with such a sweeping statement.
Ed
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
