Why does America Suck at Everything? - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15235199
Pants-of-dog wrote:Leaving aside your incorrect legal claims, you are agreeing that government is forced to pay maintenance. And it logically follows that government has an incentive to lower maintenance costs. It then follows that government would invest in higher quality construction to reduce maintenance costs.

Since it was not the case that "someone else will have to deal with the problem in the future", the government is still on the hook for maintenance even if some conservative party thought "Shirking on maintenance can be politically expedient".


Legally I'm correct.

The decision to shirk on maintenance was taken in the 1970s and 1980s, those politicians are clearly not on the hook. And so they didn't.

All your speculation is irrelevant here. What matters are the facts, and that's what happened.

Oh, and I wouldn't be so sure only conservatives shirked.
#15235203
wat0n wrote:Legally I'm correct.


Not according to the article.

The decision to shirk on maintenance was taken in the 1970s and 1980s, those politicians are clearly not on the hook. And so they didn't.


And government is still financially on the hook despite that.

All you are saying is that conservatives cause more long term costs.

All your speculation is irrelevant here. What matters are the facts, and that's what happened.

Oh, and I wouldn't be so sure only conservatives shirked.


Then it is a good thing I am mentioning facts.
#15235206
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not according to the article.


The article says the city settled.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And government is still financially on the hook despite that.

All you are saying is that conservatives cause more long term costs.


Again, I would not be so sure only conservatives ruled NYC at the time (they didn't).

And the government is on the hook precisely because it did not consider its long term financial interests earlier.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then it is a good thing I am mentioning facts.


Not at all.
#15235211
wat0n wrote:The article says the city settled.


Was that in the text you quoted?

Again, I would not be so sure only conservatives ruled NYC at the time (they didn't).


Was that in the text you quoted?

And the government is on the hook precisely because it did not consider its long term financial interests earlier.


This isa different argument from your previous one. It is also unverifiable speculation.
#15235215
Pants-of-dog wrote:Was that in the text you quoted?


Yes, "That deal came after the city and federal housing officials settled a lawsuit in early 2019, one filed by the federal government on behalf of NYCHA's 400,000 residents."

Pants-of-dog wrote:Was that in the text you quoted?


We know Democrats ruled the city in the 1970s and 1980s. All NYC majors were Democrats from 1971 to 1993.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This isa different argument from your previous one. It is also unverifiable speculation.


Not at all.

It's easily verifiable since NYCHA has to invest $40 billion on its housing stock.
#15235231
wat0n wrote:Yes, "That deal came after the city and federal housing officials settled a lawsuit in early 2019, one filed by the federal government on behalf of NYCHA's 400,000 residents."


Note that there is no mention of guilt.

We know Democrats ruled the city in the 1970s and 1980s. All NYC majors were Democrats from 1971 to 1993.


I apologise, but I do not remember any.of this mentioned in the text you quoted.

And I am not addressing your speculation about the mental processes of people you do not know.
#15235234
Pants-of-dog wrote:Note that there is no mention of guilt.


Yet NYC did admit guilt:

NYCHA settlement wrote: WHEREAS, in a Consent Decree executed June 11, 2018, NYCHA made admissions regarding, among other things, deficiencies in physical conditions with respect to lead, mold, heating, elevators and pests, untrue statements to HUD regarding the conditions of NYCHA properties, and practices with regard to Public Housing Assessment System inspections;


Pants-of-dog wrote:I apologise, but I do not remember any.of this mentioned in the text you quoted.

And I am not addressing your speculation about the mental processes of people you do not know.


Do you want me to name the mayors in those years?
#15235269
Potemkin wrote:My point was that capitalism, left to its own devices, cannot solve the problem of homelessness.

Right, because capitalism removes people's individual liberty rights to use land and makes them into the private property of landowners. So if someone can't afford to pay a landowner for permission to live, landowners collectively make them homeless.
The market value of homes, at equilibrium between supply and demand, will always price some people out of the market.

No. If people have their liberty rights to use land, as in a geoist economy, they can easily provide themselves with homes. This is seen in the favelas of Latin America even when people don't have their rights to liberty: the governments are merely lax in enforcing landowners' exclusion of the landless.
And even if we do not leave capitalism to its own devices, we have the problem of unintended consequences of any intervention in the market - market forces and the profit motive will tend to erase any good we try to do.

More accurately, the Henry George Theorem shows that anything governments try to give the landless, landowners will just take.
Ultimately, only socialism can resolve the problem of homelessness.

No, geoism would accomplish it far better by utilizing market incentives.
Crises of overproduction are a thing, @Pants-of-dog.

