Here is what I do not understand.

The 'I'm not a georgist, honest' fellow has already given the conspiracy theory garbage. I'm interested in how far, with regards denial, they will go

 

I have already shown you multiple times that the most intelligent economists support the same prescription that Henry George wrote about so long ago. Here, I will do it again, just 'cause I think it is funny that I am so very right and you are so very, very wrong:

So here we have it, the cream of the crop, the most intelligent, smartest economists, from the most prestigious learning institutions, Nobel prize winning economists, all signing onto a letter that favors FREE MARKETS combined with LAND VALUE TAXATION. I may never tire of shoving that endorsement in your face. For those smart enough to understand his theories, Henry George is a classic, and there is certainly no shame in accepting the truths of his main premise.

As for why Henry George isn’t so “particularly significant”, well that probably has a lot to do with intelligence, and the fact that most people, including yourself, don’t have enough of it.

"Men like Henry George are rare, unfortunately. One cannot imagine a more beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form, and fervent love of justice. Every line is written as if for our generation." — Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

 

You've shown that economists support the use of land tax? Crikey, Sherlock reincarnated! Can you show that Georgism has had a persuasive impact on modern economics? Nope. You have no understanding of the firm or the worker. You're peddling the same ole bobbins as Roy me'laddy here

 

Yep. Which is why your relentless anti-land tax Wormtongue act proves you are no economist.

Wrong again. Gaffney showed that the basic definitions and assumptions of modern neoclassical economics were contrived by economists who very actively opposed Georgism and land taxation, that they did so specifically as a stratagem to remove George's factual analysis of land economics from the discipline -- and that they didn't care that they were also thereby removing the discipline from the realm of empirical science and turning it into a propaganda organ of privileged interests, which it all too obviously remains to this day.

You have no understanding of how the Law of Rent determines market wages, over-riding all theories of the firm and worker.

<yawn> Talk about the same ole bobbins, your constant sneers, lies, dismissals, red herrings, name calling, fallacies and lies are the prime example.

 

How convenient for conspirators that one need only sneer, "conspiracy theory" to remove all concern for fact.

You are the one denying the facts.

 

LOL! Neoclassical economics journals would more accurately be called neoscholastic, as their contents most closely resemble the endless debates about angels dancing on pinheads that consumed the medieval scholastics. And that's not a sneer, it's a plain fact.

No, that's just more stupid, dishonest crap from you. The neoclassical hegemony is not just a matter of one journal.

Because it would be pointless and stupid, which is why you have to claim it's required.

If I had read all the peer-reviewed neoclassical propaganda organs, but hadn't read widely in economics outside their pages, THEN you could claim I was poorly read.

Neither obscurantism nor scholasticism defines the limits of an intellectual approach, sorry.

Sure it is, the same way any religion can accurately be described as its adherents'.

The Nobel laureates already proved that claim a lie, remember?

Nope. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz already slam-dunked any such claims.

<yawn> Content = 0. As usual.

Another Wormtongue sneer!

Not peer-reviewed economics journals. They are almost all full of the same stupid neoclassical garbage, and most of the ones that aren't are full of Marxist garbage.

In the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, etc. there is effectively only one school in all the institutions.

Then why do you sneer that no journal has ever done so, that land is irrelevant, that refusing to ignore facts about land is "anti-intellectual"?

Why do you have this ghoulish fascination with the dead? You always make sure you dismiss Henry George as "long-dead," as if being dead automatically makes one's ideas false.

You continue to heap disgrace upon yourself. I knew mainstream neoclassical economics was anti-scientific crap at least 30 years before I ever heard of Keen.

No, it advertises the need to abandon modern econmic debate as the irrelevant, anti-scientific propaganda show that it is.

He had little original to say, and was wrong about some issues like interest; but he is significant in that modern neoclassical economics was constructed specifically as a way to remove his analysis from the discipline.

