tcpip | Ignorance, Gillard PM, Holidays Approach, Gaming Reviews

Ignorance, Gillard PM, Holidays Approach, Gaming Reviews

Most regular readers will know I'm an advocate of land tax as a replace for inefficient and unproductive taxes on labour and capital. On a whim, I entered this discussion on a property investment website. Enjoy the results. What I find particularly remarkable is their ignorance of basic economics (like the Law of Rent or the distinction between land and capital) on matters they claim expertise in. Actually I must confess I find this a lot; often people with a strong opinion on a topic like to think they're an expert on a topic. Personally, I prefer to form a strong opinion by reaching "deeply considered convictions", based on reason and evidence, rather than having "deeply ingrained prejudices" from emotions and assumptions.

Julia Gillard became the first ever female Prime Minister of Australia yesterday (that's only taken over one hundred years, *grumble*). It's an acting position whilst Rudd is in Bali (finally a PM who's acting on climate change!) , and one which seems to attract a share of odd events. I've sent her a congratulatory email (the last email conversation we had was a little terse; I was writing on behalf of Labor for Refugees and she was shadow minister for immigration).

Speaking of which, for the second year in a row, I'm desparately trying to organise tickets to Bali again over the break. I've contacted Flight Centre, and they've sent an email confirmation saying their processing the request, but no confirmation yet. Meh. It's been years since I've been to the archipelago, and I really want to see it again. New Zealand is not an option this summer (I think I'll go south for winter). If this doesn't work out for whatever reason maybe a visit to Tasmania is in order; it's been a while since I've seen Murdoch's former Vice-Chancellor, Professor Peter Boyce and we remain in irregular correspondence.

This week I finally managed to finish my review of Earthdawn: Gamemaster's Compendium; it's a huge, stunning book and quite good on the substance level as well. Not so good is the old AD&D module D1: Descent into the Depths of the Earth, which is seriously lacking in style, substance and a purpose for existence. Played another session of Legend of the Five Rings last Sunday with a refitted AD&D Oriental Adventures module. It's going very well, if only I can hack out some overall narrative to the various instances of character development and plot leads.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Yeah, but the imposition of a land tax reduces the price of land. For property investors who want a return on housing capital, surely that would be welcome?

I loved their total dismissal of anything "academic". It left me wondering where they think all of human technology and knowledge came from.
"Don't think! You might come up with something that means we have to change!"

zey hit on the salient points. And you can read my post on my own misgivings about Mrs. Clinton. Hillary scares the bejesus out of me, quite frankly, even more than Jailiani.

but IT is far from being the least culprit in matters of hubris

There was a hint of humour in my remark :-)

I do have to agree that it's rather like trolling to try explaining how to use landlords as taxes' entry point into the economy when the thread started as a discussion of how to dodge taxes.

pooh, the popular consensus is that I was trolling without intent :-)

Then again, I like trolls. They regenerate 3HP/rnd.

Better than RuneQuest's imho (although the material for trolls whas better in that product).

The coolest ones are, imo, those in Harnmaster...

They're not even thinking well of their own circumstances, that the very weird part of it :(

People who complain about "academics" can stop using the TCP/IP protocol suite as far as I'm concerned.

I must say it strikes me as a little odd that you're complaining that she wants now wants to reduce Presidential authority... She's changed her mind - for the better as well.. Do you hold all the opinions on political systems that you did in 2003?

Well (a) doesn't bother me at all, (b) means "more of the same" (which is bad, not not particularly bad and (c) I disagree with. I think she's a political pragmatist who will change her mind (firmly) as required.

I'm not complaining about her stance now . . . but come on, Lev: politicians change their views when it's convenient to their current situation (like a Presidential campaign), not because they've had a change of heart. Look at Giuliani's flip-flops on immigration and abortion. He was pro on both issues as mayor of New York. Now that he's seeking the GOP nomination, he's all for overturning Roe v. Wade and building walls to keep Mexicans out of the country.

