Daily reminder that economics books which look at the progression of humanity from an inherently non-aggressive...

Daily reminder that economics books which look at the progression of humanity from an inherently non-aggressive non-Darwinian stance are not only more realistic, but ultimately sending a better message for the organization.

there is no good in this world that isn't enforced, you are not genuinely good unless you are an aggressive darwinist

georgism a shit, all capital should be marketized

Again, it's not realistic though. Life isn't inherently aggressive. That's not even really the point I was trying to make but if you view life as you wealth being inherently justified in letting people starve, not only is that cruel from a sociological standpoint but it doesn't make sense.

Aggressive in what context?

I am not

From a social Darwinist perspective.
"fuck everyone else, I am better than everyone"

That kind of mentality. FUCK that mentality.

thats a 3/10 shitpost reply.

Not really. It's the cause of this inequality in the first place.

The purpose of writing this book was to show that it is the changes of the policies of government itself that cause and engender all of the inequality that runs rampant through America. In some ways, the government can be beneficial to Americans in some ways it cannot. Increasing the money given to landlords was a problem espoused by Smith, Ricardo, Mill, and George. It culminated in a point with Geoism, which major economists were subscribers to. It reduces the money being given to an inherently unproductive class of wealthy individuals who also have government influence. These would be members of the Veblenian 'leisure class'.

He means that "X economic system prospered, while Y economic system died out" should not be considered proof that X is better than Y.
Darwinism, when applied here, is the idea that better systems will continue existing, while lesser systems will stop existing, and the OP is saying thats false, and we should resurrect and use systems that failed in the past, because it sends a better message or something.

Not entirely, but you raise a good point. If the entirety of systems progressing is based on the principle of social Darwinism, then the systems coming into play have a high chance of being favored as opposed to the ones passing. It's not so much a historically recursive, conservative stance, but more of an aware, cautionary sociological stance. For instance, Geoism literally goes against the grain of the opulent class. And for this reason, and this reason alone, it has never been particularly applied.

The same is true for a mass tax on inheritance as proposed by Mill or Keynes.

Would your geoism ideology propose a tax on all land, thus effectively a progressive tax that hits the rich the most?
Because taxing the rich has proven to be a bad idea, if your neighbor doesn't tax the rich. Your rich simply tend to leave, or at least their wealth leaves, to where it isn't taxed as much.

You're right, but if the non-productive class leaves then it wouldn't make much difference.

This reasoning is exactly why certain measures like lowering inflated money-wages are a good idea as well.

If the non-productive class leaves, their patents are still their own, as are their brands and trade marks.
So much of production will have to pay money to people and companies that are no longer based in your state, and instead paying tax to the competing neighbor state.

The idea doesn't work in a global, free movement, intellectual property based market.

We're just talking about the landed class here. This is geoism. Not many people who own land also own successful intellectual property trademarks.

Remind what georgism is supposed to be again and how it differs from distributism

You own your labor, and it is not taxed. Music, trade, poetry, education are tax free.
The state owns natural wealth, and it is heavily taxed. Mining, agriculture, land owners are taxed a lot.

>Life isn't inherently aggressive.
It is less apparent now after our civilization stumbled across industrialization and before it has grown to fit the resources available, but it is still with us to an extent. It helps you prosper and i you don't prepare then eventually you will need it just to survive. I am not saying it is right, it is just how it is.

>letting people starve
They get grain if they promise to start using rubbers.

>"fuck everyone else, I am better than everyone"
So I create an oasis free from the world's bullshit but this makes me a bad guy and now I have to let everyone trample over it. This is questionable even if I ignore the fact the politician asking me to do so is far wealthier than me. I haven't even mentioned the impending doom we have to prepare for, it is every übermensch and überfrau for themselves at this point.

>Smith, Ricardo, Mill, and George
Aren't you forgetting someone?

>Veblenian 'leisure class'
The crime here is the decadent wasteful spending on luxuries not the accumulation of capital.

Seems a bit arbitrary to declare land government property and use that as a source of revenue.

>Seems a bit arbitrary to declare land government property and use that as a source of revenue.

Its not government property in the sense that the government administers it, people still own and manage it themselves. It is just very heavily taxed. This achieves a "progressive tax" effect, where the richest pay more, and the poorest less, or none at all.

However rich people who don't own much land, like a rockstar musician or a great football player, still won't pay shit.

Taxed rather. Maybe George mentioned something about this but it would still require bureaucracy to assess land values minus the value of the property above it as it changes year on year. Also taxation would be lopsided placing all the burden on land users. Benign farms and mines would receive the brunt while 95% of the economy pays nothing.

George lived in an age of tariffs, gold and silver so I guess something this blunt made sense back then. Maybe there was some core principle to it that can be applied elsewhere. I have always wondered if taxing people for government services and indirect things like the labor provided by its citizens would be better than income/sales/corporate tax. Rather than trying to shut down the black market and prevent tax evasion they could just tax business at the pump.

He lived in an age of unbelievably high wealth disparity. Gold and silver were propagated because they were rewarded for taking chances. This caused a decent amount of inequality. This growing equality was thought to be made worse because of an increasing percentage of the output's price making it into rent, the money paid to the landlord for the use of his property.
>I am not saying it is right, it is just how it is
And I'm saying that it's not how it is. The idea that people are aggressive is not true. But lets lay devil's advocate and assume that they inherently are. They still aren't 'competing' in any sense of the word, the landlords and everyone else. But they conceptualize it as such. Books like The Bell Curve are written to make classes like the landlords feel better about the wealth they've been handed.
>They get grain if they promise to start using rubbers
Again, if you've read any amount of either George or Malthus you would know he addresses this very issue. Population expansion is highest in impoverished areas for reasons due to higher wealth redistribution in those areas.
>So I create an oasis free from the world's bullshit but this makes me a bad guy and now I have to let everyone trample over it. This is questionable even if I ignore the fact the politician asking me to do so is far wealthier than me. I haven't even mentioned the impending doom we have to prepare for, it is every übermensch and überfrau for themselves at this point
Right, you're a retarded libertarian. You'll reach the age of 21 soon enough.
>Aren't you forgetting someone?
You tell me, then we can actually have a discussion on them.
>The crime here is the decadent wasteful spending on luxuries not the accumulation of capital
They are inseparable.

I agree with you OP but I'm too tired to back you up against people who can't be bothered to look at a wiki page

>he believes the concept of interest is a penalty for the risk of others not paying and not inherently a property of the natural forces of nature.

You are not even close to apprehending what interest is, and the causes of usury, non-Geoist.