Inflation -> recession

fuyume

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 25, 2021
Messages
273
Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Lauren Boeberts are NOT wackos.
I submit that if this is genuinely your belief, you might not have sufficient perspective to judge the truthfulness of that statement. The ideas espoused by these women are objectively testable against factual evidence.
 

fuyume

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 25, 2021
Messages
273
But I should not have to share the rewards of my effort with someone who did nothing to earn it, like pay property tax on the land (rent) or income taxes on the profit (extortion/tribute). I agree with that.

The central thesis of Georgism is that, since Nature belongs to all the living in common, no one has any moral basis for any claim of property right in Nature.

The land you occupy is not "ownable" in any moral sense, but it is true that in order for society to function, for civilization to even develop, we must have some means of securing a reasonable likelihood of return on the investment of labor we make in the land.

What you take from the common wealth for your exclusive benefit, you necessarily deny to all others, who are nevertheless entitled by virtue of existence to an equal and common share. Morally, you are obligated to repay the value of what you have reserved for yourself at everyone else's expense to the community.

Land values are not created by individual labor. They are created solely by the aggregate competitive demand of the community as a whole for the use of valuable advantageous locations. Therefore, land values cannot in any sense be private property, they belong only to the community as a whole, which created them. Land values cannot be "earned".

If there is no advantage, there is no value.
If there is no exclusion, there is no value.
If there is no community, there is no value.

The entire point of Georgism is that land values are the only thing we can rightfully tax, because they do not and cannot belong in any moral sense solely to the person what happens to be occupying any particular plot at any point in history.
 

bykfixer

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
20,202
Location
John 3:16
America is not under the Georgism theories.

Thank goodness. Otherwise bums could just walk into the house I go to work everyday to pay for and eat up the food I went to the trouble to acquire either through my own efforts or used my income to purchase. The termites that want to munch on the wood that holds the house together would have the right to. Ants get to eat all my honey nut cheerios.

Should I be allowed to invade my neighbor's house? Take their car without permission? Take over their bank account? No. That would be called stealing in America.

Now the day the guy who refuses to work but has the same stuff I have is the day I quit work. And somebody has to work, but what's the motivation? In communist Russia it used to take 10 years to acquire a car that was junk. Nobody gave a crap so production was really slow and sloppy. It's not rocket science. Efforts rewarded creates more effort for more rewards. Unfortunately a bloated beauracray has been picking winners and losers to the point that capitalism is just a shadow of its intended results.
 

orbital

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
4,210
Location
WI
+

If someone rolled up to my house thinking what's mine is somehow theirs, they get dropped.

----------------------

In lighter news as of today: from CNBC

  • An inflation gauge that the Fed follows closely rose 4.1% from a year ago, the lowest annual increase since September 2021.
  • So-called core PCE increased 0.2% on the month, as goods prices fell while services costs rose.
  • Consumers continued to spend, with expenditures up 0.5% on the month, while income increased a bit slower than expected.
  • The employment cost index, another key Fed gauge, rose 1% during the second quarter, slightly less than expected.
 

KITROBASKIN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
5,313
Location
New Mexico, USA
Some believe that taxing income is a way for community bills to be paid by having the wealthy, who have clearly benefited more from the community, to pay a larger share.

Those who are taking care of the elderly and children, cleaning up after people and those that do not make much money, pay less to the community.

Granted, there is a big difference between the windfall, lucky leisure class who got their money from parents, etc., and those enterprising individuals who worked hard, long hours to accumulate their wealth.

Having people contribute a larger percentage to the community that get their money from investment assets (little more than sitting and waiting for their bank account to enlarge) has been thwarted by that class of people paying off the rule makers?

Certainly there are more knowledgeable observers here that can weigh in.
 

bykfixer

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
20,202
Location
John 3:16
Yes, paying off the law makers has been lucrative for some Kitro. Lawmakers, who make $175k a year (for example) and own multiple multi-million dollars homes in many cases.

But taking care of the elderly and children is actually very beneficial to the community who don't have to 'foot the bill' as it were through medicare. Often those who don't earn a big wage contribute other ways. They bag our groceries, cut grass, work on farms and lots of other things many won't do in the industrialized world.

A guy on the radio this morning stated 2 categories not being discussed is card board boxes being at the lowest demand since 2008 and that people maxing out credit cars is an all time high. He also said if you take out military aircraft construction the durable goods orders are actually falling. I say that not to rain on the parade but for other dimensions to consider. Every famous investor pundit is saying get out of the stock market......now.
 

IMA SOL MAN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 18, 2023
Messages
2,126
Location
The HEART of the USA.
The Biden Administration is attacking inflation the wrong way.

Inflation=too many dollars chasing too few products.

