New York Times complains about lack of affordable "starter homes" - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15249034
Puffer Fish wrote:
It has already been tried under Reagan. The problem was, amnesty was given, but the promise to stop the flow over the border was not carried through.
Because of that, conservatives are going to be extremely skeptical of ever making such a bargain again, not without some guarantees and power to enforce the bargain.



Drlee wrote:
Not "conservatives". Employers.



Okay, *I'll* be the one to 'do the math' on that:



[Employers] are going to be extremely skeptical [...] [because] the promise to stop the flow over the border was not carried through.



This makes no sense, of course, since employers are of the *equity capital* economic faction, and have interests in *cheap over-the-border labor* for their productive inputs, while you 'conservatives' are obviously of the *obverse* faction, that of *rentier* capital -- which extracts payments from *the pre-existing economy*, meaning that rentier capital is only a *draw* on new value-making (from both capital and labor), from actual new commodity production (using *equity* capital).

Since you're indicating that you're an economic *monetarist*, favoring *strong nationalist currency values*, then you'd rather the U.S. be one giant non-productive *fort*, at whatever expense.

That's the kind of national stance in world politics that leads into Trumpist *tariffs*, sanctions, protectionism, and even building more wall coverage, at 15+ billion dollars of cost. We were just there a few moments ago (in political time), and Trump's domestic policy regime has been soundly *repudiated*, hence the Biden presidency.
#15249038
Crantag wrote:It's obviously mostly land speculation, and immigration has little to do with it.

its obviously not about land speculation, land speculation has nothing to do with it. You can only successfully speculate if prices are rising. Yes obviously individuals can make money by short selling but overall speculators can not make money out of a falling market.

Its very simple but most people seem too stupid to understand this. There isn't a fixed lump of labour, because there isn't a fixed lump of production. More workers can produce more goods and services. if immigration is concentrated amongst young childless adults then it can provide a temporary boost to the government balance sheet in the same way that heroine can give you a short term boost to how good you feel.

But there is a fixed lump of land (to a first approximation). As people get richer they get spend more on buying land, so there is ever more money chasing the same amount of land. This makes the people with land richer and the people without land poorer. The richer people spend even more money on land, leaving less land for the rest of us, further exacerbating the inequality. Immigration is not the only cause of rising land costs and the continual rise of house process and rents relative to income, this happens naturally as societies become richer, but it is a major cause.
#15249041

Migrant deaths along the Mexico–United States border

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

United States border with Mexico is one of the world's "most lethal land borders".[1] Hundreds of migrants die per year as they attempt to cross into the United States from Mexico illegally.[2] The US Border Patrol reported 251 migrant deaths in the fiscal year 2015 (ending September 30, 2015), which was lower than any year during the period 2000–2014, and reported 247 migrant deaths in fiscal year 2020, lower than any year since 1998.[3] US Border Patrol recorded 557 southwest border deaths during fiscal year 2021 and 748 in the first 11 months of fiscal year 2022, the most deaths ever recorded.[4]

Exposure (including heat stroke, dehydration, and hyperthermia) were the leading cause.[5]

The group Border Angels estimates that since 1994, about 10,000 people have died in their attempt to cross border.[6] According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 8,050 people have died crossing the U.S–Mexico border between 1998 and 2020.[3] In 2005, more than 500 died across the entire U.S.–Mexico border.[7] The number of yearly border crossing deaths doubled from 1995 to 2005,[8] and has since declined and then risen.[3] The statistics reflect only known deaths and do not include estimates for those who have never been found.[9] Some migrant deaths may go unreported even when they are brought to the attention of officials.[10]

Mexico's Secretariat of Foreign Affairs has compiled data including deaths on the Mexican side of the border area during the period from 1994 to 2000. The data shows 87 deaths in 1996, 149 in 1997, 329 in 1998, 358 in 1999, and 499 in 2000.[11]

U.S. Border Patrol reported that 3,417 migrants were rescued in the fiscal year 2017.[12]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_d ... tes_border
#15249042
Rich wrote:
Immigration is not the only cause of rising land costs



You're blaming humanity for growing in size and migrating, basically.

Remember, please, that '[exchange-value] rising land costs' is a *social construction* -- we, as a networked global society do *not* have to tolerate 'late capitalism', or *any* capitalism at all, for that matter. (Base and superstructure.)

The workers of the world don't *need* 'land costs'.


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
#15249047
Puffer Fish wrote:And now the land prices in Japan have become much more affordable, as Japan's population has been stagnant or declining.

Land prices crashed before the population decline began -- but idle landowning is still exorbitantly subsidized and land is thus extremely expensive by Western standards.
More so in areas outside of Tokyo, since all the young people want to move to Tokyo. But even in Tokyo too.