 

I'm all for acknowledging the facts. Fact is Georgism has no theory of the firm. Fact is Georgism has no understanding of the labour market. Modern economics makes the emotionalism you folk are realiant on come across as a rabid monk from Blackadder

 

So modern economics (a multi-school discipline ripe for pluralism) was especially adopted because of a bloke who actually had little new to say? Chortlen chortle, you really are a card!

 

No, you constantly deny and try to obscure the facts.

Fact is, the firm is irrelevant to the advantages of recovering publicly created land rent for public purposes and benefit rather than burdening production, exchange and consumption with taxes in order to give a welfare subsidy to landowners. You ALWAYS have to deny and obscure that fact by pretending that the theory of the firm is somehow relevant when it self-evidently and indisputably is not.

Fact is, it is anti-land tax rationalizations of landowner privilege that prevent any understanding of the labor market, because there can be no understanding of the labor market without full recognition of the fact that working people are forcibly deprived of their rights to liberty without just compensation for the unearned profit of landowners, and are then taxed on their wages and consumption -- i.e., forcibly deprived of their rights to property in the fruits of their labor -- in order to provide welfare subsidy giveaways to landowners.

Content = 0.

 

No, you have again deliberately chosen to lie about what I plainly wrote: "modern neoclassical economics was constructed specifically as a way to remove his analysis from the discipline." You have chosen to rationalize, justify and excuse landowner privilege, so you will always deliberately choose to lie about what I have plainly written. ALWAYS.

 

Without a theory of the firm you have no means to understand economic result. Bit obvious really

This is nonsense. You have deliberately skewed your understanding to land-only, like all of the other internet Georgist wannabes. How on earth do you think you're going to offer credible argument without understanding wages, employment and human capital exploitation?

 

You plainly wrote inconsistent garbage. First, you state "he had little original to say". Then you 'argue' that, despite being pretty irrelevant in innovation stakes, modern economics is all a conspiracy to deny him a place in the "ooo, isn't he special?" economics lovefest. Come now, calm down and think of something consistent! Consistency can be your friend...

 

Or to say it another way. Environmental consequences be darned. Rape the planet. Those who live in poor areas where toxins cause cancer and death, are screwed, its their fault fgor being poor, and not being able to afford to live in a higher priced area with a better environment, instead of having to live downstream / wind from a coal plant for example. If our energy needs impact wild life, kill the wild life and drill anyways. Energy more important than maintaining any untouched wilderness.

 

You are plainly lying your head off, as usual. Stop lying.

You again prove that you always have to lie about what I have plainly written. ALWAYS.

I said NEOCLASSICAL economics is based on assumptions and definitions designed to remove geoist analysis from the discipline, and I did not mention any conspiracy. You just lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. You have decided to rationalize, justify and excuse landowner privilege, so you have no choice: you have no facts or logic to offer, so you have to lie.

No, you're just lying again. None of the economists who designed neoclassical economics to remove facts about land from the discipline cared about Henry George's reputation. Their purpose was permanently to remove ALL such analysis, by anyone.

Not when it is consistent dishonesty like yours, it can't.

 

It's obviously false, as there have been many economies without firms that can be well understood from more basic principles.

The theory of the firm is merely a refinement of economics that only applies in certain situations, like relativity in physics. Yes, there are certain economic outcomes that can't be understood without a theory of the firm, just as there are certain results in physics that can't be understood without a theory of relativity. But most of the important practical results in economics can be understood from basic principles of land, labor and capital, without a theory of the firm, just as most physics can be understood using Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations, without a theory of relativity.

You are effectively claiming that Newton and Maxwell's discoveries should be ignored because they had no theory of relativity. That is stupid, because you can't understand relativity without Newton and Maxwell, just as you can't understand the firm if you don't understand the more basic relationships of land, labor and capital, which you don't, and refuse to learn. The theory of the firm has to be BASED ON an accurate understanding of more fundamental principles, just as relativity has to be based on Newton and Maxwell. You refuse to know the basic facts of economics under the pretext that they don't include a theory of the firm (your actual reason is to avoid knowing the facts of land economics), but by doing so you only guarantee you will never develop an accurate theory of the firm. Just as one example, without an accurate understanding of landowner rent seeking, which you refuse to acquire, it is impossible to understand executive rent seeking.

