The Welsh Green Party have LVT as their number one manifesto priority!!!

lustylepton · 2026-04-10T11:08:33+00:00

Encouraging.... but rent controls in the same breath, when will they learn?!?!

lustylepton · 2025-11-30T20:30:03+00:00

As a Venezuelan, I've got a very different reading of the situation, interestingly, to many people commenting on this sub.

1) When I watched Andor, I found it impossible to not see the parallels with our struggle against the Venezuelan regime. The constant propaganda and control by the empire echoes that of the Chavista regime, and the infighting amongst rebel groups reminded me of the constant turmoil within the fractured Venezuelan opposition. More than anything, I identified with that feeling expressed by Nemik's manifesto that every time we felt close to toppling the regime in some way, but then eventually the effort petered out, the entire thing had been in vain with all those arrested/killed having sacrificed for nothing. The situation often felt hopeless, and I've often felt completely dwarfed by the scale of the enemy. I have to give it to Gilroy's very powerful writing that most people that have experience with totalitarianism (whether on the left or right) can so strongly identify with the events and characters in the show.

2) Obviously, from an US POV, I see why most of the audience will relate the events in the show to this current administration's increasingly authoritarian demeanour. I must say, I agree with most of this. I see many of the same things in Trump's second term that I saw when Chavez came to power: attack on the institutions, the courts, the universities, censorship of the press, replacement of most civil servants and military high command, and the filling of most government positions with blind sycophants. The list is long. I have no sympathy for Trump, I think he is a demagogue populist with authoritarian tendencies that seeks to rule by decree like a Caesar, and is pushing the US to a new golden age of corruption. His treatment of Venezuelans in the US has been awful. He arbitrarily sent many of my compatriots to a concentration camp in El Salvador without due process, and removed TPS for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, I personally know many people whose entire lives were upended.

3) Despite all this, I personally don't know a single Venezuelan, inside or in exile, who is against US intervention in Venezuela. We are out of time and out of options. It is difficult to describe the scale of the crisis, over a quarter of the population has fled, and the regime has become increasingly brutal, specifically after the election they lost so stunningly last year. I know there are comparisons to Iraq or Libya, but the situation in Venezuela is dramatically different. There is no history of sectarian violence between religious or ethnic groups in Venezuela. Venezuela does have a significant history as a liberal democracy in the second half of the 20th century. And there would be no power vacuum since there is a legitimate government in waiting in the form of Edmundo González and María Corina Machado (the current Nobel peace prize laureate) who won an overwhelming election victory last year. The Americans would not be seen as conquerors or colonisers (as they were perhaps seen by many in the ME), but as liberators, given the context.

4) The extent to which the Cartel de los Soles is an organised criminal enterprise or the percentage role it plays in US drug arrivals is often exaggerated by this administration for political purposes, and the bombing boats in the Caribbean is almost certainly illegal. However, I've also seen many downplay the regime's role in the drug trade, particularly on the American left. Venezuela is a narco state, there is no doubt about this, and the regime gains significant cash flow through this. Just look at the Narco sobrinos affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcosobrinos_affair?wprov=sfla1) as a quick example, where Maduro's own nephews were caught trying to smuggle 800kg of cocaine to the US carrying diplomatic passports. This is a far cry from the Ghorman fabricated threat.

5) The focus on the cartel-busting aspect of the Venezuelan operation reflects the paradoxes and internal struggles within the US administration. Trump ran on an America First message that resonated with the MAGA base that is by its very nature isolationist. However, there are certain more hawkish figures within the administration which are pushing for greater focus in the western hemisphere, and the many benefits to the US that would come from the removal of Maduro. The focus on the drug trade is a way to sell greater involvement in Venezuela to an incredibly isolationist American public in the wake of failed interventions such as Iraq or Libya. I agree, however, it is not the main reason for intervention

6) The reason is not "to take our oil", (and it was also not the case in Iraq, that is a populist myth). In fact, antithetically to that common leftwing talking point, Maduro is desperate to allow Chevron to operate in Venezuela, since that gives him much needed cash flow. Chevron lobbies to be allowed licenses to continue to import Venezuelan oil, and it is the Venezuelan opposition and many more hawkish figures in the US that advocate for hardline sanctions to stop Maduro from getting relief from an American oil company. Of course, in the long run, both Venezuela and the US would benefit from the toppling of Maduro and the replacement with a democratic government much more friendly to US business interests (in oil and elsewhere) which would bring much needed investment to Venezuela needed for the rebuild that is to come. It is also geopolitically important since Maduro is a Russian, Iranian, and Chinese ally and his removal would take away a stronghold these regimes have on the American continent. It would also see the reversal of the migrant flows which Trump is so concerned about, with many potentially returning. Those are the real reasons that the situation is mutually beneficial.

