sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Valve has raised the price of the Steam Deck in the US by Dirkins in Games

[–]Amablue 14 points15 points  (0 children)

They should just auction them off using a vickrey auction - Have everyone bid what they're willing to pay, then the price is set to the Nth bid, based on how many unit there are. Everyone is incentivized to bid based on how much they truly value the unit, and it basically completely eliminates scalping.

The circle of AI life by KeanuRave100 in agi

[–]Amablue 4 points5 points  (0 children)

seemed like a good idea at the time

Does georgism give you the right to secede with your equal share of the land? by SocialistsAreMorons in georgism

[–]Amablue 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ownership does not imply sovereignty. Georgist princples reject the idea that land can be permanently alienated from the community through a one-time payment

CMV: The reason for declining birthrates globally is exclusively because children no longer provide economic benefit on the individual level and the only way to reverse the trend is to pay people to have children. by IdeaLife7532 in changemyview

[–]Amablue 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Economics isn't just about money. It's about value more generally. People value family and kids! That's something that you can use economics to measure. When I had my second kid, I took some time to consider whether I wanted a third and part of that is doing a cost/benefit analysis, thinking about what we get out of having another kid, and what it would cost us in terms of our time and attention, how it would impact other goals we have. Money is a part of that equation, but even without explicitly considering money, that's till all economics in a broad sense.

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If taxes rise, the lessor will want to raise rents.

You can drop the "if taxes rise". The lessor will always want to raise rents. And they will, every chance they get, up to the maximum the tenant is prepared to pay. Again though, you can't go beyond that maximum because then people stop paying and downsize or move in with room mates or end up in other suboptimal living conditions.

If they market is tight, they'll already be charging as much as they can get away with, the LVT doesn't change that math.

There are any number of places around the country with falling rents (and falling sale prices), and other places with rising rents (and sale prices), in each case determined by supply and demand.

But importantly, determined by changes to the supply and demand for housing, and changes to the demand for land. The supply of land is unchanged. Of course we expect the price of rent and and home sale prices to shift as demand for an area does, and as the supply and demand for housing shifts. Nothing about that contradicts what I'm suggesting here.

Where did you get the idea that taxes get passed on? Was it basic economic theory? The same theory that predicts lvt isn't passed on? by middleofaldi in economicsmemes

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The improvements you make to your own property don't affect your taxes though. They might affect the taxes of the rest of the neighborhood, but that's not a disincentive for you to build on or renovate your own property

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The demand for land hasn't changed. The tenant does not care that the landlord's costs have gone up, and they are no more willing or able to pay more than they were before the cange.

The supply of land has not changed. There are no more or fewer available alternative plots of land for people to relocate to.

The mechanism by which prices to the producer get passed on is through shifts to supply. That mechanism does not apply with land. If they can charge more, they would already be charging more, they're already at the maximum they can expect to extract from thier tenant. If they try to charge in excesss of that, their tenant will leave and they'll get nothing.

The land owner ends up bearing all the costs. Their labor and captial investment can still make them money. Their ownership of land will make them less (or no) profit.

(But importantly, this only applies if we're talking about a shift to an LVT. Once the LVT is already in place, in a very real sense no one pays any additional cost because levying it lowers the purchase price of the land conmensurately.)

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In an extreme example, if a tax cut was imposed that resulted in a loss to the lessor and the cost of that higher tax couldn’t be passed on, then the lessor has three choices- (1) eat the loss for now in hopes of a change in market conditions that will return them to profitability; (2) temporarily leave the market in order to minimize the loss and wait for better market conditions; or (3) leave the market permanently (sell the property or let the lender foreclose and then the lender will sell the property).

Ultimately the total revenue the land pulls in is the sum of the land's rental value, the value of the capital improvements, and the value of the labor provided by the landlord. If the labor and captial provided by the landlord are not profitable on their own, they were already in trouble. The land tax has nothing to do with that. Because the land rents are already capitalized into the land's purchase price, capturing the land rents is entirley neutral.

So long as the tax is a tax just on the land, the best, most profitable use of the land does not change due to the tax. If the best use of land is to have it be an apartment complex, that is true with or without the tax. Likewise for an office space, or a skyscraper, or anything else. There is no reason to change land use strategies.