Rather than increasing the number of products available through increasing domestic manufacturing of consumable goods, they decide to use the Fed to choke the money available. It's easier for them to do that, but it has very negative consequences to the economy. Higher interest rates means higher costs to purchase goods, so fewer goods are purchased, which results in fewer goods being produced, which feeds inflation. What they should be doing instead is implementing policy to boost domestic manufacturing and limit foreign imports of goods. If we can get domestic manufacturing running again, like the 1940's and 1950's, we would be in good shape, I think.
 

idleprocess

Flashaholic
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
7,197
Location
decamped
Some generalities:
  • Between the various polarizing utopian ideals we hear about at the edges lies the smaller, more probable possibility domain. To wit, I don't take the absurd examples too seriously - we're headed towards neither anarcho-capitalism nor a centralized economy despite hints of both appearing regularly.
  • The velocity of money is generally greater when more are spending smaller sums than when fewer people are spending larger sums:
    • 10,000 people with $100 to spare will generate more economic activity than...
    • 100 people with $10,000 to spare will generate more economic activity than...
    • 1 person with $1,000,000 to spare
      Yes there are exceptions but this is a general rule; the smaller sums discourage hoarding and tend to go towards more immediate, more economically-efficient means such as basic goods & services
  • The argument for reducing inequality has reasonable arguments for social stability, but it's a fool's argument to try to achieve anything close to total equality - something that has never happened in large-scale civilization. I think a reasonable goal should be something that was largely true until some vague point in the 1980s - if you're working full time you're at least guaranteed not to be poor.
 

IMA SOL MAN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 18, 2023
Messages
2,126
Location
The HEART of the USA.
Some generalities:
  • Between the various polarizing utopian ideals we hear about at the edges lies the smaller, more probable possibility domain. To wit, I don't take the absurd examples too seriously - we're headed towards neither anarcho-capitalism nor a centralized economy despite hints of both appearing regularly.
  • The velocity of money is generally greater when more are spending smaller sums than when fewer people are spending larger sums:
    • 10,000 people with $100 to spare will generate more economic activity than...
    • 100 people with $10,000 to spare will generate more economic activity than...
    • 1 person with $1,000,000 to spare
      Yes there are exceptions but this is a general rule; the smaller sums discourage hoarding and tend to go towards more immediate, more economically-efficient means such as basic goods & services
  • The argument for reducing inequality has reasonable arguments for social stability, but it's a fool's argument to try to achieve anything close to total equality - something that has never happened in large-scale civilization. I think a reasonable goal should be something that was largely true until some vague point in the 1980s - if you're working full time you're at least guaranteed not to be poor.
At one time in the USA, a family could survive on one person's income. I think making that our ultimate goal would be good.
 

idleprocess

Flashaholic
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
7,197
Location
decamped
At one time in the USA, a family could survive on one person's income. I think making that our ultimate goal would be good.
As do I, however getting there will likely require the surrender of some presently sacred cows since present trends riding on those cows are going the wrong way.

Discussing the specifics however will likely prove too contentious for CPF.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,502
Location
Flushing, NY
At one time in the USA, a family could survive on one person's income. I think making that our ultimate goal would be good.
Actually in many cases it was possible even on less than one income. Back when my parents started out in 1961 you could get an apartment in an OK area for $30 (~$300 in today's money). If you didn't mind living in a dump, figure half that, or $15. Minimum wage was $1 an hour. So basically after taxes you could probably barely get by working maybe 10 hours a week. Nowadays you have couples both working full-time barely getting by.

I like the idea of being able to make it even on a part-time income. That means you can do one of two things. Either work full-time but take meaningful breaks (i.e. a year or so off) every few years, or you can work 10 to 20 hours a week. For lots of reasons I consider the idea of working 40+ hours a week, with only weekends and a little vacation, from the time you're young until you retire, to be a grind. It relegates people to being carbon-based machines. Far better if people could live decently working 1/3 that amount or less. Ironically, if wages had kept up with productivity increases since the 1960s that might be the case now. Housing might cost a few hundred a month. Minimum wage would be about $30 an hour.

Both parties seem to be OK with controlling the price of things via artificial scarcity (i.e. the housing market) so people are forced to work full-time for 50 years just to get by. Then they retire only because they're so worn out they can't physically work anymore. We're slaves, or at least indentured servants, but most don't realize it.
 

bykfixer

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
20,202
Location
John 3:16
Why get out of the stock market?
The folks I hear talk about it say the bubble is going to burst again any day now. They say if you have ten years or less to work and your retirement is in market based funds you could lose up to half the value quickly and take years to get back. They say if you must stay in the market buy stock in companies that do well in good or bad economies. Lawn mowers, toilet paper, tooth paste, utility companies and the like.
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,545
Location
NYC
Imagine how humans dealt with economic conditions a thousand years ago; 10,000 years.
They starved to death. Or, became criminals; robbing so they and their families could eat. Knowing full well that capture meant a quick death or a slow and brutally agonizing one filled with forced labor until they were literally worked to death.
 

IMA SOL MAN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 18, 2023
Messages
2,126
Location
The HEART of the USA.
They starved to death. Or, became criminals; robbing so they and their families could eat. Knowing full well that capture meant a quick death or a slow and brutally agonizing one filled with forced labor until they were literally worked to death.
That's what I like about you Monocrom, you're such a ray of light in this dark world. :eek:
 
Top