Ariana Sawyer, Contributor
[1] Militarily demobilized. Since WWII—which was both the death knell of European colonial empires as well as the starting shot of the American neocolonial era—Europe has had notoriously scant standing armies, and has been able to consistently slash government military spending domestically and as a percentage of their contributions to international diplomatic bodies such as the UN. This is because nowadays European nations very rarely find themselves in situations where they need to independently send their militaries abroad in order to secure trade routes, foreign resources, or privileges within markets overseas; the U.S. has been fulfilling that hard-power obligation for them for over half a century. The social results of Western Europe’s decreased militarization are striking, especially when contrasted with the U.S.: there is not a single country in Western Europe without universal healthcare, labor rights and welfare systems are strong, value is placed on corporate and financial regulation, environmental policy is lightyears ahead, and, not least of all, there is a robust governmental approach to curbing digital surveillance and reining in tech monopolies. Japan enjoys a similar arrangement with the U.S. in which it, too, is militarily demobilized yet is given full access to, and prominence in, the global economy. In the last decade there has been a reversing trend of remilitarization in some of these nations. That trend was hastened during the last four years as a result of Trump’s ultranationalist politics, but is likely to continue even after his departure in large part due to the growing bipolar geopolitical climate of competition between superpowers.
The “owner” bit of home-“owner” appears in scare quotes throughout the text for reasons that will shortly become apparent.
Nothing signals trouble quite like consensus.
More on them later.
And, anyways, what exactly remains “obvious” in an era “post-truth”?
I take as my starting position that even the “obvious” must be won.
It’s like Lenin said, you know…
Whether directly, or through a chain of investments, or through the wider speculative market in real estate.
I use “banks” in this piece as a stand-in for several sources of income that derive partly through the mortgaging of property and/or investment in institutions that have the power to mortgage property.
That is just its “ideology.”
The Ricardian “law of rent” explains that any location with an advantage over another location, can accrue an economic value, called “rent,” to the owner.
This happens without the owner needing to pitch in to create the advantage.
If the owner does pitch in, then the value accrued from that advantage cannot be called “rent.”
“Rent,” in economic terms, is only, precisely, the value accrued from that portion of the advantage for which the owner is not responsible. That is what we mean when we say, “Rent is theft.”
This does not mean places with lower property taxes ipso facto have higher property prices—and that is because the property tax is only one of the contributing factors. You could have zero taxes on land in Antarctica, for instance, and it would still sell for $0. This is why the introduction to the analogy controls for such variables.
This is the logical conclusion of believing two premises:
(1) All humans have an equal right to the Earth.
(2) Vaginal birth is a lottery system
Prop 13 is rent control for home-“owners.” You can learn more about its history and impact here.
“Hamlet” by William Shakespeare. Act 4, Scene 5
This is why the lobbyists who spend the most money to support the mortgage interest deduction are bankers, mortgagers, and realtors.
Definition