4 ms·

I mostly agree, mixed systems are very much the way to go and in fact I thin in practice are inevitable. The USSR and China never entirely eliminated private ca

by simonh 3y ago

I mostly agree, mixed systems are very much the way to go and in fact I thin in practice are inevitable. The USSR and China never entirely eliminated private capital, not even North Korea and the US provides many socialised services to citizens. I don't quite agree on land value. Real investment in land means capital improvements such as building accommodation, offices, factories, retail premises, etc. These can be highly productive. It's why I favour the idea of a land value tax, to actually encourage investment in productive uses for land and penalise passive rent seeking. I'm surprised you mention China positively in this regard, regional Chinese local governments have been largely funding themselves though massive land sales to private owners for decades. This often involved throwing off collectivised farmers with no or nominal compensation because the land belonged to the state. Arbitrary confiscation and abrogation of property rights with no appeal. Right up your street. Ive seen it happen in my wife's home town. With the recent collapse of property markets in China this is grinding to a halt. I agree the US view on these things seems to almost cartoonishly polarised from a European perspective. They do have an incredibly flexible and dynamic economy, but a bit red in tooth and claw for my liking.

derrida 3y ago
> I'm surprised you mention China positively in this regard, Apologies, I meant historically China, not china of the last 50 years. Just for context "the west" has sort of existed since renaissance only a few hundred years. Before that it had more common with some religions theologies and warring states. Meanwhile in arabia, china, persia and india there were huge cultures and civilizations far more advanced. They all had markets. Land rights however have always been a social question. For instance in britain it was all owned by the crown - a shepard for instance was naturally limited by how many sheep they could look after, a trade person limited by how many people they could see with their craft. Enter the corporation and enclosure and you can have flocks of 10,000 sheep etc. It doesn't necessarily mean there's more sheep it means "possession" now has some formalism governed by paper and the state, rather than some direct proximity and socially designated responsibility or custodian ship for a flock or area. etc. The later is how a great deal of cultures functioned and they had markets (what was the silk road?) Capitalism has always claimed "it's the market" ideology, but what actually distinguishes capitalism from all other societies is the creation of capital and the creation of false commodities in law (land, patents, etc)

by simonh 3y ago

derrida 3y ago

> I'm surprised you mention China positively in this regard, Apologies, I meant historically China, not china of the last 50 years. Just for context "the west" has sort of existed since renaissance only a few hundred years. Before that it had more common with some religions theologies and warring states. Meanwhile in arabia, china, persia and india there were huge cultures and civilizations far more advanced. They all had markets. Land rights however have always been a social question. For instance in britain it was all owned by the crown - a shepard for instance was naturally limited by how many sheep they could look after, a trade person limited by how many people they could see with their craft. Enter the corporation and enclosure and you can have flocks of 10,000 sheep etc. It doesn't necessarily mean there's more sheep it means "possession" now has some formalism governed by paper and the state, rather than some direct proximity and socially designated responsibility or custodian ship for a flock or area. etc. The later is how a great deal of cultures functioned and they had markets (what was the silk road?) Capitalism has always claimed "it's the market" ideology, but what actually distinguishes capitalism from all other societies is the creation of capital and the creation of false commodities in law (land, patents, etc)