ART

"But it was. Tens of millions of innodegius people lived here and they absolutely used the land. Not every part of it but much of it that is today owned by Capitalists. So this same question turns right back on you. You can't justify the initial acquisition of the land. That was pure thievery and murder."But how did the innodegius people acquire use of the land? at some time it was unowned, unused, and unoccupied. Indigenous people came on it, adapted it for their use, and became the original owners.That wasn't so hard, was it? There WERE original owners.You can try to trace the long history of ownership changes over the millennia if you like, some through abandonment and reclamation, some through purchase, some through thievery and murder, but I doubt you will be successful. It's not likely that anyone can ever determine the rightful owner of any given piece of land.But, it's important for you to realize that the theft of other people's land in the Americas didn't start with the white man.You can also just stick to the simple,lame but incomplete narrative you seem to prefer, that the evil capitalists stole it from the noble savages.I see that some education in history might also help you understand the world around you."You can't justify the initial acquisition of the land.I just did, Jon. Pay attention. But the land isn't what we're concerned with here, but the building, the machines, the tools needed to produce things for people to use.Remember the question?Me: "Where does the means of production come from?"That came from savings, or borrowing what others have saved, or if you prefer, from borrowing money that was just created out of thin air, thereby diluting the value of all existing money."He may have deferred consumption, but this may be his preference. Should we reward someone for indulging their preferences?"Of course that is his preference, or he wouldn't do it. He prefers two cookies in the future to one cookie now. "We" are not rewarding anybody, as "we" have nbothing to do with it."Suppose I'm Mitt Romney and I'm worth hundreds of millions of dollars."Stop there. If you are "worth" hundreds of millions, that's because you have already deferred a great deal of consumption. Why is it you start your stories in the middle, when everything has already happened? "I have two choices."Uou probably have way more than two choices."I could spend all my money in the span of a month or two and have nothing left. Or I could [continue to] defer consumption and have food to eat 10 years from now. Which is my preference? You act like it's some sort of big sacrifice he's made in that he's willing to not buy 20 homes and several private jets today. How is it a sacrifice when he'd prefer not to blow through his money immediately. Why should he be rewarded for doing precisely what he would prefer?"You have some of the oddest attitudes about this I have ever encountered.As I wrote, "we" are not rewarding anybody, and I am not "acting like" anything. No one has sacraficed anything, and no one has suggested it. Where do you get such nonsense?Romney has earned the money he is worth, by providing value to others, and they have willingly given him thew money, Only government can take money by force.When Romney spends that money, he creats jobs for others who exchange their labor to make the things he buys.It IS a preference, but I can tell you, if the future consumption isn't greater than current consumption, then there won't be much deferred consumption.

Not Given