3 ms·

You should really give the original book review that preceded this a read.[0] > assumes the usual economic myths of a fixed amount of money Not at all. Henry

by Qub3d 5y ago

You should really give the original book review that preceded this a read.[0] > assumes the usual economic myths of a fixed amount of money Not at all. Henry George's original ideas included defining money as essentially an IOU pointing to an underlying wealth; and wealth can indeed be increased. > The problem with land is not rent, it is the power of exclusion, which leads to hoarding This sentence makes me suspect you've confused the antecedent of LVT with its result. Fixing hoarding is The Point of LVT. You're misunderstanding the term "rent", which unfortunately refers to both the common "I charge you X money on a recurring basis in exchange for occupation" and the more precise economic rent[1]. LVT would disincentivize economic rent, which would kill speculation and encourage more productive use of land overall, which would decrease exclusion and force hoarders to sell off their holdings. [0]:https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr... [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent

neilwilson 5y ago
That is the fixed amount of money idea. Money isn't an IOU pointing to an underlying physical wealth. It is wealth in its own terms that is created by government out of nothing based solely upon its future ability to tax. Even some bank money is secured on future income streams, although that is mostly discounting physical collateral. There isn't a one-to-one mapping between money and stuff. Never has been. "You're misunderstanding the term "rent"" I'm not. You're hoping I am. The economic rent comes from the capacity to hoard. Once you remove that the economic rent is eliminated. In other words ownership isn't the root cause of the problem - it's the capacity to prevent use that is the problem. So you eliminate that by forcing things to be rented out and used, or they will be confiscated. Which incidentally is a function of tax. Either you pay it, or you lose assets. So either you rent it or lose assets does the same thing.
- Qub3d 5y ago
  > It is wealth in its own terms that is created by government out of nothing based solely upon its future ability to tax. The units may vary, but the value remains the same. You get more dollars, but they are worth less, as the purchasing power parity is diluted. See: 6.8% inflation this year. > So you eliminate that by forcing things to be rented out and used, or they will be confiscated. I'm confused. I genuinely think you're reinventing LVT from first-principles here. The "confiscation" in Georgism/Geoism just comes at the hand of the free market. Yes, if you resolutely clung to land refusing to vacate it and also not pay the tax, someone will eventually show up and evict you, but the pressure to just take the money and go will drive an economically rational person to leave before then. > I'm not [misunderstanding rent]. You're hoping I am. I'm trying to engage you in good faith[0]. Your first comment's line of thought confused me so I thought I'd lay out my response as I understood it, and I'm glad you came back to clarify. That said, if you won't return the favor then I'm not going to bother continuing the conversation. [0]:https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments
  - neilwilson 5y ago
    "The units may vary, but the value remains the same. You get more dollars, but they are worth less, as the purchasing power parity is diluted. See: 6.8% inflation this year." Nope. Supply side issue. Move from service purchase to goods. Only neoliberals believe inflation is always money related. Using that line also suggests you believe in equilibrium - another notion that we've known is nonsense since at least the 1930s. "economically rational person" There are no economically rational persons. There are just human beings. Surely the last year has given you an indication that rational is the last thing we are. "I'm trying to engage you in good faith[0]." You'll need to try harder. You don't 'engage in good faith' by trying to mind read and put words in people's mouths.

by Qub3d 5y ago

neilwilson 5y ago

That is the fixed amount of money idea. Money isn't an IOU pointing to an underlying physical wealth. It is wealth in its own terms that is created by government out of nothing based solely upon its future ability to tax. Even some bank money is secured on future income streams, although that is mostly discounting physical collateral. There isn't a one-to-one mapping between money and stuff. Never has been. "You're misunderstanding the term "rent"" I'm not. You're hoping I am. The economic rent comes from the capacity to hoard. Once you remove that the economic rent is eliminated. In other words ownership isn't the root cause of the problem - it's the capacity to prevent use that is the problem. So you eliminate that by forcing things to be rented out and used, or they will be confiscated. Which incidentally is a function of tax. Either you pay it, or you lose assets. So either you rent it or lose assets does the same thing.

Qub3d 5y ago
> It is wealth in its own terms that is created by government out of nothing based solely upon its future ability to tax. The units may vary, but the value remains the same. You get more dollars, but they are worth less, as the purchasing power parity is diluted. See: 6.8% inflation this year. > So you eliminate that by forcing things to be rented out and used, or they will be confiscated. I'm confused. I genuinely think you're reinventing LVT from first-principles here. The "confiscation" in Georgism/Geoism just comes at the hand of the free market. Yes, if you resolutely clung to land refusing to vacate it and also not pay the tax, someone will eventually show up and evict you, but the pressure to just take the money and go will drive an economically rational person to leave before then. > I'm not [misunderstanding rent]. You're hoping I am. I'm trying to engage you in good faith[0]. Your first comment's line of thought confused me so I thought I'd lay out my response as I understood it, and I'm glad you came back to clarify. That said, if you won't return the favor then I'm not going to bother continuing the conversation. [0]:https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments
- neilwilson 5y ago
  "The units may vary, but the value remains the same. You get more dollars, but they are worth less, as the purchasing power parity is diluted. See: 6.8% inflation this year." Nope. Supply side issue. Move from service purchase to goods. Only neoliberals believe inflation is always money related. Using that line also suggests you believe in equilibrium - another notion that we've known is nonsense since at least the 1930s. "economically rational person" There are no economically rational persons. There are just human beings. Surely the last year has given you an indication that rational is the last thing we are. "I'm trying to engage you in good faith[0]." You'll need to try harder. You don't 'engage in good faith' by trying to mind read and put words in people's mouths.