Yes, it's more pronounced in rural areas where population has declined dramatically. Thousands of rural schools have closed for lack of students.
Some people blame the policies of Japan's Central Bank for not letting housing prices fall in the wake of the real estate bubble bursting in 1991. The Central Bank did not want to let prices deflate.

IOW, the BoJ and MoF sacrificed the country's economy and a generation of young people on the altar of landowner privilege.
I will agree with you that there is an inverse relationship between land tax rates and real estate prices... although it does not necessarily make real estate any more affordable.

It does, because it reduces the something-for-nothing payments to landowners and mortgage lenders. Housing was quite affordable in CA before Proposition 13 slashed the property tax rate and then forced it relentlessly lower for the unearned profit of landowners.
Why does it seem most of those on the Left are the ones who support the Central Bank artificially keeping interest rates down?

The whole debt-money system is based on artificially keeping interest rates down to preserve the illusion that anyone can buy land.
#15249049
Truth To Power wrote:
The whole debt-money system is based on artificially keeping interest rates down to preserve the illusion that anyone can buy land.



You depict The Fed as being all-powerful, when it's actually been *trailing* real-world events, trying to catch up to lagging demand / oversupply, as with QE. Fast-forward to *today*, and rewarding already-existing-values / rentier-capital, is a flow historically *backward*, to valuating land parcels themselves, which you don't need / isn't capitalism anymore, then -- it's *feudalism*. ('Neo-feudalism'.)

The European energy tantrum and NATO-Russia showdown led to consumer inflation and infant *deaths* in Somalia (etc.), so then the Fed sold off bonds, adding to the slumping of velocity.
#15249053
ckaihatsu wrote:You depict The Fed as being all-powerful,

Garbage with no basis in fact, as usual. The Fed did not create the debt-money system. It just tries to manage its inherent positive feedback and consequent instability.
when it's actually been *trailing* real-world events, trying to catch up to lagging demand / oversupply, as with QE. Fast-forward to *today*, and rewarding already-existing-values / rentier-capital, is a flow historically *backward*, to valuating land parcels themselves, which you don't need / isn't capitalism anymore, then -- it's *feudalism*. ('Neo-feudalism'.)

Cannot parse.
The European energy tantrum and NATO-Russia showdown led to consumer inflation and infant *deaths* in Somalia (etc.), so then the Fed sold off bonds, adding to the slumping of velocity.

Non sequitur.
#15249054
Truth To Power wrote:
Garbage with no basis in fact, as usual. The Fed did not create the debt-money system. It just tries to manage its inherent positive feedback and consequent instability.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank


Truth To Power wrote:
Cannot parse.



Fed --> higher interest rate --> rewarding existing capital for existing (rents & interest)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The European energy tantrum and NATO-Russia showdown led to consumer inflation and infant *deaths* in Somalia (etc.), so then the Fed sold off bonds, adding to the slumping of velocity.



Truth To Power wrote:
Non sequitur.



Just focus on the *good* parts, whichever you think those may be.
#15249152
ckaihatsu wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank

And...?
Fed --> higher interest rate --> rewarding existing capital for existing (rents & interest)

Nope. Higher interest rates are good for those who have cash, and reduce the prices of yield-based assets. That's why the super-duper uber-rich got so much richer from the low interest rates.
#15249162
ckaihatsu wrote:
You depict The Fed as being all-powerful,



Truth To Power wrote:
Garbage with no basis in fact, as usual. The Fed did not create the debt-money system. It just tries to manage its inherent positive feedback and consequent instability.



ckaihatsu wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank



Truth To Power wrote:
And...?



You're not *addressing* what I'm saying -- you're merely *retreating*, to an uncontroversial *empirical* fact.

You *don't* have any objections to central banking / The Fed, so you prefer *centralization* on your side of economic (capitalist) things, while many of your ilk often preach the *opposite* -- 'decentralization' -- to the public.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Fed --> higher interest rate --> rewarding existing capital for existing (rents & interest)



Truth To Power wrote:
Nope. Higher interest rates are good for those who have cash, and reduce the prices of yield-based assets. That's why the super-duper uber-rich got so much richer from the low interest rates.



'Those-who-have-cash' *are* '[those receiving the] rewarding [of] existing capital'. Cash = capital, usually.

You're bolstering my claim, *for* me.

My point stands that those-who-have-cash / rentier capitalists (assets & resources) (non-productive), are being *rewarded* with public funds since the government has raised the interest rate -- which benefits *pre-existing* (rentier) capital / the 'haves'.


