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.
Why is that disturbing? It is simply an adjustment to lower incomes.
People are earning less and finally coming to grips with the reality that money spent on interest; especially credit cards at 20% could better be used purchasing goods for cash.
Too much of most people’s hard earned money goes to bankers in the form of interest simply to facilitate a culture addicted to instant gratification.
Saving and paying cash is more efficient use of hard earned money than credit purchases.
You understand that banks issue credit, meaning that the real goods and services behind them preexist their credit terms. In other words lower regressive taxes, increasing the circulation of public credit would achieve the same result without the bankers cut. That is to say lower productivity and banker monopolistic rents are a likely source of lower incomes. The capacity to produce by definition must exist if the issue of credit has any reality. The question is do these issuers of credit provide any real benefit by expanding credit to match the productive potential worth the going rate of credit interest? Are they so much smarter than just ball parking the amount of credit expansion at the federal level with a basket full of price metrics?
My position is hell no. I don't think they add the value they collect in interest with revolving credit, and they absolutely don't in the mortgage market which has fixed elements that cannot even fit into the expanding product expanding credit model.
Why is that disturbing? It is simply an adjustment to lower incomes.
People are earning less and finally coming to grips with the reality that money spent on interest; especially credit cards at 20% could better be used purchasing goods for cash.
Too much of most people’s hard earned money goes to bankers in the form of interest simply to facilitate a culture addicted to instant gratification.
Saving and paying cash is more efficient use of hard earned money than credit purchases.
the whole idea of the stimulus money was to get corporations and individuals to spend. that didnt get them to spend more and stimulate growth .
the next idea was if they dont have the money to spend then lets give them cheap money to borrow and try to grow that way.
so rates went to zero and that didnt create growth.
individuals and corporations have been paying down debt ,not increasing it. the whole world is going through a process of de-leveraging...
corporations arent spending either and have big cash balances on their books.
not good for preventing us from sliding into recession or deflation.
they are out of ammo. they can print all the money they want but with no market for taking that money its a moot action.
earnings and guidance estimates are being cut like crazy .
im afraid we can see another recession in a year or so..
i think if i had to bet on one investment for the next few years i think zero coupon 30 year treasuries have an excellent chance of seeing another 25-30% in gains as if we dont improve a 1% drop in rates will be just about a given.
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-09-2012 at 02:23 PM..
To formally confiscate all land would involve a needless shock, and would require a needless extension of government. Both can be avoided. Great changes are best brought about under old forms. When nature makes a higher form, it takes a lower one and develops it. This, too, is the law of social growth. Let us work with it.
Your a funny guy.....you want so badly to try to "refute" someone that you ignore what they are saying. This quote shows precisely what I suggested, namely, ideally the government would own all land but given there is already a system of private ownership using taxes is a better solution.
Your a funny guy.....you want so badly to try to "refute" someone that you ignore what they are saying. This quote shows precisely what I suggested, namely, ideally the government would own all land but given there is already a system of private ownership using taxes is a better solution.
He was being pragmatic...and realistic.
And you too are a funny guy where your formula is best method = compromise. Here is another formula:
Guy who didn't read the book tells other guy who read the book to read the book.
He quite clearly states the best method was to implement the principle absolutely but also building on existing social norms....but you couldn't resist attempting to leverage your faux erudite facade.
And you too are a funny guy where your formula is best method = compromise.
It is a compromise and he makes that clear.....even in the quote you selected. Of course....its even more clear in other passages....but you cherry picked your quote.
Regardless, Henry George has nothing to do with QE or your overall anti-monetarism rant. Needless to say, but his work predates the fed and the free market dynamics of real estate in major cities works the same whether there is a fed or not.
It is a compromise and he makes that clear.....even in the quote you selected. Of course....its even more clear in other passages....but you cherry picked your quote.
Its not more clear in any other passages. I know because I read the book. You don't have
a quote because you won't find it. You didn't read the book. You pretended to read the book to try and pontificate over me. Now its back firing. There is no compromise. He states he gets everything he wants with LVT.
But such a plan, though perfectly feasible, is not the best option
.
Not doing what is perfectly feasible and doing the best option is not a compromise. Obviously you have no idea that he got into trouble with his contemporary progressives because he wanted no such community. He wanted usufruct which is to enjoy the fruits of your own labor which by necessity requires land. All he wanted was the tax and he is famous for doing so to the point of alienating political alliances with progressives.
Quote:
Regardless, Henry George has nothing to do with QE or your overall anti-monetarism rant. Needless to say, but his work predates the fed and the free market dynamics of real estate in major cities works the same whether there is a fed or not.
So you do all your analysis parroting other theories instead of putting the pieces together? That is why you parroted the fallacy that economic predictions cannot be made even though that is precisely what the market is and why the price of a sedan is more than an apple. Its a prediction on the resources needed to create it. You offer no insights. I can read that garbage on a slow news day in the financial press.