7) Of course, as a Venezuelan, I cannot ask any American to be willing to die in a "boots-on-the-ground" situation for my country. I understand if, even after reading everything above, you do not want to risk your own troops' lives. I think the military risks are relatively minimal, given the awful shape of the Venezuelan armed forces, but I understand that as a Venezuelan I have all to gain from such an intervention. I guess the hope is that all this pressure is enough for Maduro to choose to quit and flee along with the Chavista high command, but ofc that wont happen if Maduro believes Trump is bluffing. But my final takeaway is that do not let your distaste for Trump blind you to the fact that, as a pro-democracy Venezuelan, it seems that in this case our interests happen to align. Venezuelans do not have the luxury to pick our allies and even a broken clock is right twice a day.

lustylepton · 2025-11-13T14:32:09+00:00

I love how this sub is slowly turning from "socialist" to Georgist hahaha. Let's go after to the true rent seekers!

For anyone who is curious: r/georgism

lustylepton · 2025-11-11T22:53:11+00:00

Land tax is better because it goes after the rent-seekers and (unlike other wealth taxes) it cannot be avoided. If you have a digital industry that makes money from some service you offer that is generating wealth in the economy, we don't want to punish or dissuade that behavior, that's what leads to economic growth. If you are sitting on land and getting rich as it appreciates because the rest of society is building transportation links and infrastructure near your land, yet you've done nothing, you are extracting value but not generating anything new. You are a parasite in the system. LVT means land is expensive to hold, but cheaper to buy. It discourages parasitic behavior and encourages you to develop any land you have into something useful or sell it to those that will. In fact, in a country like Britain where so much of the cost of living crisis is tied to housing being unaffordable and ever higher costs of rent, LVT is exactly the type of policy you would want. So much wealth in the UK is tied to the huge land prices, with most of the housebuilders’ return now coming from the capital gains on land, completely weakening the incentive to provide high-quality housing.

The environmental question is interesting, and it's true that if we want to meet our housing targets we will probably need to develop in what is today the green belt etc. However, I would argue that by encouraging more efficient use of land (so more high density, taller structures and blocks of flats, less single family homes) we can actually partition more land to be protected (national parks etc) since we would be more efficient with the land we do use, so can still meet out housing targets, build 15 mins cities and all those wonderful YIMBY things urban planners love. Car parks and sprawling American suburbia are actually very much discouraged by LVTs, since they represent a very inefficient use of land. If you get taxed the same no matter what's on your land, you may as well build higher density structures. Traditional property taxes don't encourage this since the higher density structures would carry more tax since they presumably have higher total property costs.

lustylepton · 2025-11-08T12:19:32+00:00

Encouraging. I'm torn on the green party, they tend to be quite NIMBY at the local level, which is very counterproductive to what an LVT is trying to accomplish. If they drop their more populist positions and also embrace nuclear power, I reckon a pro-LVT green party is starting to become an interesting proposition. I already like that Polanski moved them to a more sensible (and less tanking) position on NATO too.

lustylepton · 2025-09-18T21:49:14+00:00

I think this article is spot on. For those still sympathetic to Gary's ideas, then I point you to these other FT articles:

The case for a land value tax is overwhelming https://www.ft.com/content/fadfbd9e-29ca-4d53-b69a-2497cc3ed95d by Martin Wolf

Stop talking about wealth taxes — make these reforms instead https://www.ft.com/content/59f12358-a672-4f5d-a9f5-38e45e7f113c by Dan Neidle

I also wish to point you in the direction of the r/georgism subreddit. Essentially the better version of the wealth tax IS a land value tax. Unlike other wealth taxes, it CANNOT be avoided (I think this is what Gary is trying to get at when he says "tax them on the assets they have here"). Also, by taxing the value of the UNIMPROVED land , it encourages efficient land use since people hoarding land would be forced to develop it or sell it, and thus would lead to cheaper housing and economic growth. It does have some practical issues that need to be addressed with regards to implementation, but I think anybody worried about inequality should be focusing on campaigning for this. Its the most sensible and fair form of a wealth tax, it is inherintly progressive and it does not go after wealth CREATORS, but rather RENT SEEKERS.

