CAPITALISTS AND SOCIALISTS UNITE

No.

Is this meme based on some current event I'm unaware of? I'm interested to find out more about it, if so.

The eviction moratorium is elevating the land issue. But, the land issue is the unspoken problem that both capitalists and communists want to avoid because that's the reason capitalism is not really laissez faire economics since government / media keeps the land tax low enough to reward land hoarding and under communism, of course, all the land is owned by the state.

Land availability is an issue... there is only so much of it and once all of it is privately owned, the value will skyrocket. But that's not the case outside of large cities. There is still a LOT of land available for those who know how to live without modern conveniences.

The current eviction moratorium that the CDC enacted via executive order is unlawful and unconstitutional as pointed out by SCOTUS. When challenged, I expect it to fail... and perhaps the economy to a lesser extent with it.

I don't really see how communism and capitalism intersect at centralized land ownership, however. As you pointed out, under communism all land is owned by the government, whereas under capitalism it's owned privately. America has wide swaths of land -- especially in the western half of the country -- that is federally owned, but in general, private interests own the vast majority of land.

Maybe I didn't understand your message?

Land ownership centralization is inherent to capitalism as we know it. Wherever land is, its purchase is considered an investment, like the purchase of art. This is what makes it like feudalism, the system Adam Smith and the laissez faire economists were actually opposing, where land ownership, not industry, was the path to personal wealth. They pointed out that taxing land value ownership makes sense but every other tax is unfair, inefficient and rewards criminal behavior. Basically, being "economists," they said we should tax for the use of natural resource, not the amount of wealth produced with it. But, capitalism as we know it just makes banks into the monarchy and us into the serfs and barons. Land ownership is monopolized by more than one entity, but the opportunity to join the pyramid scheme is not "economic freedom" or "free enterprise".

I agree with almost everything you said here. The part that isn't explored is that everyone has the opportunity to purchase land and real estate. Americans aren't locked into serfdom or aristocracy as upward mobility of lower to middle class citizens is extremely likely provided they handle their finances wisely. Indeed, even the people in our 1% aren't locked in as people gain and loose fortunes daily due to risky free market decisions all the time. Once you make it to the point where you can purchase property, as you pointed out, it does indeed become an investment -- land is limited after all and people can't keep buying up what no longer exists, after all -- for yourself and your family to come.

You're absolutely correct that the national banks have WAY too much power. Some of the original signatories of our Constitution agreed with that as well. It's an appalling concept that a business -- and that's what a bank is; a business -- is "too big to fail" in a free market economy!

The ability to "buy in" to the land price inflation bubble does not make it fair or efficient. Since land is necessary for our daily survival, biologically, we need to pay the same rate for it as everyone else. Otherwise the masses are slaves to the few. Consider monarchies. The only reason all the serfs' labor belonged to the kings is that the king owned all the land.

Obfuscating the land issue is the basis of capitalism as we know it. But the truth is that the difference between land and labor is the basis of the science of economics. Consider this. No products or services are created by land price speculation. Everything else is different. Owning art requires its preservation, owning stocks provides liquidity to the company. But making a profit by holding land over time creates no goods or services.

So, why does the establishment want to keep everyone constantly struggling to pay rents and mortgages? Because that is the only way to keep labor inexpensive. If rents and home prices were low, workers could hold out for better wages. And nobody would be desperate for money.

Life isn't fair and human beings aren't efficient... but the opportunity is there for those who strive for it and the bar to entry is set relatively low (by American standards of wealth; it would be much more difficult, if not impossible by wealth standards in a vast array of other countries). The "few" you're talking about are the majority (excluding dependents such as persons under the age of 18 and those living with family like elderly and disabled). The point in my previous post is that the monarchy comparison is a poor one... in monarchy, serfs could very rarely if ever move up the social strata... in America, it happens daily.

It's true, people should pay more attention to land ownership and realize there is a finite amount available... there is still plenty to go around but it WILL run out eventually. Owning land is a valid investment -- even above owning a piece of fine art -- as the ownership allows you to do things like drill for water, hunt, grow crops or raise livestock... you can eat the Mona Lisa but once and that won't sustain you much after that.

Rent and home prices are largely set by the housing market, which, I agree, is largely bullshit. But the market fluctuates up and down. Again, being smart with money and doing due diligence will yield a high degree of success in home/property ownership. That said, renting is only fit for the young who are transitory in their pursuits and only plan on staying static for a year or two. This gets back to my previous point but it's much smarter to by off YOUR mortgage by purchasing a home, rather than paying off someone else's by renting.

Being desperate for money is actually not what people are really desperate for... it's services and sustainment. Perhaps if schools taught more about agriculture, basic medicine, engineering and a trade instead of gender studies, people would be more capable of providing these basic necessities for themselves. Money, in any form, is just a fiat currency... it's merely a representation of approximate wealth. True power comes from knowledge and with it you can sustain yourself/others indefinitely regardless of how much monopoly money is in your pocket.

I think life is fair, but I know governments are not fair. And I know capitalism is far better than communism. But, I also know capitalism is far from fair. And I know the establishment blames nature for social problems even though the establishment is responsible for creating them.

If we were practicing free enterprise as prescribed by the classical economists (tax only land ownership), that would be fair. But, our tax system rewards land hoarding and taxes everyone for everything we do, exactly like monarchies.

I disagree... life is quite often unfair: when someone gets struck by lightning; when a child is diagnosed with an incurable disease/illness/deformity; when people are raped/murdered/taken advantage of out of the blue; when people die of starvation/dehydration; when you've given your life in the service of your country only to have its citizens cheer at your funeral. I'm pleased that you find life to be fair... you must have a good life (and there is nothing wrong with that; I'm not casting aspersions here). There are many in the world that might disagree that "life is fair", however.

Again... the monarchy comparison is such a strained comparison, it's difficult for me not to object. I agree with most of what you said up to the hyperbolic conclusion.

If we use the monarchy analogy: the monarch would be our government and/or huge corporations, perhaps; the aristocracy would be the land owners; serfs are those that pay rent. The problem with the analogy is that, I've heard of precious few historical cases that reference the rise of a surf above their birth station in a monarchy. Our "serf class" are only serfs for as long as it takes them to obtain land... then they become aristocracy, by analogical definition. So, the monarchy comparison is fatally flawed. You may be correct that land hoarding is rewarded and taxes for buying a stick of gum are retarded... but it's nothing like feudalism or a monarchy.

Well... not currently at least. Have you been noticing rich people running out to get their hands on property of late? I think we're heading for something bad.

It's not a good guy - bad guy thing. There's nothing immoral about investing in land. In fact, the system is set up to force everyone to invest in it. But, the system is unfair and inefficient. Or the US would not be trillions of dollars in debt.

Oh, for sure, I'm not arguing that it's a good vs bad guy situation. I'm merely critiquing your analogy. I think it to be flawed, nothing more. To be honest, we seem to agree on more than the small points we're disagreeing on. Which is a nice segue into...

The reason we're trillions of dollars in debt has little to do with land ownership (not counting the real estate bubble that popped under the Obama administration; that was a matter of crooked investment schemes). Scroll back to the Clinton administration when we were essentially debt free. Then roll the clock forward and account for every large expenditure. The main causes for our debt have been war and the government all but throwing money away... to big corporate bail outs... to social systems our GDP can't support... to individual citizens, more recently. The mint is likely out of ink with all the money they've been printing. But, again, it's not the fault of land ownership as a concept or as a practice.

Here is a similar meme I made:

Yup... nailed it.