1,123 karma · joined November 27, 2019
if its not running near capacity, its wasting a lot of space, and therefore more wasteful than private automobiles
in both cases the scale of the system and the centrally planned nature of the system make its response time lag behind the people using it, causing them to seek alternatives if they are able
this is incorrect
world population is leveling off because we're approaching many of these limits to growth and that's affecting the enabling factors for continued population growth.
> The author also assumes, incorrectly, that GDP--money spent on goods and services--is the right measure of overall wealth. It's not. The author even discusses "decoupling", the fact that many types of wealth require little or no physical resources to produce, but fails to realize that the long term outcome of this will not be to raise monetary GDP more and more, but to make monetary GDP less and less of an accurate measure of wealth production.
I agree with this.
> "A limited life-essential resource will always carry a moderately high value." This is a common misconception. An obvious counterexample is air: air is a limited resource (Earth's atmosphere contains only a finite quantity of it), it is life-essential, but it is free. Why? Because it costs nothing to produce.
you conflate value and price here. obviously atmosphere is not currently metered. That doesn't mean we don't place a high value on clean air.
> And if the cost of production of other life-essential resources, like food, were reduced, those things would also become cheaper.
actually they are generally below replacement level, which (if not augmented by immigration) would itself lead to a collapse as people leave the workforce and there are fewer laborers to replace them. But people think we manage this labor shortage with technology, which leads us back to the requirements for more energy and capital development to maintain the same lifestyle.
> Also lifting everyone to the living standard of highly developed countries will require significant amounts of resources and significantly increase energy consumption, this however is also more like a one-time expense and I would therefore ignore it, too.
why do 'highly developed' countries need vastly greater resources to maintain this living standard if its a one-time expense? the greater standard of living your referring to requires continually expanding quantities of inputs in terms of energy and labor, aka 'economic growth'.
> How does dependence on technology demand growth?
its more related to the specific technologies we've chosen to build our society upon, but this technologies generally depend on these improvements to sustain themselves. For example, electric cars require batteries which require raw materials to be mined, recycling batteries requires chemical industry that is predicated on all sorts of inputs, themselves coming from nonrenewable sources.
it is absurd for copyright to prevent a legitimate user from storing media on a cloud filesystem.
Liable for what? You haven’t promised that the code is safe, and they chose to run it.
> there's no significant difference from active retaliation
There is a significant difference, in active retaliation you choose to attack someone elseks computer, with a trap file the attacker chooses to run files they have stolen from you. Big difference.
> You'd be just as liable as for physical boobytraps on your property, with pretty much the same reasoning.
The reasoning is different, lethal or injurious man traps are prohibited because you don’t respond to trespassing with lethal force and you don’t know who or what may trigger the trap. Man traps that lock the intruder in a room without injuring them are fine, and used in high security installations.
The author has confused money with the goods and services it is used to purchase.
This is an interesting framing. What form of social organization would make it so that altruistic behavior was not a result of the whims of people in extant power structures? It seems tautologous that if someone has the power to allocate funds, they are the current beneficiary of the extant power structure.
Thanks for your reply. I think this statement is a good example of how I think your reply misses the point and so I’m not sure we will come to any agreement. Thanks.
Generally one would ask that the people proposing a change to circumstances assume the burden of proof; it should be obvious why I can’t remove the food from your kitchen and expect you to justify why I should stop.
If you want a more formal argument then its turtles all the way down, I can approach your preferred landowners on the day post-acquisition and use the same procedure to expropriate them, someone else can do the same to me on the next day, ad infinitum.
> The model you've proposed is basically "first come first serve" (ie. homesteading principle). Except even that doesn't apply given that some of the land currently in private ownership was previously used by others, who were forced off it, via colonization in North America, and the enclosure acts in Europe. Should we return the land to the descendants of the Native Americans?
You are aware that many people argue that we should do exactly that, correct? I’m not aware of many people who argue to the contrary, and I’m not sure there is any use in reciting their arguments here.
The expropriation of the Natives is almost universally regarded as a moral wrong in polite society. its fine for you to disagree but I’m at a loss as to why you would assume that I disagree.
> Given that land is a scarce good, and access to good land gives substantial benefits to those with access, "first come first serve" simply isn't a workable way to allocate land.
This is a non sequitur as you’ve failed to explain why one person’s good deal is unworkable for another.
> Those with land are able to charge rents to those without, and they can pass this privilege down to their heirs, keeping this inequality going.
It seems that you’re assuming that inequality is a bad thing. I think inequality is a fact, and the moral implications must be argued for rather than assumed.
> Suppose the government decides to build a new transit line going to the edge of the city. The rents and property values along the line will increase. And in most places, income and sales taxes fund at least part of the cost. So renters will pay some of the cost, but get no financial benefit,
Why aren’t the renters gaining financial benefit from improvements to mass transit in their area? It seems that you’re arguing against the government being able to fund boondoggles from taxes.
> On the other hand, the landowners will pay some of the cost, but they'll also profit from the increased rents and land values. Essentially, renters pay "twice" for government services: once for the actual service, and then again when the existence of the service leads to higher rents, which are then reaped by landowners.
I feel as though you’ve neglected to consider that the renters benefit from mass transit and therefore there’s no reason for them not to be expected to pay for it; and the fact that public infrastructure results in higher land values is covered under the property tax that we already have established. This whole thing could be bypassed by arguing that these types of improvements should be paid by property taxes (excluding sales taxes etc.).
> Basically every economist agrees with the principles behind Georgism, starting from Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and continuing to modern economists like Milton Friedman and Joseph Stiglitz, so I don't really know what you're talking about here.
Yeah if you think this is a reasonable statement of the economic consensus vis a vis Georgism I doubt we can learn much from discussion with each other, nice talking and have a good day. Thanks for the Ricardo link.
“Otherwise” is doing a lot of work here. The people can’t “otherwise” move there because the person isn’t selling, that’s the idea. Taxing people so they are forced to sell is forcing them out. Not taxing people so they are not forced to sell is letting them stay there. You’ve yet to explain why the people who do live there have less of a claim to the house than the wealthier people who would buy it from them.
> Never mind that it's the wealthy are the ones who benefit from elimination of property taxes.
Yes nevermind that since its not even true.
> It's society that makes the property valuable in the first place, so it makes sense to pay society back.
This reifies “society” as a thing-in-itself rather than properly considering society as consisting of the people who own the properties and make them valuable by their ownership, maintenance, and use. Then it equivocates “society” with the actual government that collects the taxes and decides how they are spent (typically routing them to their friends who sell goods and services to the government).
> The firefighters, schools, and social workers in your area need to get paid extra to account for the cost of living increases.
Cost of living increases like land value tax? Like how landlords pass increased taxes and maintenance onto their tenants?
> That money should come from the people benefit the most from their services, the property owners.
Its not at all clear that property owners benefit disproportionately from social services, and they also pay for those services through taxes.
I think most of this recent fascination with Georgism is a result of California tax policy and doesn’t withstand a cursory economic analysis.