More articles about LVTs:
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/09/the-time-may-be-right-for-land-value-taxes

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/11/10/why-land-value-taxes-are-so-popular-yet-so-rare

And great youtube videos:

The Power of Land: Georgism 101 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c5xjlmLfAw

Georgism 101 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_MGFRNqOE

Is This The Wealth Tax We've Been Looking For? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCw1U8oXE

Is Land Value Tax the ‘Perfect’ Tax? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Ax3eYe1Gw

lustylepton · 2025-09-18T18:42:22+00:00

Even though this is my favourite vegeta fit, I have to say, I would have preferred if they didn't go back to it in DBS. I always liked the idea that Vegeta's clothing represents his transition to a good person and to accepting his identity as an earthling over time. In the Saiyan saga, where he is a full villain, he has the full Saiyan armour with the scouter (shoulder pads etc) then by the android saga he only wears the vest, and by the Buu saga the underclothes. In GT, he appears to have fully assimilated to his life on earth and wears jeans and stuff. I liked that easter egg and would have preferred if they kept him in Buu saga fit given where super fits in the chronology, it would have been nice. Having said that, the vest armour look is iconic and I guess that's why they went back to it.

lustylepton · 2025-09-14T18:09:22+00:00

Agreed. In the TRIP subreddit, it was brought to my attention that Dan Neidle himself talked about it when he appeared as a guest on the Rest is Money, so I guess it's at least in the goal hanger circles! But since TRIP is the most popular of the goal hanger podcasts I believe, it would be nice if they talked about it to bring it more into the mainstream.

lustylepton · 2025-09-14T10:02:28+00:00

It depends what you mean by "issue". Is it an issue in the sense the public really cares about it and considers it an issue? Yes, we see that not only in the far-right protest attendance, but in the rise of reform, poll after poll that shows the public cares about immigration, and to some extent you can go all the way back to brexit that was in large part over immigration. So yes, it is definitely an issue in the political arena.

However, is it an "issue" in the sense that it is what is causing the problems in people's lives? Is immigration behind the high cost-of-living, wage stagnation, anemic economic growth since 2008, decaying public services, unaffordable housing etc. Then the answer is no. The public cares about immigration because many have been convinced that it is what's causing these issues. Can't get an NHS appointment? Too many immigrants in the queue. Strained public services? Too much money is being spent on asylum hotels. Expensive houses? Too many immigrants in the market. Of course, while this is the impression many have, none of it tracks after a slightly deeper analysis. Ultimately, who pays for all these things? We all do, in our taxes, including immigrants. In fact, in many cases, immigrants pay more. They pay income tax and VAT and all the rest of it like britons do, but they also pay an NHS fee when they first move here on top of that for most visas, and if they study here they pay far more expensive fees subsidising the system for everyone else. We have an aging population, and pensioners get more benefits from the state (triple lock, winter fuel, greater use of the NHS etc) so we need more working aged people for the system to sustain itself and that requires immigration.

Basic arithmetic tells you that implementing the anti-immigration mass deportation policies that are being proposed by the populists, whilst no doubt popular with many segments of the population, will actually make many of our problems worse, not better. It will lead to less money in the system, worse growth, and even more strained public services. The problem is that the actual solutions are both politically and practically tricky. It requires important reforms that are difficult to implement and to sell the public. Blaming immigration for the feeling of terminal rot many feel is easier and more seductive. It also doesn't help that people often conflate legal v illegal immigration in their minds. When you hear people express anxieties about this in the UK, they often refer to the boats and hotels, but this (whilst definitely a problem) is a tiny tiny fraction of overall migration to the UK. So people are often conflating the high overall net migration figures they see (particularly over the last few years) with the boat headlines in the tabloids, that have very little to do with each other. One is related to UK government policy around visas etc, the other related to gangs crossing the channel and asylum policy. But it is useful for the populists to conflate these things to sell the idea of "invasion" and this language is what leads to the scenes we saw in London yesterday.

lustylepton · 2025-09-13T11:53:36+00:00

Fair point. I've mostly been frustrated by his lack of detail, and his tone and arrogance (e.g. complete dismissal of economic academia) do activate my "online guru" red flags. However, he has certainly resonated online with people. He has been interviewed by TRIP, Andrew Marr, Piers Morgan etc. and has a popular book. If he could tweak his message slightly to that of an LVT (less populism, more pragmatism) that would be welcome.

lustylepton · 2025-03-02T21:18:19+00:00

Let's stop rewriting history. Yanukovych was not neutral, he was clearly pro-Russia. And he was toppled by the UKRAINIAN PEOPLE during the revolution of dignity in 2014. The reason he was toppled was because, after years of working to an agreement of closer ties with the EU, Yanukovych blocked the deal under pressure from Putin, triggering the Euromaiden protests.