It has everything to do with QE because money creation is dependent on the speculative value of assets not just interest rates. You think people can get home equity loans like in 2003? You think that has nothing to do with money creation? You think QE propping up housing prices is going to work in a Georgist economic theory? You even said its not accepted theory and don't even seem to know tax discrimination and price discrimination are siblings with the latter done all the time. All the Fed does is effectively monetize assets with high marginal utility, you know, like land which is in a stall i. e. no money creation with more QE.
Of course it is.....in chapter titled the "The True Remedy", where he says:
We must make land common property.
Then explains that this will be met with antagonism given the present state of society.....so...precisely as I said. The tax system is a comprise to make the underlying ideas workable in the present state of society...its not the ideal. This is not to mention that he repeatedly suggests that ownership of land doesn't make sense philosophically....
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
That is why you parroted the fallacy that economic predictions cannot be made even though that is precisely what the market is and why the price of a sedan is more than an apple.
No fallacy, just basic mathematics. You can't forecast non-linear systems the size of the economy without massive computing power....computing power that doesn't exist on this planet.
Its cute that you call everything you disagree with a "fallacy" though....sorta misuse of words huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
It has everything to do with QE because money creation is dependent on the speculative value of assets not just interest rates.
No, Henry George is arguing for common ownership of land....and settles on a tax system that would have similar effects. That has nothing to do with QE and his writings predate the fed by many years....
Anyhow, I'll let you get back to your Austrian rantings.
Of course it is.....in chapter titled the "The True Remedy", where he says:
We must make land common property.
Then explains that this will be met with antagonism given the present state of society.....so...precisely as I said. The tax system is a comprise to make the underlying ideas workable in the present state of society...its not the ideal. This is not to mention that he repeatedly suggests that ownership of land doesn't make sense philosophically....
what are you talking about? You said this:
Nope......try actually reading the book. He prefers government ownership of land,
He said this:
To formally confiscate all land would involve a needless shock, and would require a needless extension of government.
Which part about needless extension of da guberment does da user_id not understand? What you said was completely wrong. He never advocated da guberment ownership of land anymore than da guberment ownership of sunlight. Do you even understand the difference between free like sunlight and da gubermnet ownership? If you don't then I can't grow the synapses for you. You did not read the book and you promoted yourself as an expert on a subject you know nothing about. You were completely wrong.
Quote:
No fallacy, just basic mathematics. You can't forecast non-linear systems the size of the economy without massive computing power....computing power that doesn't exist on this planet.
Is that a prediction? I wonder why then they can forecast US GDP within about 5% or that people will buy mittens in winter. What you fail to understand again and again and again is that market forecasts that are profit seeking is trying to beat what is first blatantly obvious and then what the market sets. Profitable projections must beat the market. Most people are predicting the US will win the medal count. That information is now worthless because that is what the market is forecasting. However it appears nothing on the planet can convince you otherwise.
Quote:
Its cute that you call everything you disagree with a "fallacy" though....sorta misuse of words huh?
Really? Which logical fallacy did I use? You use a common one Ad Hominan all the time not to mention appeal to the majority.
Quote:
No, Henry George is arguing for common ownership of land....and settles on a tax system that would have similar effects. That has nothing to do with QE and his writings predate the fed by many years....
Anyhow, I'll let you get back to your Austrian rantings.
Bwahahhaha! Weak try.
You said government ownership in land. You keep changing what you say. You understand the difference between government owned land and common rights to international waters? Cause if you don't you won't do anyone any good. Get help.
I told you I am not an Austrian. Did you even read the post? I said I was more akin to a green backer...???hello... Do you understand that the author of another book you didn't read and said I sound like is a metal man while I am not? Stop embarrassing yourself and do the work to actually read and understand the material. I read both books BTW and quite a bit more...
To formally confiscate all land would involve a needless shock, and would require a needless extension of government.
Which part about needless extension of da guberment does da user_id not understand?
What part of common ownership of land do you not understand? Funny though, you ask for a quote....I give it to you and yet you continue. Read the chapter....heck read the book.
Also, common ownership of land is government ownership and George's work was influential to communist thinkers. Perhaps in a few mouths you'll be quoting Marx. Wouldn't that be fun?
What part of common ownership of land do you not understand? Funny though, you ask for a quote....I give it to you and yet you continue. Read the chapter....heck read the book.
Also, common ownership of land is government ownership and George's work was influential to communist thinkers. Perhaps in a few mouths you'll be quoting Marx. Wouldn't that be fun?
So the usufruct rights of international waters(Georgist) is the same as da guberment national park to you ? You think there was a Federalized Nomad Union regulating American Indian use of North America?
And what are you talking about? Marx was a contemporary of George and never that I know of even quoted him. George wholly rejected and hated Marxism. Marx paid no head at all to economic rents. Marx thought capital had won and that landed gentry, the antagonist of George, was dead. Didn't you read the Manifesto? Didn't you read where George saw the landed gentry in another form was still going to rule?
Did you even read Marx? I sure don't see any evidence of that either? What did you read is the question.
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.
