[Pants-of-dog]

No they haven't. It's been moderate Leftists and Neoliberals who have repeatedly bailed them out.

I hope you know that the most conservative free market supporters would have wanted to let them go bankrupt.

Something both the extreme conservatives and extreme Leftists can agree on: Don't bail out the big banks.

Please define “neoliberalism”, thanks.

[Steve_American]

Please define “neoliberalism”, thanks.

Neo-liberalism is one of the 2 current mainstream theories or schools in economics. The other being Neo-Keynesianism. N-L'ism is based on proofs that use deductive logic, and so is based on the premises it uses. Its proofs are only as good as it premises are. It is a rather 'conservative' theory. It was formed before 1971 when the world went off the gold backing of currencies and onto full fiat currencies. It was *not* updated to reflect this massive change. It seems to be the dominant theory today.
.

[Robert Urbanek]

The shortage of affordable housing will likely be aggravated by the hundreds of thousands of homes that are being destroyed by floods, fires and other disasters created or worsened by climate change. Given the money and resources needed to house these internal refugees, will we have the money and resources needed to help refugees from other countries?

[Pants-of-dog]

Neo-liberalism is one of the 2 current mainstream theories or schools in economics. The other being Neo-Keynesianism. N-L'ism is based on proofs that use deductive logic, and so is based on the premises it uses. Its proofs are only as good as it premises are. It is a rather 'conservative' theory. It was formed before 1971 when the world went off the gold backing of currencies and onto full fiat currencies. It was *not* updated to reflect this massive change. It seems to be the dominant theory today.
.

I think that @Puffer Fish is using it to mean something else.

[ckaihatsu]

The shortage of affordable housing will likely be aggravated by the hundreds of thousands of homes that are being destroyed by floods, fires and other disasters created or worsened by climate change. Given the money and resources needed to house these internal refugees, will we have the money and resources needed to help refugees from other countries?

500 children reunited with families by Biden-Harris task force, nearly 200 still in process

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/500-chi ... d=91180989


Blinken Pledges $240 Million in New Aid for Migrants and Refugees

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... s-refugees


Immigration: Human beings, not political pawns

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/le ... cal-pawns/

[Steve_American]

I think that @Puffer Fish is using it to mean something else.

I disagree. His usage made sense to me. His Neo-liberals I took to mean Repuds and corp Dems.
.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish seems to be arguing that neoliberals are not free market supporters.

This runs contrary to the definition I know.

[wat0n]

Neoliberals are not as committed to free markets as libertarians or ancaps.

[Pants-of-dog]

Libertarians and ancaps are not actual schools of economic thought that have actually been used to run modern economies, which is what the post in question seema to be discussing.

[wat0n]

Hmm, they do follow the Austrian school.

Neoliberals aren't keen on abolishing central banking, plenty of libertarians are.

[Steve_American]

@Puffer Fish seems to be arguing that neoliberals are not free market supporters.

This runs contrary to the definition I know.

So what if it is counter to the definition? Who says the politicians are consistent? I assert that politicians are inconsistent.

For example Hershal Walker paid for an abortion and Repuds voters and politicians are fine with that.
And they often say extreme things before the primary and then sing a different tune after it and before the general election. Then, do something else when in office.

TtP was speaking specifically about politicians.
.

[Pants-of-dog]

In my experience, neoliberals and other supporters of the free market are inconsistent when it comes to government support.

They abhor it on a theoretical level but are more than willing to accept economic and/or military support.

[Rancid]

I stopped reading at this:

The cause is immigration

LOL WHUT?

Dude, and what money do immigrants have to raise land prices? You nuts?

Immigrants are more like innocent bystanders that get hit with cross fire when those with money engage in bidding wars over housing.

What are you smoking? I want some.

This thread is wilder than the shit Bluto say's.

[Fasces]

The fundamental problem with New York housing is the insistence in keeping the "character of a neighborhood" and "protecting land value" that result in 2-3 story single family rowhouses filling up entire square miles of Manhattan. Same problem in San Francisco.

Tear it down and build affordable, low-income housing in the places where low-income people work so that low-income people don't have to spend 6 hours a day commuting to give your banker ass some Starbucks. Simple. Build adequate services for this housing. This is precisely what government should be using eminent domain policies for.

Nationalize Billionaire's Row.

[ckaihatsu]

eminent domain

Also for closed factories, so that the workers of those workplaces can keep operations going.

[Puffer Fish]

@Puffer Fish seems to be arguing that neoliberals are not free market supporters.

This runs contrary to the definition I know.

"Neoliberals" are kind of like moderate conservatives. They don't really believe in the free market the same way or as much as hardline traditional conservatives.
They are usually inclined to believe in things like corporate welfare and employing lots of government regulations in the financial and corporate sector to try to solve problems and "make the market work".

It's too complicated of a discussion to explain. Hopefully I don't need to give you an explanation to get my point across to you.

[Puffer Fish]

The fundamental problem with New York housing is the insistence in keeping the "character of a neighborhood" and "protecting land value" that result in 2-3 story single family rowhouses filling up entire square miles of Manhattan. Same problem in San Francisco.

Tear it down and build affordable, low-income housing in the places where low-income people work so that low-income people don't have to spend 6 hours a day commuting to give your banker ass some Starbucks. Simple.

A big problem is cars. How are you going to add more housing while making sure those people in this new housing do not bring more cars to the area?

The roads are already too congested with cars.

Once you can come up with a solution to address that, I think you will have solved half the problem.

Maybe force the people living there to sign a contract, and then strictly enforce it. If someone builds a new building, they will know that everyone living in that building will not be allowed to have a car in that city.

[Pants-of-dog]

"Neoliberals" are kind of like moderate conservatives. They don't really believe in the free market the same way or as much as hardline traditional conservatives.
They are usually inclined to believe in things like corporate welfare and employing lots of government regulations in the financial and corporate sector to try to solve problems and "make the market work".

It's too complicated of a discussion to explain. Hopefully I don't need to give you an explanation to get my point across to you.

Note that is not the usual definition.

[late]

A big problem is cars.

Good point, surprisingly..

Right now, all over Europe, cities are discouraging cars. This actually started in the 70s, and it ain't rocket science.

Get off the table, smooth your skirts, and see what the real world looks like.

[ckaihatsu]

smooth our your skirts

Are the skirts 'ours', or *yours*, late.


= /


= )