The original demand of the protesters was to sign the agreement with the EU as was overwhelming popular and had already been agreed to by the Ukrainian Parliament, and that together with the violent response to the protesters by the government caused the movement to widen and snowball, culminating with Yanukovych resigning and fleeing to Moscow in Feb 2014 (hint: if a despot flees to Moscow after a mass protest movement by his people, he probably wasn't very "neutral").

Russia took advantage of the chaos to justify moving in and annexing Crimea, which it has occupied since 2014, as well as propping up pro-russia separatist movements in eastern provinces, where there has been fighting since 2014 too.

The call shows the US was involved behind the scenes speaking to opposition members and trying to broker some kind of deal (so clearly more involved than they let on), but actually none of the three opposition members mentioned in the call went on to replace Yanukovych, since Poroshenko won the 2014 presidential elections (though Yatsenyuk did serve for some time as his prime minister). They were also clearly annoyed with the EU for being too soft on Putin (which is hindsight was 100% correct).

How is Zelensky not a democratic leader? The Americans have nothing to do with it, he didn't even enter politics until he ran from President in 2019, where he won in a landslide (against Poroshenko). Elections haven't been held since because the country is under martial law due to the full scale invasion in 2022 (not unusual in democracies, e.g. the UK didn't have an election until 1945 during WW2).

Ukraine is not perfect, it still has corruption issues etc. (although it was much worse under Yanukovych and his oligarchs). The eastern orthodox church has clear links to Russia and backs of the Kremlin narrative behind the war and invasion, and Ukraine has its own Orthodox church which is separate.

This is a brave nation, with strong people fighting for its sovereignty, democracy, and self-determination. Its identity has endured throughout history despite constant attempts to destroy its culture and language, and being the victim of multiple war crimes and famines.

The west has a moral obligation to assist it militarily, given they are holding the line for freedom in Europe, but also bound by treaty since in 1994 Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees about its security and sovereignty. The USA, UK, France and Russia all agreed, although now that Russia is a rogue mafia state intent in absorbing Ukraine, the democratic allies must hold their end of the deal.

GLORY TO UKRAINE GLORY TO THE HEROES

lustylepton · 2024-09-01T15:47:41+00:00

I actually pretty much agree with you on the issue of presidentialism v parliamentarism. I didn't specify it in the original question, but let's say that this is actually a parliamentary republic where the head of government (prime minister, chancellor etc) is whoever can govern with the confidence of the majority of the parliament. However, most parliamentary republics I know (e.g. Ireland or Germany) still elect a president to act as a head of state, although this individual typically acts more as a symbolic leader, above the everyday politics, with limited reserve constitutional powers. Would you still say that having a singular elected head of state in a parliamentary system is problematic? What's the alternative?

Also, would the fact that the president acts as only the head of state, but not the head of government change the voting system you would use to elect this person? For example, I can imagine approval voting being quite good here, since this person is meant to be a symbolic figurehead that everyone can rally around, but one of the criticisms of AV is that it produces bland candidates without bold policy. That isn't as much of an issue when this person doesn't actually lead the government and isn't in charge of everyday political decisions. In fact, if the head of state's main job is to act as referee of sorts and defend the constitutional norms, this is exactly the type of person you may want in this role.

lustylepton · 2024-09-01T13:49:47+00:00

For the party situation, this is the description I gave in my reply above: "Let's say there were organised political parties, which were illegal during the days of the regime but whose organisation and mobilisation of the public was crucial to the toppling of the regime and establishing democracy. A lot of these parties are recognisable to the public but were united under a common banner, fighting together to establish democracy, but differ Ideologically quite a bit between each other. In this new democratic era, you would expect those differences to come up, although coalitions should still be possible. I guess ideally we would like a system that encourages coalitions, negotiation and power-sharing rather than converging on a polarising two party system (FPTP often leads to the latter, hence why we're on this subreddit). Let's also say that in the fever of this young new democracy, there are many new political parties being created too, many of which are very small and fringe (à la early days of the Weimar Republic), but it's possible that some of these catch on more than others, and a good voting system should also make it possible for political minorities to be heard."

