3 ms·

> Rentier capitalism is a term currently used to describe the belief in economic practices of monopolization of access to any kind of property (physical, financ

> Rentier capitalism is a term currently used to describe the belief in economic practices of monopolization of access to any kind of property (physical, financial, intellectual, etc.) and gaining significant amounts of profit without contribution to society A UBI recipient has not monopolized anything. UBI is just a citizen's dividend (eg. see Henry George) for forgoing access to their share of land/natural resources and allowing landlords/capital to monopolize them. Or alternatively, the payments landlords/rentiers pay to society in exchange for the privilege of their monopoly. But really the argument for a UBI is more about just having a more robust safety net so that nobody has to face destitution and people have the freedom to pursue whatever work they want and take greater risks (eg. starting businesses, research), especially as automation eliminates vast swaths of the labor market. Clearly this is completely different in both spirit and effect from say a minority class of private landlords leeching off workers and contributing nothing to society. > How can you say "someone has to do the actual work" in the same comment you end by advocating UBI? Why can't I say that? You think everyone is going to stop working if we implement a UBI? > I can't disagree with you per se when everything you write seems to cancel out in a vague cloud of doublethink. Hard to discuss anything with you when you haven't written a coherent argument. If you have something meaningful to say, then say it, don't just list a bunch of vague random questions and try to put the burden on me to figure out what your point is.

perl4ever 6y ago
>A UBI recipient has not monopolized anything I'm not sure I understand. You could equally say a shareholder of public company stock hasn't monopolized anything in exactly the same way, no? That's what the word share means. If you have Apple stock, you're not monopolizing any of their assets. So are you saying that there's an essential difference between someone who owns an apartment or two and rents them out vs. someone who owns an equal amount of an investment fund (whether real estate or not) and makes the same amount of money? Is the former a "rentier" and the latter not? It's an interesting idea, that modern finance is largely socialist, and the remaining work to be done is to eliminate all the small time capitalists that own actual means of production rather than shares, and redistribute the shares equally. But there is all this romanticization of "small businesses" that has to be undone to get to that socialist paradise.
- JSavageOne 6y ago
  > So are you saying that there's an essential difference between someone who owns an apartment or two and rents them out vs. someone who owns an equal amount of an investment fun Yes, the difference is that land was not created by anyone, it is given to us by the earth. Thus everyone is entitled to their fair share of the land. Land ownership itself is the exclusion of land from everyone else - a monopoly. Any profit made off of the land value itself is unearned income, and should be taxed. I'm just relaying Henry George's Land Value Tax
perl4ever 6y ago
>> How can you say "someone has to do the actual work" in the same comment you end by advocating UBI? >Why can't I say that? You think everyone is going to stop working if we implement a UBI? No more than you think everyone is presently "a manager, financier, or passive business owner".

perl4ever 6y ago

>A UBI recipient has not monopolized anything I'm not sure I understand. You could equally say a shareholder of public company stock hasn't monopolized anything in exactly the same way, no? That's what the word share means. If you have Apple stock, you're not monopolizing any of their assets. So are you saying that there's an essential difference between someone who owns an apartment or two and rents them out vs. someone who owns an equal amount of an investment fund (whether real estate or not) and makes the same amount of money? Is the former a "rentier" and the latter not? It's an interesting idea, that modern finance is largely socialist, and the remaining work to be done is to eliminate all the small time capitalists that own actual means of production rather than shares, and redistribute the shares equally. But there is all this romanticization of "small businesses" that has to be undone to get to that socialist paradise.

JSavageOne 6y ago
> So are you saying that there's an essential difference between someone who owns an apartment or two and rents them out vs. someone who owns an equal amount of an investment fun Yes, the difference is that land was not created by anyone, it is given to us by the earth. Thus everyone is entitled to their fair share of the land. Land ownership itself is the exclusion of land from everyone else - a monopoly. Any profit made off of the land value itself is unearned income, and should be taxed. I'm just relaying Henry George's Land Value Tax

perl4ever 6y ago

>> How can you say "someone has to do the actual work" in the same comment you end by advocating UBI? >Why can't I say that? You think everyone is going to stop working if we implement a UBI? No more than you think everyone is presently "a manager, financier, or passive business owner".