IOW, no, I don't believe her for a moment. Her actions speak much more loudly than her words.

*Smirk*

And now, I have successfully trolled you.

HAHAHAHAHA!

I'm still awed by the fact that the inter-network protocol has become the network protocol.

Anyway, shouldn't we be moving on to IPv8 by now? I want to see a system that'll work with both interplanetary tight-beam and tachyon burst-transmission trunk lines.

Most certainly; however once a politician takes a progessive stance they will find it more difficulty to go backwards (as you have noted with Giulani), than the other way around. If, for example, Hilary starts arguing for executive authority in the future she'll lose all credibility.

If it were that simple. I think you will find the majority of land, developed or otherwise is over valued in the popular areas. Example. Property in Perth CBD has increased in value by nearly 11% in the last 12 months. (Source - My Agent quoting REIWA).

Those sorts of figures are not sustainable. The bubble will burst on it's own shortly. I give it less than 12 months (which is why I'm getting out.)

In real terms I think the only benefit of such a tax would be to force the price of land in populated areas to drop, and the price in regional areas to rise as people move out. I don't think you would see a net drop in land value because you are dealing with humans and they will just adapt to the new system.

Yes, I agree that land is overvalued and the bubble periodically bursts. One of the normal advantages of land-value taxation is that it reduces the size and probability of such a boom/crash cycle. There's been some excellent work on cyclical changes in Australia by Brian Kavanagh of the Land Values Research Group on this very matter.

Why do you think the price of land in regional areas would rise?

I'm still awed by the fact that the inter-network protocol has become the network protocol.

Not surprising really. Look at the history of AT&T; take up the trunk lines and in time the independent local lines will collapse.

Interplanetary tight-beam won't need IPv8. We'll just have a very big L-5 router and everything in the planet can be a private network :-)

Dang! Caught again! :-)

Mind you, that would probably the pitch I would try to take to those who have a serious "hip pocket nerve" i.e., the cost of detention centres is over $100 per day and over 95% of cases are successful. Is this a good use of your tax dollars?

I'm going through that land tax thread now. I'm up to post 43 and wow. It really seems like these people don't understand what you are saying at all.

If I'm understanding it. You are talking about building long term wealth for both the land owner and society as a whole. While these folks clearly could give a toss about anyone else but themselves and anything else but the next 5 years or so.
Which was illustrated beautifully here:

I'm paddling my canoe and care about my canoe.

The myopic selfishness is really breath taking.

Reading post 43 brings up a question I never get a satisfactory answer too. Where is it these people think taxes go?

"To even kid yourself that a tax helps anybody but the prevailing govt raise revenue is a joke."

It seems to me that he is suggesting citizens receive no benefit from the existence of government. Which is clearly just hog wash.

Our number 43 guy goes on to bitch that:

"I say lopsided as it targets a group that is an easy target due to its minority representation. For all the rates and land tax I pay I only get one state vote and one local council vote.

In fact if you look at most state taxes they are none represented taxes, payroll tax, stamp duty and obviously land tax. And why is it that the state only levies none represented taxes? Its because they don't have the balls to actually levy a tax where it needs to answer to the people who elected it. "

It seems he thinks the amount of tax you pay should be in some way tied to how much influence receive. IE if you pay twice as much as the next guy in taxes you should have twice as many votes. Or the flip side of that insane line of argument. That we should all pay the same exact tax(not % but actually $ value) regardless of income or personal wealth. Both situations are only realistically possible in either an aristocracy or a communist state.
Last time I checked economic equality has always existed. Why turn back the clock on political progress 700 years just to make representation in government just as inequitable?

What an asshole.

more later....

"If there is an act of foolishness on my part it's that I often think that people who seek to acquire knowledge in the same manner that I attempt to. "
I run into that problem more or less everyday. WTF is wrong with our species that we become so intellectually complacent later in life.

"The only woman available is another Clinton?"

Because the first Clinton was such a disaster?

Please defend your implication. Or at the very least explain it.

