Fairness Economists

GREAT meme!

thank you

You get out what you put in
And people get what they deserve

Those aren't my words, but they are fairly wise (and especially from some peoples' POV, considering who said it!)

😄👍🇺🇸

The assumption that capitalism is free enterprise is a hoax. The laissez faire economists were advocating the free market, not the property ladder, which is just feudalism without royal titles.

While I agree that we exist in a cleverly disguised feudal state, you did not offer an answer for my question drawn from your viewpoint.

I have not read or heard of a serf that paid another serf's required number of cabbages tax subjecting the benevolent serf's family to starvation while the recipient serf still retains plentiful stores to feed his family throughout the winter.

What is fair about forcing one man to compensate another man for lacking effort and poor money management?

Now I can see why you're bitter.

I think the real problem your approach has, is the human element. It doesn't take much more than a tiny percentage of people in your system to mess it up for the have nots, while the haves in govt make out like thieves, because they are thieves.

Capitalism in and of itself has got a lot of issues, but when it's combined with freedom (like the freedom we have in America (well, used to have) it's supercharged! Which country are you from again?

The truth is that there is more than enough to go around for everyone. But unlike your system, it's not given to people. That's the one thing that trips it up for people like you, I think. The expectation that people should work. Hell, will want to work., because a job usually leads to self-respect. Your side operates on the opposite approach. Your side wants to appeal to those with no motivation and no self-respect.

Intellectually, your plan is outstanding. It just can't hack it in the real world.

Where do you stand on the nuclear family? Most with your pov want it dismantled.

What’s fair is that you keep what you earn.

There is plenty of land, but it's held for ransom to keep labor cheap. As long as the tax system rewards land ownership as a value investment, wages will be as low as possible.

Yes, land is a limited resource. There is also water. Does all land contain water? How about food? Your ideology starts failing when you keep going down the list and start adding all limited resources.

Look at that last sentence about land investment and keeping labor cheap. It's so ridiculously false that it's hard to even address it. Wages are paid for what the work is worth. Not some idealistic view that we can all somehow share in the entire pie, even if I sat on my ass while someone else does all the work. Human nature won't put up with that, while at the same time, human nature from others almost demands that they be lazy.

Yeah, he has no idea about what he is talking about.

Wages are minimal. Why would I pay someone more than necessary?

Don't confuse me for a leftist, I'm a single taxer (classical economist). I contend that all taxes should be abolished except on land ownership. I'm not a redistributionist, I believe in natural law.

Land (sleep) is a daily bio-necessity. We need equal access to it or we live on a plantation. Everything else is accessible if one has a place to sleep.

Monarchs only needed to own all the land for everyone to be their subjects.

How about water, food, sewage, electrical, internet services?

So, in your system, everyone would have free run of land? They get to use it to sustain themselves?

Just how long, with your system, would it be before people without the *better* land take it from those who happen to have it? That's just the tip of the spear with all the problems your plan has.

Why do some people believe the two are mutually exclusive to economists?

There is absolutely no reason for economic growth to be unfair to anyone.

There is more than enough abundance in the universe (which includes this country) for everyone to enjoy.

BUT, it's usually not just stumbled upon. I could have sat around for years being dirt poor. I could have waited for the govt to help me out. But since I wanted to actually stop being hours away from living on the street, I decided to do something about it.

So as with religion, where a good way to look at it is 'call on God, but row away from the rocks', people who want to enjoy their own personal economic growth have to do something about it. They have to want to make their situation better. And when they decide to do something about it, nobody needs to be subjected to unfairness.

The ability to succeed within a system doesn't make it fair. Poverty is unnatural. It's absurd for human beings to be homeless and such a situation could only be created by a corrupt government.

"The ability to succeed within a system doesn't make it fair"

I didn't say that it did. It also doesn't make it unfair, as seems to be your position (please correct me if I'm wrong about that)

Poverty is perfectly natural. Just look in nature... all around you. Animals aren't smart enough to just pick up and move to where there's more abundance.

Where do you come up with that claim anyway? Please substantiate that claim.

"It's absurd for human beings to be homeless and such a situation could only be created by a corrupt government."

I agree that it's absurd. I would quibble with one aspect of that point, which is corrupt govts don't necessarily create that situation. But they do let it happen on their watch. Perhaps a distinction, at least maybe to you, that doesn't amount to any difference.

Here's a crazy idea... we should quit spending more money than we have on things we don't need, so that we could have enough to spend it on solving problems like homelessness.

Corrupt government controls public education, which omits or skews the science of economics in order to keep labor cheap. Human poverty is ridiculous and if humans survive, they will laugh at us (and feel sorry for us) for tolerating it so long.

The correct science of economics has been known for a long time, but those in charge want to keep labor cheap. All taxes except on land ownership should be abolished. They are unbelievably stupid. Income tax? The government need to punish us for having an income? Commerce should be punished with taxation? Everything people like should be taxed and if we like it more, it should be taxed more? Objectivity eventually reveals that capitalism is not free enterprise, it's neo-feudalism.

Poverty IS the most natural state.

Every wealthy, well fed, content society rose from the abject poverty of "third world" existence.

Nature is generous, not stingy. No creature on Earth is born poor unless someone else owns the land they were born on.

Blaming nature instead of corrupt government for poverty is illogical.

Nature is generous, not stingy - what do YOU mean when you say that?

Nature keeps us alive everyday. Unless you sleep on it for several hours a day, you won't have the strength to do anything. It gives us all the best things in life.

Try this;

Walk into the backcountry, far from any city, town, or residence.

Stay there for one month in the most favorable time of year - when the fruit and berries are ripe and the nuts are falling.

Come back and tell me how generous nature was to you.

Look at a big city, buildings soaring to the sky full of expensive condos. The location is what's valuable. But private parties don't make land valuable, nature does, community does.

So nature is no longer generous and now makes condos valuable instead?

Nature is generous, but investors own it and charge everyone else to live on it. It's the property ladder (fake freedom).

You seem to be evading the question.

Are you?

Nothing stops you from investing in land.

Just think, YOU can be that one individual that invests in land and, install of profiting from it, gives it away to people that did not want to put the effort into working towards owning land..

Actually, because humans, one does not "own" land, you purchase a long term, transferable lease.

All creatures are born poor, and living on the brink of starvation is the norm.
Competition for limited resources is the main driver of evolution.

But I understand your point.
Society has long past the point where we're all fighting over the last scrap of meat on a carcass. We've achieved the ability to produce a surplus, and storing as much surplus as possible in order to avert the possibility of starvation isn't as essential as it once was.

The norm is being born into a loving family in a bountiful ecosystem. We are brainwashed to blame nature instead of government for social problems. But corrupt government, not cruel nature, is responsible.

The norm is struggle, starvation. Otherwise we'd still be unicellular ooze feeding on mud.
Nature is not to blame, we are to blame for nature, for it is our lives, our actions that make it what it is.

Families are 'loving' as long as there's something to get from it. Wait to see who's taking care of the family drunk when they've become aged and sickly, or even our parents, for that matter.

Which creature born on this Earth has to fight and struggle for its first meal?

The corrupt establishment teaches us to blame ourselves and each other for social problems, but we are not to blame, the corrupt government is. It allows nature (land), our provider, to be monopolized by investors, forcing us to work most of our lives just for survival, just to pay investors rent for the land. It's a plantation, but they teach us we are free and that "the market" makes survival so expensive.