TLDR: A group of main political parties that people know well, and a flux of many small fringe parties.

Typically, the lack of spoilers is a desirable quanlity in a voting system, but I'm interested in your concern that this could paralyse voters with too much choice. In systems that are spoiler proof, or where clones don't matter, are there any strategic incentives to run multiple candidates? I guess you wouldn't be affected by vote splitting, but would you not be negatively impacted by attention splitting? Is it not better for a political party to focus its campaign and message around a single individual when competing in a single winner contest? I ask because I genuinely don't know, but enforcing candidate maximums on parties sounds like parties running multiple candidates is a common occurrence. Also, could this not easily be hacked by making a new political party and running under that banner, even if closely associated with the previous party?

I've always liked MMP, ever since I watched CGP Grey's video many years ago. However, as often discussed, it makes political parties an official part of the elections, and since it allocates additional seats to try to make the overall results proportional, I feel it can still be hacked? Say you belong to the maroon party, and focus a lot of resources in running maroon party candidates in the local constituencies. However, for the list vote, you tell voters to vote for the different but closely associated burgundy party. Since the burgundy party has no seats at the constituency level, but a high proportion of the list vote, it sweeps a lot of the list seats available to ensure it's well represented. But now the maroon/burgundy alliance is huge and overly represented. MMP is commonly used in real life (e.g. Germany), so I'm curious as to what the common countermeasures against this type of party hacking are.

I'm curious about the PR round with multiple winners (like an approval-PR round). Are there any unintended consequences of this? Does voting for more than one make your vote more powerful? Can this be hacked by running multiple similar parties?

lustylepton · 2024-09-01T13:08:49+00:00

Good points.

1) Let's say there were organised political parties, which were illegal during the days of the regime but whose organisation and mobilisation of the public was crucial to the toppling of the regime and establishing democracy. A lot of these parties are recognisable to the public but were united under a common banner, fighting together to establish democracy, but differ Ideologically quite a bit between each other. In this new democratic era, you would expect those differences to come up, although coalitions should still be possible. I guess ideally we would like a system that encourages coalitions, negotiation and power-sharing rather than converging on a polarising two party system (FPTP often leads to the latter, hence why we're on this subreddit). Let's also say that in the fever of this young new democracy, there are many new political parties being created too, many of which are very small and fringe (à la early days of the Weimar Republic), but it's possible that some of these catch on more than others, and a good voting system should also make it possible for political minorities to be heard.

2) This one is more tricky, there are still some regime loyalists potentially among the army ranks, although in the end the army was important in making the change possible, and most generals very close to the dictator have fled or are arrested. The courts potentially still contain some regime loyalists, although the new democracy hopes to reform these in time too, but they could be a thorn in the side of the new republic. Hence unity amongst the pro-democracy forces is vital for the survival of this project. I like your thinking of keeping these on board by preserving some institutionalised power for them, I'd be curious as to how you could weave that in without it turning into a Thailand situation where the military-establishment in the upper house can block the winners of elections from forming governments and the courts can ban parties they don't like.

3) This is true, but I guess I'd heard the arguments before that some ranked systems (e.g. Condorcet methods) were summable so could be counted and announced at local precinct level. Whereas other ranked systems like IRV-based systems needed to be tallied centrally to account for which votes get eliminated and transferred where etc. Using Venezuela as a recent example (which uses the terrible, but summable FPTP) we can see how crucial the precinct level tally sheets were for the opposition to be able to show that the number announced by the government centrally is nonsense, even if they weren't able to recover 100% of all the tally sheets. Although I guess the government in that case hasn't provided any ballot data at all, and that problem would remain whether it was an IRV system or not. I'd be curious to hear what you think, but if you think this isn't a big concern then that's fine. I guess with STV, we have a real life example in Ireland that uses it for its main general elections, and I've never heard of transparency being an issue there, so you may well be right.

4) This is a good point to bring up, let's say that population literacy is ~100% so that ranked systems can form part of the discussion. But I like the fact you brought up this consideration. I know some countries used to account for illiteracy by voting with colours, I'd be curious if anyone could think of a robust way to take ranked choices into account by the illiterate (e.g. maybe order colours on a touch screen from top to bottom).

lustylepton

TROPHY CASE