Re: The 'working poor' scam

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 07/09/04 

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 23:24:37 GMT

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 06:13:00 GMT, Johnny Marcos <johnny5@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote in news:40eb1e8e.17078074@news.telus.net:
>
>> We need to tax them in proportion to the value of the land they hold.
>> I don't think we need to tax the hell out of people who own modest
>> amounts of land and are using it as productively as anyone else would.
>
>Rich Kerry, Rich Bush, scylla or charybdis. One is in the catholic
>church, one in the christian church, one has a vp lawyer, one has a vp
>oil barron. Are you voting for Nader?

No.

>What about pharmaceutical companies that own genetic patents - that is
>not land - monsanto - that is not land

They are rent collection privileges, like land titles.

> as we move into a digital and
>information age does agricultural based theories really apply?

The eternal verities still apply.

>> Wrong. Landowners who contribute absolutely nothing also get rich,
>> and once rich, rapidly get richer. Why are you unwilling to know that
>> fact?
>
>Bill Gates does not own land - he owns mindshare, how do your theories
>work there?

Just fine.

>How many times in the past has anyone tried the theory?

Numerous times, and it has been successful to the extent that it has
been implemented.

>Physiocrats had
>a similar theory right - did they try it in France?

Yes, and it succeeded.

>If it is best why
>doesn't the market know that - doesn't the market know what is best?

The market is just an information processor.

>How many georgists do you have at major economic schools in any country?

All competent economists recognize the validity of George's position,
but they do not call themselves Georgists because it is career
suicide.

>> Attentive silence from founts of disinformation like you would be a
>> start....
>
>Censorship - ok.

No, just the respect that the ignorant owe to their betters.

>> I know how they got into those positions: by offering to sacrifice the
>> productive to the rich.
>
>How does land tax affect the richest man in the world - Bill Gates? Your
>theories were created for a time when land ownership was king - they
>probably were good for rome or egypt or agrarian 1700's USA when they
>were thought about.
>
>> "Why get upset about slavery? You're not a slave."
>
>I am not upset - I just don't see how your theories apply today - the
>rich are not landowners - the rich own technology.

That is flat false. Land rent is far larger than IP rent, and the
rich own almost all the land value that is not in owner-occupied
residential land.

>> IMO, on balance it is questionable whether he did. Mainly he was just
>> in the right place at the right time, and saw how to profit from a
>> changing IP environment and others' mistakes.
>
>Just like the landowners of agrarian societies of the past. Not evil
>people out to destroy us.

Sure. Most landowners are not evil. But some are. And IMO the more
land they own, the more likely they are to be evil.

>> The holders of IP monopolies don't....
>
>He isn't a landowner.

Land is a specific and unambiguous instance of the more general case:
private capture and retention of publicly created economic rents.

>> It's better than meekly acquiescing, or worse,
>
>Your the one telling me to shut up.

Yes. You should shut up and try to learn something before spouting
off on subjects of which you have not the slightest understanding.
You have posted a tremendous volume of utter twaddle in this newsgroup
in the past few weeks, demonstrating almost no knowledge,
understanding, or thought. I asked you to inform yourself by reading
some previous threads. You did not do that. Why should anyone here
waste their time with you?

>> I have suggested no such thing. Why do you feel you have to lie about
>> what I have said?
>
>You keep calling me a liar, I am trying to understand, I am just a dumb
>citizen.

You are a dumb citizen, but you are not, repeat _not_ trying to
understand. If you were, you would read the threads I asked you to
read. They contain a great deal of pertinent information of which you
are obviously in desperate need.

> In fact, it could easily make it worse,
>> like the idiots who go to Somalia to "liberate" slaves by _buying_
>> them from their owners -- thus creating a more profitable market.
>
>I thought human trafficking was outlawed - you can buy somalies?

Yes. Some governments fid it convenient not to enforce laws against
human trafficking.

>> As you know, it is extremely unlikely that such efforts would actually
>> improve the situation there.
>
>I know http://www.savethechildren.org/index1.asp can take your money and
>do good.

I am skeptical. You are credulous. Have a nice day.

>> Having more disinformation to sift through isn't living better.
>
>Now you are being childish, you know we have it much better than just 20
>years ago.

But not better than the rich of 20 or even 50 years ago. we have
things they didn't have, but that doesn't make our things better.

>>>Me too - those poor dying SOMALIAS don't deserve it -
>>>http://www.savethechildren.org/index1.asp
>>
>> Hacking at the branches won't save them from evil.
>
>One human life saved is worth your time isn't it? Just one child.

How do I know that the effort needed to save that one could not be
better applied planting seeds here, and save millions??

>> root by howling about the branches.
>
>A hungry starving child is not a branch - it is a life you could
>individually improve - can't you just sponsor ONE child at
>savethechlidren?

No.

>> I have left the above despicable, infantile spew as is, to remind you
>> and your readers of exactly what you are.
>
>A guy asking you not to save all the branches, just 1 - do you even
>sponsor 1 child?

No. I consider it misguided and futile. Your brainless exhortations
have solidified that opinion.

>>>Here it is again - I think the Bible had a passage about fixing the
>>>plank in your own eye before you worry about the splinter in bill gates
>>>- he is donating 24 billion to his charity - helping the sick and poor
>>>of Africa - I don't think you have sent a dollar have you Mother
>>>Theresa?
>>
>> <yawn> If Gates had sent all his dough to Africa when he didn't have
>> much, he would never have had $24G to send now, would he?
>>
>> Moron.
>
>One child Roy L, just ONE, not 2 or 3 or 50, just ONE - can you afford
>ONE human LIFE?

Why do you try to distract me from efforts that could save millions?

>> That is an outrageous, despicable lie that trivializes the evil
>> tyranny those people are subjected to on a daily basis. You have
>> proved that you are vicious, evil, lying sub-human filth.
>
>I sponsor ONE child, how many do you sponsor?

None.

> That
>> hasn't solved the problem.
>
>The problem may never be solved, but you can save ONE human life.

And count on someone else to save that one's children, ad infinitum?

> Why do you insist that unless I waste my
>> time on a proved ineffective approach, I must be a hypocrite?
>
>One human life is not ineffective.

Yes, it usually _is_.

>what is the point ROY
>L - ultimately even if we do what you want, it only is going to affect
>the middle class here, the poor there are still to dumb to get ahead.

Wrong.
 
>> <yawn> If I tried to trace the origins of everything I bought, I
>
>The joys of bill gates and the internet

The Internet would have existed without Gates, and would probably have
been better.

>are that you can instantly find
>information and save yourself tons of time in research
>
>http://www.usstuff.com/index.htm
>
>They have done the work for you - none of that stuff was made with child
>slaves in china - and if you didn't have that resource you should have
>took the time to make sure you didn't support child slave labor - that is
>the problem - people not caring about where thier cheap goods come from
>just buying the cheapest thing at walmart - it's evil to criticize
>slavery thomas jefferson while you have slaves on your own farm - makes
>you look hypocritical - people not sending money for 1 child at save the
>children - but bloviating theories that think that is really helping
>anyone.

<sigh> It's obviously not helping you....

>One child Roy L - just ONE.

Branches vs root. Try to get that through your head.

-- Roy L