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show
Image
#15249165

The Panic of 1907, also known as the 1907 Bankers' Panic or Knickerbocker Crisis,[1] was a financial crisis that took place in the United States over a three-week period starting in mid-October, when the New York Stock Exchange fell almost 50% from its peak the previous year. The Panic occurred during a time of economic recession, and there were numerous runs on banks and on trust companies. The 1907 panic eventually spread throughout the nation when many state and local banks and businesses entered bankruptcy. The primary causes of the run included a retraction of market liquidity by a number of New York City banks and a loss of confidence among depositors, exacerbated by unregulated side bets at bucket shops.[2]

The panic was triggered by the failed attempt in October 1907 to corner the market on stock of the United Copper Company. When that bid failed, banks that had lent money to the cornering scheme suffered runs that later spread to affiliated banks and trusts, leading a week later to the downfall of the Knickerbocker Trust Company, New York City's third-largest trust. The collapse of the Knickerbocker spread fear throughout the city's trusts as regional banks withdrew reserves from New York City banks. Panic extended across the nation as vast numbers of people withdrew deposits from their regional banks. It is the 9th-largest decline in U.S. stock market history.[3]

The panic might have deepened if not for the intervention of financier J. P. Morgan,[4] who pledged large sums of his own money and convinced other New York bankers to do the same to shore up the banking system. That highlighted the limitations of the US Independent Treasury system, which managed the nation's money supply but was unable to inject sufficient liquidity back into the market.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907



---



The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve or simply the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States of America. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, after a series of financial panics (particularly the panic of 1907) led to the desire for central control of the monetary system in order to alleviate financial crises.[list 1] Over the years, events such as the Great Depression in the 1930s and the Great Recession during the 2000s have led to the expansion of the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System.[6][11][12]

The U.S. Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: maximizing employment, stabilizing prices, and moderating long-term interest rates.[13] The first two objectives are sometimes referred to as the Federal Reserve's dual mandate.[14]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve
#15249168
ckaihatsu wrote:You're not *addressing* what I'm saying -- you're merely *retreating*, to an uncontroversial *empirical* fact.

No, I'm explaining why you are objectively wrong.
You *don't* have any objections to central banking / The Fed, so you prefer *centralization* on your side of economic (capitalist) things, while many of your ilk often preach the *opposite* -- 'decentralization' -- to the public.

I'm not interested in what you erroneously imagine my "ilk" to be. Central banking is necessary under a debt money system, but I oppose the debt money system. I would prefer the money supply be controlled directly by an independent Mint that issues money directly to the national government to spend into circulation. Private commercial banks should not be able to increase the money supply.
'Those-who-have-cash' *are* '[those receiving the] rewarding [of] existing capital'. Cash = capital, usually.

Nope. That is just anti-economic Marxist garbage with no basis in fact. Many of the largest asset owners have very little cash, as the yield of their assets is pledged to debt repayment.
You're bolstering my claim, *for* me.

No. Because you are a Marxist, you have not the slightest understanding of the matter.
My point stands that those-who-have-cash / rentier capitalists (assets & resources) (non-productive), are being *rewarded* with public funds since the government has raised the interest rate -- which benefits *pre-existing* (rentier) capital / the 'haves'.

No, because all those claims are just false.

<absurd and anti-economic Marxist garbage snipped>
#15249172
Truth To Power wrote:
Private commercial banks should not be able to increase the money supply.



Stop-the-presses, huh -- ? Fractional reserve lending -- ? *That's* the 'problem' -- that I think back to, whenever I'm trying to fall asleep quickly.

So are we *done* here -- you can do better things with your time, now that the world knows, through PoFo, that it's all about fractional reserve lending, ladies and gentlemen. Drive safe!


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'Those-who-have-cash' *are* '[those receiving the] rewarding [of] existing capital'. Cash = capital, usually.



Truth To Power wrote:
Nope. That is just anti-economic Marxist garbage with no basis in fact. Many of the largest asset owners have very little cash, as the yield of their assets is pledged to debt repayment.



All-tied-up, and underwater, huh? (grin)

Once again you have no tangential argument, try as you might -- if capitalism has 'losers', as you're indicating, then what kind of a free-for-all chaotic mess *is* the market system, anyway -- !

Maybe the world needs a system of distribution based on human *need*, and not on the world-of-its-own *financial* valuations -- featuring market crashes, runs on the banks, public subsidizations, economic seizing-up, etc.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
#15249254
ckaihatsu wrote:Fractional reserve lending -- ? *That's* the 'problem' -- that I think back to, whenever I'm trying to fall asleep quickly.

It's a problem.

Now you can go back to sleep.
All-tied-up, and underwater, huh? (grin)

Maybe -- not that they don't deserve it.
Once again you have no tangential argument, try as you might -- if capitalism has 'losers', as you're indicating, then what kind of a free-for-all chaotic mess *is* the market system, anyway -- !

