[Julian658]

Naw, you're just lying.

No one here is advocating that where it counts. Find me one Congressperson that is a Marxist.

Nice straw man. I am not saying they are marxists, however, like you they are in love with the idea of wealth redistribution and they demonize capitalists 24/7.

You are correct they are not marxist, however, they use the socialist language because they know it resonates with those that see themselves as victims.

That's the Big Lie of propaganda again... you do it constantly. If you look at the successful European countries, they have robust social programs. Even there, you'd need a microscope to find anyone with power arguing they should be Marxist.

Europeans have tried to moved farther to the left and eventually come back a bit to the center. Sweden tried more socialism in the 70s and then realized they would run out of money. The Swedes privatize social security which is considered extreme right wing in America. They also provide school vouchers for religious schools, another evil right wing ideas in America. Some of the trains are run by the private sector.

I said a couple days ago you would lie again, and here you are. You pretend to be rational, but you like the paychecks for trolling a lot better, now don't you.

"Integrity is the essence of everything successful."

R. Buckminster Fuller

Ad hominem is not an argument. Note how I never call you names.

[late]

they are in love with the idea of wealth redistribution

That is exactly the lie I predicted you would repeat in a couple days, and here you are, right on schedule.

A modern economy is a cooperative effort. It's not at all hard to see which countries work, they educate their kids, their economy adapts to shock better, and then there are the things they don't have, like massive gun slaughter.

There are countries, like Somalia, that meet your low, low standards. You should go there, it is hypocritical for you stay here.

[Julian658]

That is exactly the lie I predicted you would repeat in a couple days, and here you are, right on schedule.

A modern economy is a cooperative effort. It's not at all hard to see which countries work, they educate their kids, their economy adapts to shock better, and then there are the things they don't have, like massive gun slaughter.

There are countries, like Somalia, that meet your low, low standards. You should go there, it is hypocritical for you stay here.

Do you believe in wealth redistribution? Yes or No?

[Rancid]

Both!
If you provide goodies such as syringes to inject drugs, alcohol, methadone, and grass the homeless will come out of the woodwork.
If you allow tents anywhere and the police is instructed to be lenient they will come.
If petty crime goes unpunished they will come.

This is the same old: Good intention plan without realizing the unintended consequences.

I would be curious to see data that say's services create homelessness.

I hate to sound like a dirty socialist, but I'd guess that capitalism also creates homelessness.

[late]

Do you believe in wealth redistribution? Yes or No?

I don't believe in antique insanity.

Your insanity..

[Rancid]

Do you believe in wealth redistribution? Yes or No?

I missed this question.

My question to this question is, define wealth redistribution. Because even capitalism redistributes wealth (rags to riches, and riches to rags are the result of redistribution).

[B0ycey]

I would be curious to see data that say's services create homelessness.

I hate to sound like a dirty socialist, but I'd guess that capitalism also creates homelessness.

He is chatting shit Rancid. He makes it up as he goes along. Nobody goes homeless to claim benefits. If anything, not having an address makes that almost impossible so you are instead relying on charity which nobody ever wants.

Also, and I cannot make this point strong enough, San Francisco is a city in America who happen to be like the biggest Capitalist state in the Western world. You cannot blame homelessness in San Francisco on Socialism when America is the king of Crony Capitalism.

[Pants-of-dog]

I already posted about that example and the $32 billion bill it has, shall I post it again?

I think you just posted a link.

The municipality

By failing in its duty to maintain the property its tenants are renting

Please just write a complete sentence where I do not have to refer to earlier posts to determine what the subject and the object are.

That depends on how the municipality is organized. In NYC, that would be the NYC Housing Authority.

This is another good example of a sentence where the important information is in another different post, and so this sentence makes very little sense by itself.

[wat0n]

Interestingly, the US as a whole doesn't seem to be doing particularly bad in this realm compared to other OECD countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... population

So this begs the question about what's so special about SF, and California in general. I think it's a mix of the mild weather and their anti-density housing regulations. Only in SF an "affordable" house costs $750,000:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/C ... costs.html

@Pants-of-dog I'm not responsible for your reading comprehension issues.

[Julian658]

I would be curious to see data that say's services create homelessness.

I hate to sound like a dirty socialist, but I'd guess that capitalism also creates homelessness.

The homeless are more numerous in woke cities. But, we could say correlation is not causation.
The only thing that reduces homelessness is giving them a free home with maintenance included and UBI.

Providing free syringes drugs, alcohol, and marihuana promotes homelessness.
Allowing tents in the city promotes homelessness.

The Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to temporarily stop enforcing a law requiring tents to come down during daytime hours, saying the change is needed to limit the spread of the novel coronavirus.

Council members also voted to instruct city agencies to begin providing hand-washing stations, portable toilets, dumpsters, vermin-proof trash cans and weekly shower service at “major” homeless encampments.

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... oronavirus

Of course, they say they allow the tents to combat Corona, but we know the tents will remain.

[Julian658]

I don't believe in antique insanity.

Your insanity..

It was a simple question. I actually believe in wealth redistribution. I don't care if my taxes help other people. However, i don't like it when people say that those that pay taxes are the bad guys and that they should pay more.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Okay.

Please understand that I will not be replying to these “points”, then. Mind you, I have explained the financial incentives that make it a better idea to have government provide social housing than having private companies do so.

This would then result in better homes at a lower cost.

—————

And as for rent controls, even if we assume that they caused problems in NYC (a claim you did not support), your evidence showed that they had strong advantages even in those places where economists were trying to show they were bad.

They seem to work in other places.

Let me know if you have any new arguments.

[Julian658]

Interestingly, the US as a whole doesn't seem to be doing particularly bad in this realm compared to other OECD countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... population

So this begs the question about what's so special about SF, and California in general. I think it's a mix of the mild weather and their anti-density housing regulations. Only in SF an "affordable" house costs $750,000:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/C ... costs.html

@Pants-of-dog I'm not responsible for your reading comprehension issues.

Why must the free homes for the homeless be built in San Francisco?

[Pants-of-dog]

Why must the free homes for the homeless be built in San Francisco?

Why not?

[Julian658]

Why not?

It is incredibly expensive. Why not build them house in Sacramento or other parts of the state that are not as pricey?

[Pants-of-dog]

It is incredibly expensive. Why not build them house in Sacramento or other parts of the state that are not as pricey?

Please provide the cost of building a single family dwelling in SF and the same cost for Sacramento. Thanks.

Also, please explain how you would force these people to move to Sacraments without violating their rights. Thanks.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Okay.

Please understand that I will not be replying to these “points”, then. Mind you, I have explained the financial incentives that make it a better idea to have government provide social housing than having private companies do so.

This would then result in better homes at a lower cost.

Please provide evidence that the homes built by private developers are in a worse state than the NYCHA ones.

Your incentives argument can easily be turned against by the counterarguments I provided. From governance issues, to the incentives politicians face.

And as for rent controls, even if we assume that they caused problems in NYC (a claim you did not support), your evidence showed that they had strong advantages even in those places where economists were trying to show they were bad.

They seem to work in other places.

Let me know if you have any new arguments.

I showed they caused issues in SF. As the paper says, they benefited those living in the rent-controlled properties in the first few years while harming people who are not living in those properties and who are now finding themselves with trouble finding affordable housing.

As the NYT article I linked above suggests, rent control is far from the only problem. There are also zoning regulations, including the fact that it's easy for incumbent residents to veto new development under NIMBY arguments, and that there are all sorts of fees involved in the process that make the whole thing more expensive. It's a very dysfunctional system all in all.

[B0ycey]

It is incredibly expensive. Why not build them house in Sacramento or other parts of the state that are not as pricey?

Does brick and mortar cost less in Sacramento? Build more homes in SF and homes and they won't be so pricey will they?

Nonetheless you build homes where people can work. San Francisco is a big city so it has a big draw and as such you must build homes there. That isn't even rocket science so any dumb shit can work that out. People go where the wages are.

But again we in the UK built what was called new towns in the 60s, another form of social housing program, where businesses were given subsidiaries to set up in these towns and as such moved the demand out of big cities like London, Birmingham and Manchester into these new towns. If over crowdness is an issue for you, again Social programs not Capitalism has the answer.

[Julian658]

Does brick and mortar cost less in Sacramento? Build more homes in SF and homes and they won't be so pricey will they?

Nonetheless you build homes where people can work. San Francisco is a big city so it has a big draw and as such you must build homes there. That isn't even rocket science so any dumb shit can work that out. People go where the wages are.

But again we in the UK built what was called new towns in the 60s, another form of social housing program, where businesses were given subsidiaries to set up in these towns and as such moved the demand out of big cities like London, Birmingham and Manchester into these new towns. If over crowdness is an issue for you, again Social programs not Capitalism has the answer.

Ignorance is bliss! San Francisco is a peninsula with no room to grow. They have to build elsewhere. Why not build free homes in cheap states where land is abundant?

By the way most jobs in SF are high tech jobs.

[Julian658]

Social programs not Capitalism has the answer.

This wins the award for most crazoid post of the month.