Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The old-school private-sector solution was to 1.) Restrict the movement of poor immigrants or black/Puerto Rican migrants, and 2.) Rent unsafe and unsanitary dwellings to these desperate people who could not move anywhere else.
I'm not saying that changing regulations couldn't help, but the private sector has failed low-income people in the past.
Recently I talked with one of those urban planner types, who said the market locally doesn't currently build unsubsidized housing in my desired price range. This price range is one of several price ranges generally recognized by planner types and a price range relevant to many people.
If the private sector is not building for this market segment, that sounds to me like market failure.
Obviously, a conservative and especially a libertarian solution does not include providing subsidies.
So what's your solution? Shrug and let people vote with their feet as they get priced out of the region?
This a simplified version, but there are two questions that are essential for all human societies.
How does a society divide up resources and for whom's benefit should society work for?
Within a given society those two questions are the core of nearly all fights.
My view is that conservatives no matter the society fight to keep everything to a smaller elite of whom they view as the deserving winners.
Now this view of who are the deserving winners is different in every society, the more liberal the society the more conservatives will be forced to view more people as deserving winners both deserving of resources and deserving of societal help.
So in that view this phony idea of free markets for conservatives is much more about the idea that the market won't be set up to help those conservatives deem as the undeserving losers and will allow the deserving winners to take everything.
Yet the US housing market is completrly subsidized by the US federal government.
If anyone believes that banks would loan people money for 30years with only 20% down without the federal government backing up those loans, they are ignorant of US housing policy.
So this is where conservatives really set themselves apart and show the ugly side that governs so much of their belief system, the US housing market for nearly all American homeowners is subsidized by the US federal government.
So the question is not about whether the US government will provide or won't provide subsidized housing because the whole US housing market is subsidized by the federal government.
It becomes about will the US government subsidize housing for economically poorer Americans whom conservatives have deemed the undeserving losers and whom conservatives will demonize and attack those people as undeserving for various ugly reasons.
It means conservatives are hypocrites who are completely supportive and approving of the way the US housing market works which again is completely subsidized by the US government, but reject this when applied to people conservatives hate.
This free market blather is just a talking point that means we want the market to work only for the benefit if the winners and the losers get nothing.
This a simplified version, but there are two questions that are essential for all human societies.
How does a society divide up resources and for whom's benefit should society work for?
Societies only do this if they are tyrannical and authoritarian. Otherwise, the exchange of goods and services is a voluntary act, not one decided by anyone but those doing the trading.
Quote:
Within a given society those two questions are the core of nearly all fights.
No, these questions are only asked by people who wish to have the power to decide for others, proving they have no moral authority for their opinions or wishes. The want to have said power to decide for others, makes one incapable of doing so in a moral fashion. If you want the job, you are not qualified.
Quote:
My view is that conservatives no matter the society fight to keep everything to a smaller elite of whom they view as the deserving winners.
No, that's your rhetoric, the pretense that allowing people to do as they wish is antagonism toward others is both intellectually invalid and dishonest in its misrepresentation.
Quote:
Now this view of who are the deserving winners is different in every society, the more liberal the society the more conservatives will be forced to view more people as deserving winners both deserving of resources and deserving of societal help.
You are 100% wrong. Liberals believe they have a right to control everyone else for their own good, having claimed for themselves the title of "worthy to decide your life for you".
Quote:
So in that view this phony idea of free markets for conservatives is much more about the idea that the market won't be set up to help those conservatives deem as the undeserving losers and will allow the deserving winners to take everything.
You comprehend nothing. Or, you lie. There are no other options.
Quote:
Yet the US housing market is completrly subsidized by the US federal government.
That's what's wrong with it. It's why we have massive debt and a stagnant economy.
Quote:
If anyone believes that banks would loan people money for 30years with only 20% down without the federal government backing up those loans, they are ignorant of US housing policy.
I'm not ignorant of anything. I just happen to know that said loans and terms should be market based, not politically based. The political actions have all but completely decimated the economy, but you advocate for more. Kind of a "you need more arsenic to get over this arsenic poisoning".
Quote:
So this is where conservatives really set themselves apart and show the ugly side that governs so much of their belief system, the US housing market for nearly all American homeowners is subsidized by the US federal government.
It's always the personal attack, isn't it?
Quote:
So the question is not about whether the US government will provide or won't provide subsidized housing because the whole US housing market is subsidized by the federal government.
Yes, it is. Because the government cannot do that. We have a stunning example of this over the last couple decades.
Quote:
It becomes about will the US government subsidize housing for economically poorer Americans whom conservatives have deemed the undeserving losers and whom conservatives will demonize and attack those people as undeserving for various ugly reasons.
more personal attacks which are dishonest and untrue.
Quote:
It means conservatives are hypocrites who are completely supportive and approving of the way the US housing market works which again is completely subsidized by the US government, but reject this when applied to people conservatives hate.
Just another lie.
Quote:
This free market blather is just a talking point that means we want the market to work only for the benefit if the winners and the losers get nothing.
yet another example of your "anyone who disagrees is evil" nonsense.
I see....so you like Democracy except when you don't like Democracy.
Got it.
I never said I like democracy... it is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner, it is mob rule, it is stupid.
Quote:
Fine....here's your Free Market Solution:
Put money into an escrow account to cover financial damages and losses suffered by others.
I have property valued at $400,000 so you put $1.2 Million in escrow and we're cool.
That way, when your $5/night meth-crack-heroin infested flop-houses drop the value of my property to $0, I can just take the $1.2 Million.
Not my problem, if you want to protect your investment, buy in a deed restricted area or a HOA. Both those options protect your investment without infringing on others.
Quote:
Um, if you're wondering why it's $1.2 Million, it's because I'm entitled to treble damages as a matter of law.
If you have sufficient background information to know that a premise is questionable or unlikely to be acceptable, then you use this fallacy if you accept an argument based on that premise.
The premise that you have a right, or title or claim to live in any particular area is a false premise.
If you can afford to live there, fine, if not, then move.
I never said anyone had a right to live somewhere, quote me if I did. I said I have a right to use property that I PURCHASE as I CHOOSE as long as I do not hurt anyone. You just think that your neighbor having a ugly house infringes upon you, it doesn't.
Again, you can protect your investment without using government to infringe upon others by buying in a deed restricted area or a HOA.... Nobody has a duty to protect your investments for you.
Just for clarification......as long as it's your property. Some regulations are understandable. It's none of my business if someone wants to build a 20 unit apartment complex that are 2000 sq feet each or one that is 80 units of 500 square feet.
If taxpayers don't want to pay to build a road to your apartments, you are on the hook yourself.
I agree, and I would build the road... it is in my best interest for people to get to the development.
Societies only do this if they are tyrannical and authoritarian. Otherwise, the exchange of goods and services is a voluntary act, not one decided by anyone but those doing the trading.
No, these questions are only asked by people who wish to have the power to decide for others, proving they have no moral authority for their opinions or wishes. The want to have said power to decide for others, makes one incapable of doing so in a moral fashion. If you want the job, you are not qualified.
No, that's your rhetoric, the pretense that allowing people to do as they wish is antagonism toward others is both intellectually invalid and dishonest in its misrepresentation.
You are 100% wrong. Liberals believe they have a right to control everyone else for their own good, having claimed for themselves the title of "worthy to decide your life for you".
You comprehend nothing. Or, you lie. There are no other options.
That's what's wrong with it. It's why we have massive debt and a stagnant economy.
I'm not ignorant of anything. I just happen to know that said loans and terms should be market based, not politically based. The political actions have all but completely decimated the economy, but you advocate for more. Kind of a "you need more arsenic to get over this arsenic poisoning".
It's always the personal attack, isn't it?
Yes, it is. Because the government cannot do that. We have a stunning example of this over the last couple decades.
more personal attacks which are dishonest and untrue.
Just another lie.
yet another example of your "anyone who disagrees is evil" nonsense.
Your first point is illogical, if societies aren't setup to decide how resources are divided up, then why do we have laws? Why so we have contract law? Why does the government give tax breaks to the railroad companies who needed to buy up huge amounts of land to build railroad tracks?
Why do we have private property? Who sets up they land belongs to you and not someone else?
Why do we have patent law? Who decides an idea belongs to you and no one else?
I could go on and on.
So yes deciding how the resources are divided up is one of the central things that allow markets to function?
So of course that is the central concern of every society.
The rest of your post was irrelevant and didn't attempt to address my points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