Markets are better than force, and free markets are better than privilege markets.
Maybe the world needs a system of distribution based on human *need*, and not on the world-of-its-own *financial* valuations -- featuring market crashes, runs on the banks, public subsidizations, economic seizing-up, etc.

Or maybe it needs something you cannot tolerate anyone knowing is even conceivable: a system of distribution based on JUSTICE.
#15249262
Truth To Power wrote:
It's a problem.

Now you can go back to sleep.



Good -- *someone* has to waste their time worrying about the fractional-reserve ratio, or Libor, or whatever -- it's not gonna be *me* -- !


Truth To Power wrote:
Maybe -- not that they don't deserve it.

Markets are better than force, and free markets are better than privilege markets.



Where do you stand on the 'border' issue -- I've been arguing on another thread that the U.S. should not be spending on 'physical tariffs', or national border walls, since Trumpist protectionism has now been repudiated.


Truth To Power wrote:
Or maybe it needs something you cannot tolerate anyone knowing is even conceivable: a system of distribution based on JUSTICE.



'Justice' is mostly a *cultural* / civil-society concern for the *bourgeoisie*, around *property rights* -- like you with your monetarist 'equity heaven' idealism, and advocacy of capitalist central banking.

On the *civil-society* / civil *rights* side of things, there *are* reformists who raise *civil rights* issues, like killer cops, police brutality, etc.
#15249472
Look up "Australia Rental Crisis".

Apparently this is as big of an issue in Australia as it is in the U.S.

However, the causes in Australia are a little bit more complicated. Wealthy Chinese are buying up the properties in the most desirable areas. (A result of long term trade imbalances in the past, that allowed China to accumulate lots of foreign currency)
It's only about half caused by immigration.
#15249484
Puffer Fish wrote:Apparently this is as big of an issue in Australia as it is in the U.S.

However, the causes in Australia are a little bit more complicated. Wealthy Chinese are buying up the properties in the most desirable areas. (A result of long term trade imbalances in the past, that allowed China to accumulate lots of foreign currency)
It's only about half caused by immigration.


Australia has an insane housing bubble, however the idea that wealthy Chinese investors are one of the most significant causes is mainly just a myth perpetuated in Australia because people here don't like China. House prices in capital cities rose more than 10% from the start of the covid lockdowns to the last of them, and to my understanding rents have been rising even more than that. Chinese investment in general has been decreasing for several years, and Chinese investment in property is already at lower levels than American and British investment. In reality, deregulation of the financial sector, low capital gains taxation and high population growth have been much more significant.
#15249495
We have seen nothing yet. The housing market is in the midst of a huge correction now. Housing prices on Zillow have dropped for three months in a row. And not a little. A lot. But why?

Well. For the average person a year ago the interest rate on a house was around 3%. So the payments on a $400,000 house with typical taxes and insurance was $1732.00 a month. Today, at 7% that same house costs over $2500.00. That is a huge difference. Never mind that the $80,000.00 down payment required to get these rates and payments is absurdly beyond the ability of the average family in the US. If they did have that money inherited from grandpa . Or that this house I am illustrating this with is below the median price of a home in America. Or that 40% of US workers earn too little to afford a one bedroom apartment in the area in which they live.

This is not rocket science. The reason we have a housing problem is that there are too few people qualified to buy a home. So there is little incentive to build more. And the corporate entities that are building are going after the high end market because, like banks, that's where the money is.
#15249503
ckaihatsu wrote:Where do you stand on the 'border' issue -- I've been arguing on another thread that the U.S. should not be spending on 'physical tariffs', or national border walls, since Trumpist protectionism has now been repudiated.

IMO it's ironic that the USA, which was built on unrestricted immigration, is now largely anti-immigrant. As a general rule, I think borders should be open. People should be able to choose where they live. But in practice, a lot of countries are $#!=-holes (often at least in part because of US interference) that people want to escape to have a better life, and communities do have a right to keep out invaders.
'Justice' is mostly a *cultural* / civil-society concern for the *bourgeoisie*, around *property rights*

It is self-evident justice that people have property rights in the fruits of their labor, as that is the reward commensurate with their contribution.
-- like you with your monetarist 'equity heaven' idealism, and advocacy of capitalist central banking.

No. Central banking is associated with finance capitalism because of the debt money system, which I oppose. In a just monetary system, the function of the central bank would mainly be oversight, and the money supply would be managed by an independent Mint.
On the *civil-society* / civil *rights* side of things, there *are* reformists who raise *civil rights* issues, like killer cops, police brutality, etc.

The subject was distributive justice. Rights to life and liberty are only tangentially involved.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11

They have these things called facts. When the[…]

The Higgins Trial

Being that the judge was a female, I suspect the […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

No, the reason for the ‘Holodomor’ was to secure […]

https://assangedefense.org/wp-content/upl[…]