No. They aren't crises of "overproduction." That's just stupid Marxist garbage. They are crises of debt caused by the debt-money system of finance capitalism.
The logic of capitalism leads to it, @Pants-of-dog. If it didn’t, then rent control and zoning would have solved the problem of homelessness long ago. And it hasn’t.

No. The logic of capitalism does not lead to overproduction, that's just stupid Marxist garbage. And zoning and rent control certainly can only make the problem worse. The three least affordable rental markets in North America are NYC, San Francisco, and Vancouver. All have draconian zoning laws, and all have had strict rent control for more than 50 years. Hello?
The problem is not that the rents are too damn high, the problem is that we live in a capitalist system.

Right, because under capitalism, the community has no right to the land rent the community creates. It must be given away to private landowners in return for nothing. Marx never understood that because he was the Anti-Economist.
The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by making mortgages too easy to obtain by people who could never have realistically repaid those loans.

Which bankers always want to do under the debt-money system.
This led to an artificially inflated demand for housing stock, which led to a crisis of overproduction in that sector of the economy. Hence the scenes we saw of street after street after street of brand new, empty houses left to rot.

No. The problem was not that too many houses were produced. The problem was that landowner privilege and the debt-money system drove up land prices to the point that affordable housing could not be produced. No builder can put a new house on the market for $300K when the land costs $400K. In fact, he can't even get buyers to pay $500K for a $100K house on a lot that costs $400K, because a $100K house never looks like it is worth $500K.
Crises of overproduction are a thing, @Pants-of-dog.

No, they're just stupid Marxist garbage. Marx did not know anything about production, money, or economics, so he just made $#!+ up.
And capitalists never learn from their mistakes. How can they? This is the whole point that Marx was trying to make when he wrote Das Kapital - capitalism cannot be saved through reform or better management.

But Marx completely misunderstood why. The problem with capitalism is not the employer-employee relationship. It is the landowner-land user (i.e., everyone) relationship.
Capitalists cannot “learn from their mistakes”, because these ‘mistakes’ are inherent to capitalism itself as a mode of production.

No. The mistakes are inherent to capitalism as a mode of ownership, not as a mode of production. Marx was wrong about that, too.
#15235274
wat0n wrote:Yet NYC did admit guilt:


I can see why you would think that is an admission of guilt.

Can you see why I think it is not?

Do you want me to name the mayors in those years?


Please quote the relevant text showing exactly which years were the ones when damage was caused by government decisions.
#15235283
Pants-of-dog wrote:I can see why you would think that is an admission of guilt.

Can you see why I think it is not?


No, I can't. NYC even admitted to lying to the feds, despite getting federal funding.

This also happened under a Democrat mayor.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please quote the relevant text showing exactly which years were the ones when damage was caused by government decisions.


It was a longstanding policy since the 1970s as white tenants moved away, external funding began to dry out and the city refused to hike the rents that were supposed to fund the program.

Care to explain how any of this support the idea government will fix everything?
#15235285
wat0n wrote:No, I can't. NYC even admitted to lying to the feds, despite getting federal funding.

This also happened under a Democrat mayor.

It was a longstanding policy since the 1970s as white tenants moved away, external funding began to dry out and the city refused to hike the rents that were supposed to fund the program.

Care to explain how any of this support the idea government will fix everything?


Let me know when you have quoted the relevant text.

Thank you.
#15235287
Truth To Power wrote:Right, because capitalism removes people's individual liberty rights to use land and makes them into the private property of landowners. So if someone can't afford to pay a landowner for permission to live, landowners collectively make them homeless.

No. If people have their liberty rights to use land, as in a geoist economy, they can easily provide themselves with homes. This is seen in the favelas of Latin America even when people don't have their rights to liberty: the governments are merely lax in enforcing landowners' exclusion of the landless.

But the homeless people in the favelas don’t buy the houses on the housing market - they just illegally occupy a vacant plot of land and build their own houses. They are not participants in the housing market, for the very good reason that they have been priced out of it. And the market must price some people out, as a moment’s thought should demonstrate. In a free market, the price mechanism is used to reach equilibrium between supply and demand. This requires a reservoir of homeless people to exist, so that when the price is lowered the demand increases to match the excess supply. People who could not previously afford to buy a home can now do so, thus restoring equilibrium between supply and demand. If nobody were homeless, then lowering the price would not increase demand, and the price mechanism would not operate. In other words, eliminating homelessness simultaneously and necessarily eliminates the free market in housing. Or, looking at it another way, so long as there is a free market in housing, then homelessness can never be eliminated. The problem is the free market, the problem is capitalism.
#15235299
wat0n wrote:I don't care about what text you want me to quote. This does not change the fact that NYC admitted wrongdoing.