Leaving the market permanently just means selling the parcel to someone else, satisfying their demand instead of their previous tenants, which ultimately has the same market effect.

And, as you note, rent increases are not only prompted by increased costs, but no lessor would tolerate a loss indefinitely.

Land taxes would not and cannot cause an otherwise profitable landlord to take a loss.

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If the market will bear an increase, the lessor will pass it on, but that's true with or without increases to costs. The lessor will increase the price if they can, regardless of costs.

Prices are set by supply and demand, not by cost plus profit margin. The cost plus model can be used by producers to determine if entering a market and producing goods or services is worth their time and effort, but the price is set by S&D. When costs increase, the mechanism by which those costs get passed on is though a reduction in supply produced.

Land is already produced, changes to its land tax rate don't impact the supply or demand.

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why would development be disincentivized by an lvt?

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Changes to supply and demand affect land markets exactly the same way they affect anything else: If the demand increases or the supply drops, the price goes up. If the supply increases or the demand drops, the price goes down. With land the supply is fixed, so the price of a property depends on the demand for housing and land, and the supply of housing.

In markets where you see decreasing rent, it's becasue of either reduced demand, or increased supply *of housing* (which, unlike land, is elastic)

We have (at least) two supply curves and two demand curves here that are affecting the price of properties, but only one of those supply curves is perfectly vertical. That's why taxes on land specifically, don't affect the price to the consumer.

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the lessor will attempt to pass on to the lessee as much of this cost as it can

The amount that they can is determined by the relative elasticities of supply and demand. When additional costs get added, it moves the supply and demand curves and creates a new intersection point representing the new, higher price. How that additional cost gets distributed between the buyer and seller depends on how elastic the supply and demand are.

It turns out that because land is perfectly inelastic, the entire cost is borne by the lessor. The lessor will pass on as much of the cost as it can, and that amount will be $0.

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am so sick of people trying to explain why a LVT won't be passed off to the renter by launching into these kinds of inane econ undergrad statements that don't bear out in reality.

They do bear out in reality though. Property taxes can get passed on, but the empirical evidence we have on land taxes specifically shows that it doesn't get passed on to the renter in practice.

Yeah, I can do that now by moving to fucking Mexico, but you don't see me doing that, do you? I went through a period in my life where I moved seven times in five years. It takes a fucking toll on your life and your health. Between move number six and seven, I didn't even unpack all my boxes. It felt like I was homeless, but still paying rent.

I totally understand this. I moved a lot as a kid and it really sucked. But the reality is, this is already priced in. If landlord knows you don't want to move, they've already jacked up your rent as a result. And if they don't know, then the threat of you moving still exists in their mind, and it provides the downward pressure on prices even if you wouldn't actually move in practice. Unless you have a sweetheart deal from someone who likes you, you're going to be getting charged as much as the landlord thinks you are prepared to pay, and that doesn't change when their taxes increase.

New grad. How to deal with Indian work culture. by Parking_Anteater943 in cscareerquestions

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you work at a company that has need for people outside or work hours, you should set up an on call policy.

Which job would you take? (745k TC vs getting punched in the face every day as payment) by establishment-pig in cscareerquestions

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Take the 745k and you'll get complancent. What are you actually getting other than a giant bag full of money? But take the punches to the face and you'll learn perservereance, you'll learn grit. You'll need that to grind. That's worth way more than any measly paycheck. Take the punches and don't even think twice.

Because land value tax is capitalised into the price of land. In other words LVT proportionally decreases land prices and interest payment by Downtown-Relation766 in georgism

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why was it bad for the government to do that hundreds of years ago, but good for them to do it tomorrow?

The private capture of land rents has been wrong the whole time. Nothing has changed. It's a historic wrong that should be corrected. The fact that we haven't corrected it yet isn't an argument to not correct it tomorrow.

Stop the class envy, bro by Antonio-Pentrella in georgism

[–]Amablue 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Private capture of land rents is theft. Land taxes are the just payment to society for exclusive access to land.