"Is the female talent pool really that bleak in the US?"
At the highest levels of US polotics, Yes. It really is.

Post 46 is especially idiotic.

No-one Australian? No-one currently working? Just because you have overseas references, doesn't mean it will work in Australia.

Because we all know economic principals are completely non-transferable. Each country is in fact a complete microcosm of economic law and causality. Nothing learned from one economy can be successfully implemented in another.
And only Australian economists, who are currently working, could hope to make any accurate observations or predictions about even the most fundamental aspects of the Australian economy.

It really is just as bad as the US isn't it.

Post 47

We are coming from a 180° opposite viewpoint on this subject. You're looking at this subject from a Govt-revenue side of things. I'm looking at it from a private citizen-cost side of things. Our objectives are not the same. By definition, what is good for one side is bad for the other.

Because once again the government exists only to the detriment of the citizenry.
What color is the sky in these people's world?

post 48 another idiot confused about what communism actually is.

Post 49 points out a startlingly accurate observation that never came to mind. IE landlords don't do shit.
and the following few post act as though it is you and not them who have been busted.

Post 53 seems to not get the rather obvious link between an increase of cheap land and a reduction of renting said cheaper land.

Post 54 displays an all to common and utterly disgusting anti-intellectualism. The world would apparently be a much better place if we just had less smart people.

*stopped reading at this point*

I'm guessing that the thread only deteriorates into a pointless flame war after these gems.

If you'd like (purely for entertainment value) I can strap on my flame thrower and burn that mother down.
Just say the word :)

Well, I guess it depends how you define 'easy.'

Please defend your implication. Or at the very least explain it.

Most countries which call themselves democracies at least try to have the pretense of ultimate power being given according to political and/or organisational skills -- rather than through birth or marriage in family dynasties.

The Kennedys, the Bushes and now the Clintons?! Get a real fucking democracy up ya. A real democracy involves more than three rich families.

Because the first Clinton was such a disaster?

I should really address that. Yes, Clinton was "only" horribly fucked up, as compared to Shrub and Bush Snr who were outright and willfully evil.

Untold numbers of Americans forced by thoughtless urban planning into homelessness or living in trailer parks and Clinton's priorities were in pissing money away on the usual foreign wars of convenience. Definitely a fuckhead.

A nation, to be considered a successful one, must be able to provide its citizens with at least its basic needs: food, shelter and clothing. The elephant in the room is that a nation as wealthy as America has actively chosen not to do this and yet has had all this spare money to attack countries on rotation pretty much non-stop for decades.

I can see why you might say that about the Kennedy's. What with no less than 10 family members being elected to some kind of political office (7 to what I consider high office).
Additionally they have always been connected to serious money.

Additionally I can see why you would say that about the Bushes. What with the whole father to the son thing smacking of some kind of nasty political birth right. And again the Bushes are dripping in oil money.

But Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton come from anything resembling that kind of money. To call Bill's back ground humble would be a tremendous understatement. Hillary's isn't significantly better. At least not when talking about the Kennedy's or the Bushes.

"Most countries which call themselves democracies at least try to have the pretense of ultimate power being given according to political and/or organisational skills -- rather than through birth or marriage in family dynasties."

The implication being that Hillary is some how lacking in the above qualities. Which is clearly not an accurate assessment. Maybe you should do a bit of research before making such bold claims? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

Additionally. Since when has being elected to public office NOT been anything but a huge popularity contest? ~~Part of~~The biggest part winning a popularity contest is being familiar to a voter. Bill Clinton is quite easily the best president the US has had in 30+ years. If Hillary is even half as competent as him she is a far better choice than anything the Republicans are offering up.

"Get a real fucking democracy up ya. A real democracy involves more than three rich families."

I fail to see how being related to someone who has held high office should in any way disqualify a person from hold said office them self.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 2 of 4

Ignorance, Gillard PM, Holidays Approach, Gaming Reviews

Re: Some guy named Smith

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Some guy named Smith

Re: Some guy named Smith

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

jatku

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject