Stars

You can bill me

Actually, I’m quite relieved to hear that

You don't have to The plan is good in principle - the reactor could supply energy needed to cool itself The practical problems may be large or small depending

Could you explain to ignorant / stupid (myself) the obvious flaw?

Not sure where you think the flaw in your plan is. That's pretty good thinking IMO

Trying to pretend hundreds of pounds in rent rent makes no odds is a bit arithmatically futile and ..odd.. frankly. Many workers don't clear minimum wage after rent

This is perfectly logically (morally) consistent The practical problems are a pig, though You had an idea when we last talked; perhaps a way of government-like arrangments selling their services rather than extorting? Has this idea progressed?

Correct - they can't pay for them without changing from parasites into producers

Not true, because the incentive problem is caused by the fact that government rights to gouge producers (real estate) aren't themselves net paid for. Make the owner of the rights pay and the incentive problem dissapates.

Well the thing is that isn't what happens - if this model were true then holding property would not return a net in terms of produce. The fact is, it does - a very considerable net. Real estate property acts to gouge producersof their produce and returns absolutely nothing to producers. One solution is to charge people a market rate for those gouging rights

Would that be compromised in a pr embarrasment kind of way or compromised in a nuclear shitstorm kind of way?

It doesn't prove anything but no other nations were conducting invasions of China at that time So Japan conducts a series of ruthless invasions on teritories arround them and you conclude that economic sanctions applied to them are somehow ..what?...unfair - unjustified? Would it have been fair for the us, uk or france to simply invade Japan in response? I really don't get your logic here If the us and uk were to have economic santions applied to them for their invasions, i wouldn't consider that to be unfair or underhand

In pursuing its interests, the west decided to inflict santions. Notice they didn't invade or drop bombs or rape civilians. They applied economic santions to japan which would be lifted if Japan withdrew her troops. How would you think conducting a series of invasions to take over a whole pacific rim is going to end? War? If the British had done what japan did, the US would have probably also applied santions to the uk I sympathise. It wasn't taught to me in school either. My school education about the 2nd world war concentrated on how terrible the nazis were. The japanese were mentioned briefly So any and all information might be us propaganda?

I never intimated anywhere that you defended the japanese attrocities and i never said that those atrocities caused the hostilities Twisting words? Btw - There was not just and only one atrocious incident - the Japanese were engaged in pretty well continuous atrocities in China. Nanking was probably the most startling venue for Japanese awfulness, but not the only It was a Japanese invasion of China lunched in 37, in which the Japanese subjected the civilian population to mass rape and mass execution. Nanking was a particularly spectacular example, here the Japanese army effectively turned the entire city into a death camp In 31 Japan invaded Manchuria Are you starting to see a pattern here?

Blocking them from burying and burning civilians alive in China? The contexst is important - Japan's crimes were horrendous Neither war started because the us applied sanctions and was then attacked Well, using your logic, if it is fine for Japan to invade china, why shouldn't it be fine for the US to invade japan? As it happens, the us didn't attack japan, Japan atacked the us

Stage 7, 'beyond wisdom', is when you market a book filled with useless, trite, vain cliches about the nature of human life

Depending on your definition of 'surrender', the Japanese had been preparing to surrender from the planning of Pearl harbour They wanted to take territory and then come to a favourable peace with the US which gave them territory. The US wasn't prepared to come to terms

Would you pay more for land only because it was owned? Do you kinow anyone who would? .So, as it turns out people don't agree that owning land adds wealth. Pretty unbelievable obfcuscation and smoke blowing there

The point was not made about private wealth perse, you translated it into this broad category with your beliefs The point ws made about ownership of land and the state backed benefits of ownership of land - which i would claim amount to a welfare system Taking your example of Aristotle - He doesn't create any wealth by owning the land, he creates wealth by working on the land whether he owns it or not.

It really is

You don't change human nature, but neither the real estate market, nor the communist party are human nature and both embed ways of cheating Tthe issue here doesn't seem to be private wealth as both believed in private wealth You are juggling total irrelevancies back and forth -

I mean the total mortgage payment on a mortgage that will pay for the house after 25 years... and by 'rent' i mean the total payment in rent For renting to be a better option, the renter must get a return on investing the difference between the two payments which is greater than the price of the house at the end of 25 years. This analysis prevents the payments by the tenant for occupancy being ignored or incorrectly compared to interest on money used to gain ownership (which they aren't) In this analysis the occupancy payments are compared like for like with the same payments made by the homeowner. They both lose their payments for occupancy during the period and at the end of the process the tenant wins if what he holds (cash) is worth more than what the buyer got with the larger payments (the house) But i made no claims about the housing market right now. If you look back at the price of housing in the eighties, it is far removed from present day prices despite there being two crashes (at least 1 1/2) in the interveening period and the present price being on a slow downward trajectory

Let's simplify the claim somewhat ? Renting would be the better choice, if investing the difference between rent and mortgage payments for the same property would return the new higher price of the property to the investor. That way he could rent rather than buy, invest the difference between the two payments and at the end of the process have more than the house to show for it. Well, this is not the case, In fact, nothing like it. Pretending that property doesn't create the giant advantage it does seems to be a part of trying to fit it into a reasonably equitable moral framework. I have a shortcut - real estate property doesn't fit into any reasonably equitable moral framework.

Supply of the key component in housing is fixed and demand (buying) is legally enforced. I'm afraid the housing market isn't at all like other markets and treating it as if it is will lead you to incorrect conclusions. Does the price of apples shoot up if the people buying them have lots of money? Will the price rise until their surplus is absorbed by apple prices? See? you are inventing special market rules to try and explain the 'odd' behaviour of the real estate market. It would be simpler if you re-examined your base assumptions

No, net he probably pays less than zero tax; in other words he collects rather more public value in his assets than he makes tax contribution.