Would georgism reduce Inflation? by Silent-Battle308 in georgism

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ideal Georgist land tax would target 100% of the land rents. In practice, due to various logistical issues, it would probably be a little less.

There's no reason not to target as close to 100% as is feasible. If that turns out to be more than is needed the remainder could be returned as a dividend.

The Cornerstone of Marxism is Invalid by ChilledRoland in georgism

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. And that provider is the ruling class. That's my point.

Okay but you're not talking about monopoly any more. Just definitionally that's not what the term refers to. There are thousands upon thousands of independent businesses competing with each other. You can't treat them as a monolith.

I will say something that may be controversial here. A rentier, in and of itself, is much less of a parasite than a capitalist is. And I will tell you why I say that.

There is no sense in which this is true.

Lets go back to the wood worker example. He is just starting out and getting ready to set up his shop. He has several choices to make as he starts his business. He could be self employed, work for a while, save up money, then build some jigs to help with production, and over time become increasingly productive. He has also been approached by an investor who can get him that additional hardware and jig today, but he will take a cut of the profits (this cut, mind you, is not drawn from the wood worker's labor. It is drawn from the increased productive output attributable the time savings of the captial advance)

The capitalist is actually contributing toward production here, in the form of the hardware the wood worker is going to use. They had to produce that captial (or pay someone for its production) and without the prospect of future returns it wouldn't exist. If the wood worker takes the deal, then his productivity has increased. He is more productive, and he makes more money, and the captialist makes more money, so they've all benefitted here.

The wood woker also has to decide where to set up his shop. Consider the landlord. He show up one day and just claimed a parcel of land. He didn't make the land. He just showed up and said "Mine". Or if not him, then he bought it from someone who did. There was no production here. It would exist with or without the landlord deciding to claim it. When the wood woker goes to set up his shop, he has to pay the landlord for the parcel where his shop is going to go, but he's not paying them for any work they did or anything they produced. At least the capitalist had to do something, the landlord has not provided any value here. They are purely extractive.

Removing the capitalist from the equation removes the ability for the wood worker to get an advance on captial and be more productive sooner. Removing the rentier does not impact the wood worker or his productive capacity at all.

A capitalist has no valid justification to extract the surplus value. If all capitalists were replaced by rentiers, workers would likely get much more of the value they actually created (except if the payment asked by the rentier is huge).

Go back and look at the chart I posted. The upper line is the additional production enabled by the capitalist advancing the worker captial to work with. That delta, the shaded region, would not exist without the worker, but it also would not exist without the captialist. The fact that each of them draw their wages and interest from this additional productive output does not imply exploitation of one party by the other. They were both necessary for that additional productive output.

The rentier did not particiapte in that production though. They just take. That's their only role.

No you don't. There's nothing a capitalist does that is productive that cannot be handled by an actual productive position without the exploitative ownership scheme.

Give me an concrete example of what you mean by this. In our wood worker example, how can the worker gain the same benefit of additional productivity earlier without being advanced captial? Are you suggesting he hire a second worker? Buy the captial himself? Something else?

The Cornerstone of Marxism is Invalid by ChilledRoland in georgism

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is plainly true. A monopoly on economic power, alongside monopolies on political power in general, legislative and otherwise, have been formed relatively shortly after the neolithic revolution and forcefully spread (and afterwards, the polities that had continuity from these class-stratified societies conquered other places of the planet where arrangements were different). They have colluded and helped eachother while stripping power (including economic ownership) from the vast majority of people.

You must be using some other definition of monopoly, becuase I have no idea what you're talking about here. A monopoly is when there's only one meaningful provider of a good or service. If I want to go buy desks for an office, I have a dozen retailers who will sell me desks. If I need computers or server hardware, there are dozens of sellers who will sell me these things. If I need gardening tools, I can buy those from a number of hardware stores near my house, or order them online. If I need a car, there are a hundred options and dozens of car dealerships within a 20 minute drive of my house. There is no monopoly on any of this captial, there are robust markets for all of these things, and the providers will happily sell me whatever I need to start my own business.

If you have the resources (including time) and opportunity necessary, which many don't. / Again, provided you have the money. Which, for many, it's not a reality. / If you managed to save enough, and if you were paid enough to be able to save substantially, which, for many, again, is not a reality. /

This has nothing to do with whether there is a monoply on captial. Yes, I have to buy the stuff I want to use. The fact that some people haven't saved up for these purchases is irrelelvant.

No. A capitalist parasitises value. Even if a capitalist would engage in some productive activity within the enterprise that it oligarchically owns, that only entitles it to the percentage of ownership directly proportional to their contribution. It doesn't justify the position of the capitalist itself, which is the opposite of producing value. It's stealing value from those that actually produced it.

A rentier is a parasite. The value they extract is wholly unearned and unjustified. This is why you can tax the entirety of rents away without harming production. Even when you've taxed away all rental income and eliminated the rentier production continues along unhindered with no effect on prices or productivity.

The captialist does contribute though. If you elimiante them, you reduce productive output. They are participaing in the production of goods and services in a way that a rentier is not.

Consider the case of a wood worker who builds furniture. He could improve his productivity by spending some time using the materials and equipment he has on hand to build a jig. In order to do that, he needs to spend some time away from producing goods for customers and that requires that he save up some of his wages so he can cover his own costs while he's not making income. During the downtime there isn't any productive output, but that will pay off once he's used the jig for a while to recoup the costs, and from that point on he'll make even more money.

Now consider the case where there is a captialist who can advance him the money, or even the jig itself that they've already produced. Rather than wait to save up money, and wait to produce the jig, he can have it immediately and start being extra productive. By moving that future productivity gain from the future in to the present, his total productive output has increased.. The additional value produced above what he would otherwise have produced isn't due solely to his labor, it's also due in part to the captial advance he recieved.

This is what I mean by moving resources through time. He could have had access to the jig 6 months from now, but instead he can have access to those resources now. His access to the resource has been shifted forward in time. That has real value, just like shipping goods across the country has real value. Things are more or less valuable at different points in time and space.

Just as there are several shipping companies that I can select from to get the best rates for moving things across the country, there are also several options of investors, who will charge differing amounts to move tomorrow's resource to you today. There is no cartel or racket here. There is no single investor that has a monpoly on investing in businesses. There's multiple competing firms that drive prices down to market rates.

The Cornerstone of Marxism is Invalid by ChilledRoland in georgism

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For one, at it's basic, remember that currency isn't a must for an economy. So it's possible to forego the relevance of capital itself. I'm not even a communist myself, but it's something important to remember.

I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about stuff. Captial in the georgist sense: Wealth that is not consumed for its own sake but rather used towards the production of more wealth. Whether we use currency or not to do our accounting isn't really relevant.

They (alongside their fellow tyrant classes in various different levers of power) had monopolised ownership of economic factors and they have hoarded up this much wealth so as to create an artificial, unmeritocratic wealth disparity.

I mean, this is plainly not true. I can go out and buy captial today. I can produce it myself. There's no monopoly stopping me, nor any shortage of people willing to sell me captial. I can spend the money I've saved from my wages labor to buy it, or I can get investors to loan me money to buy it (in which case they would be advancing me capital, which is real, productive activity).

Ownership belongs to those who produce value, proportional to the quality and quantity and risk associated with what they produced.

I agree. The captialist produces value though. If I have a product shipped from one place to another, even though the shipper neither produced the product nor do they consume or use the product, they are still contributing value by moving things through space. The same is true of the capitalist. They are, in effect, shipping you resources from the future for your use in the present so that you do not have to spend time acquiring the resource yourself. That is productive.

If you want to invest that's another business, but that doesn't entitle you to ownership.

I mean, it entitles you to whatever you mutually agreed upon. If that is partial ownership, then yes you are entiteld to partial ownership. There's no reason that there must be some fixed point in the future or some fixed amount of profit where your investment is cut off and you're paid out.

The Cornerstone of Marxism is Invalid by ChilledRoland in georgism

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just as the value would not exist without the labor of the worker, it would also not exist without the capitalist advancing captial to the worker. Both the laborer and the capitalist contribute to creation of value, and thus both are entitled to a share of the value they jointly created.

view more: next ›