If that is what you wish to believe, feel free.

At this point, the facts seem to indicate that Marxists are correct to say that capitalism is inherently incapable of solving homelessness.
#15235303
Potemkin wrote:But the homeless people in the favelas don’t buy the houses on the housing market - they just illegally occupy a vacant plot of land and build their own houses.

Exactly as I said. People don't need to buy houses if they are at liberty to build their own.
They are not participants in the housing market, for the very good reason that they have been priced out of it.

They don't need to be participants in the housing market to house themselves.
And the market must price some people out, as a moment’s thought should demonstrate.

Not a genuinely free (geoist) market where people have their natural individual rights to liberty.
In a free market, the price mechanism is used to reach equilibrium between supply and demand.

Right.
This requires a reservoir of homeless people to exist, so that when the price is lowered the demand increases to match the excess supply.

Nonsense. Price can only be lowered if demand decreases or supply increases. If supply increases, people just occupy more space, or get their own place instead of sharing, or maintain a vacation home, etc.
People who could not previously afford to buy a home can now do so, thus restoring equilibrium between supply and demand.

Huh? The homeless are not people who can't afford to buy a home, they are people who can't afford to rent one. Hello?
If nobody were homeless, then lowering the price would not increase demand, and the price mechanism would not operate.

Anti-economic nonsense disproved above.
In other words, eliminating homelessness simultaneously and necessarily eliminates the free market in housing.

Anti-economic nonsense disproved above. Are you a socialist or something?
Or, looking at it another way, so long as there is a free market in housing, then homelessness can never be eliminated. The problem is the free market, the problem is capitalism.

There's your error: a free market is impossible under capitalism because capitalism by definition requires private ownership of the means of production -- land and producer goods -- and private ownership of land forces everyone to subsidize landowners. Forced subsidies by definition cannot exist in a free market. QED.
#15235304
Pants-of-dog wrote:If that is what you wish to believe, feel free.

At this point, the facts seem to indicate that Marxists are correct to say that capitalism is inherently incapable of solving homelessness.


Why? The people living in NYCHA's crumbling apartments are not homeless.

I mean, their housing sucks but they don't count as homeless.
#15235354
Truth To Power wrote:Exactly as I said. People don't need to buy houses if they are at liberty to build their own.

They don't need to be participants in the housing market to house themselves.

If they want to have legal title to their homes, they do. Otherwise the authorities can simply bulldoze their homes and forcibly move them off the land they are illegally occupying. This happens so often in developing countries that it barely needs to be mentioned; it’s common knowledge. It even happens in the UK.

Nonsense. Price can only be lowered if demand decreases or supply increases. If supply increases, people just occupy more space, or get their own place instead of sharing, or maintain a vacation home, etc.

Yet that is not the world in which we live. And without intervention in the “free market” of housing, it never will be.

Huh? The homeless are not people who can't afford to buy a home, they are people who can't afford to rent one. Hello?

Irrelevant. Demand for housing includes rented housing as well as privately owned housing.

Anti-economic nonsense disproved above.

See above.

Anti-economic nonsense disproved above. Are you a socialist or something?

Lol. Yes, I am. As you well know.

There's your error: a free market is impossible under capitalism because capitalism by definition requires private ownership of the means of production -- land and producer goods -- and private ownership of land forces everyone to subsidize landowners. Forced subsidies by definition cannot exist in a free market. QED.

The “subsidies” are not “forced”, but are a direct consequence of the private ownership of land, which is perfectly legal under capitalism. And even if the land were to be confiscated from its legal owners by the government, the logic of the free market in housing would still exist - the market, in order to function as a free market (i.e., using the price mechanism to achieve equilibrium between supply and demand) must price some people out of the market, so that their need for housing never manifests itself as a demand for housing.
#15235357
Potemkin wrote:Or, looking at it another way, so long as there is a free market in housing, then homelessness can never be eliminated. The problem is the free market, the problem is capitalism.

The “subsidies” are not “forced”, but are a direct consequence of the private ownership of land, which is perfectly legal under capitalism. And even if the land were to be confiscated from its legal owners by the government, the logic of the free market in housing would still exist - the market, in order to function as a free market (i.e., using the price mechanism to achieve equilibrium between supply and demand) must price some people out of the market, so that their need for housing never manifests itself as a demand for housing.


Nope, it merely creates the need for another product, .ie cheaper housing or social housing as the UK calls it.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

According to the Guardian newspaper, Zelenskiy is […]

The Problem Family separation at the border le[…]

Thailand mass tourism? Well, Thailand is infamous[…]

January 6 Hearings LIVE

When will Trump be arrested already? the evidence[…]