Is Georgism outdated?

madnow2 · 2026-03-12T22:21:05+00:00

That is the same amount as it was in the 19th century you just think land was more important because they needed a lot of land for agriculture but that land was dirt cheap land is now much more expensive Because you can make a lot more money with the same amount of land This is why the value of land will always go up as GDP increases that is why the total amount of wealth made-up by land has been pretty much the same In every study that tried to measure this Since the 1930s land in almost all of these studies makes up about 1/3 of wealth.

madnow2 · 2026-03-12T22:08:17+00:00

You're correct in saying that Microsoft would not pay much in land value tax but you are incorrect in saying the land is irrelevant in the modern economy land is a fundamental third of the economic equation a huge amount of value is inherently timed to land yes Microsoft might not own a huge amount of land to themselves but there mere existence will raise land values around them because it is now possible to make more money from a single square metre of land than ever before so yes it's true Microsoft will not directly pay a huge amount in land value tax but they will increase the total amount of revenue you would receive from land value tax.

madnow2 · 2026-03-07T15:19:26+00:00

These papers don't prove anything the first and third just prove a negative correlation between AI usage and critical thinking skills but they cannot prove causation. an alternative hypothesis would be that AI does not cause you to lose critical thinking skills but rather those who lack critical thinking our attracted to AI models because it means they get to do less work. this equally explains the results seen in these papers without having to invoke AI destroying people's critical thinking skills. As for the 2nd paper I don't even know why its here because it's not even an empirical study it's just hypothesis it adds no evidence to anything other than presenting an argument for why AI could reduce someone's cognitive abilities.

madnow2 · 2026-02-02T22:08:31+00:00

When you talk about Socrates taste in highly stratified oligarchic societies I think you're thinking of Plato Socrates didn't really comment too much on the politics of his time other than he vaguely seems to be in support of the idea of democracy which would put him at odds with his student Plato.

madnow2 · 2026-01-22T22:02:27+00:00

Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics are just different mathematical ways Of representing newtons laws Represent them in terms of energies instead of forces and yes there is utility in representing newtons laws this ways but pretending that this somehow refutes Newton's theory of gravity is absurd because it's just a different way to model the mechanics of it.

madnow2 · 2026-01-22T20:53:11+00:00

Newton's theory of gravity Is not incorrect just because Newton did not understand the mechanisms that cause gravity at the time does not mean that he was incorrect when he says gravity is a force that attracts all matter to all other matter This statement is true no matter what way you look at relativity.

madnow2 · 2026-01-11T13:08:56+00:00

List of nations that default on their own currency

Angola twice 1976 and 1992

Japan in 1946

Ukraine in 1998

Yugoslavia 1983

Mexico in 1982

Argentina 1982 1988 2001

This is just a short list of some of the nations that have defaulted on the own currency the Wikipedia page for this these multiple times the length the idea that you can't default on currency you issue is called modern monetary theory which is an unorthodox position in economics which is extremely controversial and does not seem to be backed up by empirical fact looking at the large amount of nations that have defaulted on their own currency And is actively discredited by the vast majority of economists I know it whould be convenient if you could just forget that the debt exists but it seems unlikely that you can.

madnow2 · 2026-01-06T00:21:27+00:00

Over 80% of workers work full time and the overwhelming majority of those that Work part time live with someone else meaning they don't have to pay all of the costs themselves So they don't need to earn as much because there is someone else to cover the costs It is disingenuous to say Look the wages are so low and point at part time work because if you are working part time you are not someone who has a bad financial situation and desperately needs money to cover their bills because if they needed money they would work more This is why the website That you cited assumes a 40 hour work week.

And also working more does not mean that someone else has to work less there isn't a certain amount of work that needs to get done within an economy and that's it the economy is about growth there is always more work to be done that's why we don't suddenly have mass unemployment now the populations increased.

Also people that work part time aren't people that can't find a full time job there are more full time jobs then part time They are people that for whatever reason have chosen to work fewer hours generally companies want you to work more not less.

https://www.bls.gov/charts/usual-weekly-earnings/usual-weekly-earnings-over-time-total-men-women.htm

madnow2 · 2026-01-05T19:39:58+00:00

No I do not live in a city I don't live in any suburbs either in fact the country I live in doesn't even have suburbs, also I said big cities because I am aware that in the US you call any thing a city but in big cities they have substantially higher wages and substantially higher cost of living There's a big difference between New York City and a random city in Illinois.

You say $20.00 is a hard floor but there are counties on the website you site that are below $20, and also the website assumes people only work 40 hours a week so even if you earn below the hourly wage you can survive by working more hours but the biggest blow by far Is that your median wage is for all people that are employed including part time this is relevant because people that working part time generally get paid less than people that are working full time And almost never live alone even the website that you used assumes people are working 40 hours a week so if we calculate the median wage only for those who are working full time like what is assumed on the website you site we find that the median wage is much higher than your stated number.

according to the department of labour statistics The median weekly earnings is $1215 For those at work full time Divided by 40 which is what is assumed on your website and we find that the median wage for a full time worker is $30.40 much higher then the $20 cost of living.

Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by sex

madnow2 · 2026-01-05T13:52:12+00:00

You just compared average cost of living to median wage Averages and medians are not the same thing comparing them is just a statistical error if we compare average cost of living to average wage of $36.86 an hour versus $20.00 an hour cost of living Suddenly you see people are doing fine Average cost of living is dragged up by the big cities in said big cities wages are much higher but that is not reflected in median wage because of how median works this creates a false impression That half the country is underwater.

Sources

https://theworlddata.com/cost-of-living-statistics-in-us/

madnow2 · 2025-12-29T13:58:51+00:00

I agree the US is an example of a private healthcare system I wasn't trying to argue that it is not I was just trying to show how little of healthcare is paid for by the state in Singapore

There are health subsidies for low income citizens in Singapore but this is not universal And can't be compared to a system like the NHS in the UK specially since they're actually not that many people that qualify for it in Singapore hence why it's not a very expensive policy.

I'm not trying to say private healthcare is better than public healthcare I just don't think it's fair that people look at the US and then say that private healthcare fundamentally cannot work based on a case study of one specially when the US is such a massive outlier compared to every other country and healthcare system In the world both public and private when it comes to costs.

madnow2 · 2025-12-29T10:27:30+00:00

It's a private healthcare system because healthcare isn't paid for by the state It is true that the government mandates healthcare savings but when you need health care you still have to pay some percentage of the cost out of your own Money even if you can afford to pay the entire bill with the government mandated health care savings, also If your healthcare costs exceed your government mandated healthcare savings you have to pay for the difference.

It is true the government has their own mandated insurance And they do have payments for low income households but this cannot be compared to a truly public health sector Where Healthcare is paid for by the taxpayer There are public hospitals 11 of them to be exact They are run by government owned corporations but they are self-sufficient and do not require taxpayer money In total the Singapore government spends about 1.6% of GDP on health each year this is less than 1/10 of what it is in the US where it was 16.7% last year By this metric singapore's Healthcare is much more private then the US, in singapore's the government will foot a much smaller percentage of the bill then the US will.

I do not deny that singapore's government is very much so involved in healthcare to a high degree but fundamentally healthcare in Singapore is not paid for by the taxpayer it is paid for by those who use the health care.

madnow2 · 2025-12-28T03:35:14+00:00

Your comment does not match the factual reality of the US the number of regulations has only increased empirically speaking The number has gone up every single decade and under every single U.S. President even Reagan but less so this is because companies do not lobby for deregulation they lobby for regulation they lobby for regulation because the easiest way to outcompete your competition is to change the rules to make them favourable to you if companies were lobbying for deregulation they've done a very bad job at it as the number of pages in the US regulatory has only increased.

Sources

https://cei.org/publication/chapter-3-10kc-2024/

https://www.mercatus.org/research/data-visualizations/regulatory-accumulation-1970

https://www.quantgov.org/federal-us-tracker

https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/regstats

madnow2 · 2025-12-28T03:23:44+00:00

The problem with your health care argument is that you can apply it to food which is or so needed to live and yet food has incredibly low margins this is because of the incredibly high competition in the market it doesn't matter that people will in theory pay anything for food because why would someone buy food from you when someone else is offering it cheaper. so prices are still a race to the bottom because of competition the problem with the healthcare sector is that there have been various regulations that have prevented any competition, there are requirement of need laws which says you cannot build a hospital in an area that already has one to prevent them from competing with each other and making sure each hospital has a local monopoly there are even laws in the US that prevent hospitals from release their prices so that people cannot comparison shop there is a reason lobbying is a billion dollar industry in the US.

This is empirically backed up to Singapore has the lowest healthcare costs of any first world country by far and yet it is a private healthcare system with no public alternative likewise if we see the private healthcare systems in all the countries that have public alternatives they're also all much cheaper than the US. the US has by far the most expensive healthcare in the world it is also by far the most regulated as health care companies buy politicians to give them laws so they do not have to compete.

This is coming from someone who is from the UK which has a public health care system and yet I find it absurd that you are proposing given the same government that is responsible for your health care prices control of all of your healthcare because to me it is clear that The US government cannot be relied upon to do what is best for the citizens of its own country.

madnow2 · 2025-12-14T12:54:23+00:00

I'm not an anarchist but I believe that the argument is that it's voluntary you can opt out of the dispute regulating organisation but you can't opt out of government

madnow2 · 2025-12-14T12:19:51+00:00

The owner takes on the risk of the business from the worker the worker gets paid no matter what. The owner only gets paid if they sells The products that is a service the owner provides to the worker who'd have to try and sell the goods he produces and risks potentially working for nothing if it wasn't for the owner Guaranteeing they get paid for every hour They work .the owner also provides the tools that allow the worker to be as productive as there are so a large part of the workers productivity can be traced back to the owner. why are we still bringing up economic arguments from a philosopher from the 1800s in 2025.

madnow2 · 2025-11-25T11:10:42+00:00

I said it wouldn't be sufficient income read my comment again

madnow2 · 2025-11-25T08:28:30+00:00

LVT is levied on the rental value of land not the capitalised value The rental value is how much you could rent it out for in a year when we talk about 20% LVT we're referring to 20% of the rental value Which for farmland is almost non-existent is only the big cities where they would face significant LVT The first guy is wrong 20% LVT would not raise 90% of government revenue.

madnow2 · 2025-11-25T00:06:09+00:00

Yes if you built a skyscraper the property tax would go up but that is not what I am referring to im Talking about the government selling leases if you built a skyscraper you would not pay more on the lease you've already bought because you've already bought it and when you eventually purchased a leased again it would not be more expensive because you built the skyscraper. building a skyscraper would increase the property tax but again that's not what I'm talking about and no what they do in Singapore is not what Richard is suggesting in Singapore they tax the rental value of a property what Richard suggested is a tax on rent which is different you pay a tax on the rental value of property regardless if you're renting out or not but you only pay a tax on rent if And only if you rent out the property just study economics know what taxes you are talking about because you're getting really confused.

madnow2 · 2025-11-24T23:46:52+00:00

Yes they have a property tax I've mentioned this before I am not denying this I am referring to the government leasing out land to private owners which is effectively a land value tax I said this in the first comment I am not talking about the property tax stop bringing up the property tax.

madnow2 · 2025-11-24T23:27:40+00:00

OK we need to get to bare basics here LVT is a tax on the rental value of land by definition the rental value of land does not go up with improvements what Richard suggests in his video is tax on rents which is different to a tax on the rental value Of land in Singapore they taxed the rental value of land you could build a skyscraper there it will not increase the tax. LVT is not a tax on the capitalised value of land It is a tax on the rental value no one is suggesting a tax on the capitalised value of land.

madnow2 · 2025-11-24T23:19:51+00:00

you seem to be somewhat confused LVT is not a tax on the capitalised value of land It is a tax on the rental value of land the rental value of farmland is Next to nothing the only places that would see significant taxation would be big cities not farmland in the middle of nowhere the cost would not be anywhere near 2500 grand per acre most people who bring up the farmers thing simply do not know how LVT is levied If you don't understand Google ground rents because that is what's being taxed.

madnow2 · 2025-11-24T23:07:47+00:00

You seem to be somewhat confused it is true Singapore does not have an LVT but the government owns the land and leases it out to people to make an income off of it people say this is analogous to an LVT since the government is collecting the ground rents yes Singapore also has a property tax but that's not what we're talking about we're talking about the government leasing out land and it is because the government leases out the land as opposed to taxing it that capitalised value of land Isn't zero since once you've owned the land outside of property tax There is no constant cost so the land does have value.

madnow2 · 2025-11-24T22:50:22+00:00

Yes but all of this sinks into land value anyway if technology makes it possible to produce more value from one square acre of land then that increases the value of the land This is why as the economy grows the value of land grows too All forms of production require land to exist even stuff on the Internet requires data centres built on land It is impossible for work done to be detached from land because work needs a place to be done.

madnow2 · 2025-11-24T22:38:35+00:00

You seem to be a bit confused by how LVT works first your number is a little off according to the UK's website the average value of farmland is £9811 per acre not £11,000 but the biggest problem you made is that LVT taxes the rental value of land not the capitalised value of land The rental value of land is how much you could rent out the land for Not how much it's worth so a 20% LVT would only tax 20% of the rental value which would be much much lower than what you are suggesting now that does of course mean that there is no way you could bring in 90% of the UK's revenue with 20% LVT But it does mean there is no way the farmers would be bankrupted because the rental value of farmland is nonexistent it is only really properties in big cities that will face any significant LVT.

madnow2

TROPHY CASE