Lie. I have simply noted that without an understanding of land and its relation to labor and capital, economic understanding is impossible.

<yawn>

I have told you many times that I am not a Georgist. It is you who obsess on Henry George, not me.

How on earth do you think you're going to offer credible argument without understanding wages, employment and human capital exploitation? You cannot understand any of those things without knowing the facts about land, and you blankly refuse to know facts about land.

 

It was painfully inconsistent. I don't expect you to see that. Someone that didn't come out with anything much original sparks off a multi-school economic analysis just to keep him down? A pathetic comment! Modern economics is, by definition, multi-school. We can't even make a simple distinction with neoclassical economics as its naturally been influenced by the other schools (particularly in terms of the labour theory you are ignorant about).

 

Many economies without firms? This is even more spectacular than your "home owners are worse than thieves".

A splendidly ridiculous remark. Theory of the firm is merely an attempt to understand a key economic agent in modern economics. You have no understanding of the firm and therefore you have nothing but useless comment.

Indeed. You've never been honest.

Through a pluralist application of labour theory of course. Modern economics at play. Georgism won't understand

 

Thanks for admitting that you lied.

See? Nothing but lies. It was the facts he identified that had to be kept not down, but out of economics.

Speaking of pathetic, you are now pretending I haven't already corrected you multiple times on the difference between "modern" economics and neoclassical economics.

Correction: YOU can't, as that would require willingness to know facts and not lie about them.

^^^ The new gold standard in stupid, worthless, dishonest garbage.

 

Of course. Many small and primitive economies have had only individuals and governments.

<yawn> I repeat: either provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote where I said that, or admit that you are nothing but a lying sack of $#!+.

You have nothing to say, so you spew stupid garbage like the above over and over and over and over and over and over again.

And there's nothing wrong with that, except that you use it as an excuse to avoid knowing the facts about land.

No, you're spewing stupid garbage in an attempt to preserve your ignorance of land economics, and therefore your comments are actually worse than useless. They are positively harmful to understanding, and are intended to be. There are many highly useful aspects of economics that can be understood without referencing a theory of the firm. You are just using the theory of the firm as a pretext for refusing to know anything about land.

ROTFL!! There is exactly one person in the world who cannot accuse anyone else of not being honest, and that person is you.

Nope. You won't get anywhere with a pluralist application of labor theory as long as you preserve your ignorance of landownership and how it affects wages, unemployment and exploitation of human capital.

I.e., not serious about understanding anything. Bingo.

<yawn> Whom do you erroneously imagine you are talking to?

 

You always fib about lying. A strange thing to do! We have you suggesting this massive conspiracy to stop an unoriginal fellow's influence. Its more spectacularly ludicrous than your usual emotionalism

 

Had? Can you name one today (or you referring to some golden era when georgist rant had some relevance?)

 

Organization into firms is now virtually a legal requirement to do business, for tax and liability reasons. That doesn't mean the firm is the basic agent in economic theory.

 

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

You continue to lie about what I have plainly written.

It'a also a fabrication by you, as anyone reading this can easily verify.

 

In other words you cannot name one primitive economy today characterised by just individuals and the government. Try to be honest!

 

I'm happy to give your quote again (as you really did make yourself look foolish):

He had little original to say, and was wrong about some issues like interest; but he is significant in that modern neoclassical economics was constructed specifically as a way to remove his analysis from the discipline.

So we have someone who concentrated on the unoriginal, but despite that, a whole school of economics (which has long standing appeal and influence) was created to try and restrict his pretty much unoriginal output.