Why is There a Housing Crisis?

[Loren Pechtel]

Taxation is a form of central management.

But it is democratic. We elect the people who raise our taxes.

The fed can do anything it wants at any time and I do not even get to vote for them.

Your cult leader doesn't like the Fed because they won't turn up the fire before an election. Give "democratic" control and you'll get an inflation spike after every election. We need people at the helm who look to the long term, not just the next election. Compare Warren Buffet to Wall Street to see the difference.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, this is why rent control exists in cities. Because without it, housing would be more affordable?

Without the fed and without all the other governmental incompetence, there probably would and should not be any rent control either. Let the individual decide whats best for him (her) self.

<Thwack with the clue-by-4!>
It's democratic control that causes things like rent control! People scream about rent, politicians impose rent controls which help in the short run but lead to shortages of places to rent in the long run.

You've got the blame backwards. Everything you're blaming on the Fed is really the result of the politicians, especially the right wing politicians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You know, you are going to find it incredibly hard in life to discuss such concepts when you apparently don't understand anything about them.

Let the market decide? Without rent control, the proles wouldn't be able to live in the city. The free market would have kicked them out for higher (much higher) paying tenants.

For example, see Sedona!

Understand? Why? Listen to the cult leader, they know the truth!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The people making over $200k/year need to pay a LOT more tax than they do now. Especially in the locations with high home prices.

No we fucking don't.

I don't like to pay taxes either. In fact, I don't think anyone likes to pay taxes. I'm just saying this is the easiest and fastest way to fix a broke housing market. Because the only way everyone can have equal access to an artificial high price market is to reduce the disparity of after tax disposable buying power. Then when the high wage earners can't bid a house so high the price will come down to a reasonable level again.

If you are in the high income camp, would you rather pay high taxes and still have all the infrastructure that has to be done by low income people? Or would you rather have low taxes and live in an area with high crime, extreme squalor and people pooping everywhere? I would vote the former instead of the latter however you might feel differently. Especially if you only viewed the city as your work and planned to move out after making some cash.

But the biggest point is that it would be something everyone gets to vote for or against. That's not the case with the fed.

In other words, yet another flavor of eat the rich.

You'll dine well for a while, then have a catastrophic crash.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In fact, I don't think anyone likes to pay taxes.

Not true. Most people understand that to have a functioning society and government taxation is requirement. But people do not like to see their tax dollars get wasted on shit.

The problem is people have different definitions of shit.

I'm just saying this is the easiest and fastest way to fix a broke housing market.

Government interference rarely fixes anything. Usually government makes things worse.

Things government tries to fix are mostly things which are inherently unfixable, all that can be done is improve the situation.

Where government does the most good is prevent. Things like the EPA.

If you are in the high income camp, would you rather pay high taxes and still have all the infrastructure that has to be done by low income people? Or would you rather have low taxes and live in an area with high crime, extreme squalor and people pooping everywhere?

What the fuck are you on about? I live in Los Angeles, I have high taxes and am surrounded by crime and squalor and you want me to pay more in taxes? Get outta here.

He's after eat the rich.

Note, though, that red states on average have more crime than blue states.

 

[laughing dog]

But the biggest point is that it would be something everyone gets to vote for or against. That's not the case with the fed.

This question will not leave my impoverished brain - are you also against the SCOTUS because everyone does not get to directly vote for the justices? Yes, they are appointed by and confirmed by elected officials. But is the head of the FRB is also appointed and confirmed by elected officials. The big differences are
1) that SCOTUS justices are lifetime appointments while the chair of the FRB is a 7 year renewal appointment, and
2) the FRB is established and maintained by Congressional acoion which can be much more easily changed than the US Constitution which established and maintains the SCOTUS.

 

[Elixir]

red states on average have more crime than blue states.

Why do our libberpublicans think that might be the case? Places where their priorities are elevated, crime runs rampant. Yet they contend that giving those poor people independence from the oppression of liberalism, should enable them to thrive (without committing crimes).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't want to vote on Fed action! I'm not remotely arrogant enough to think I belong in that room.

Its perfectly fine with me if you want to trust other people who say they are smarter than you.

I would rather vote for my destiny because I believe in democracy.

1) "Smart" isn't a unary thing. One person can know more about a given field without being smarter overall.

2) I would much prefer to find the best people and listen to them rather than pretend that I can be an expert in every field.

And note that you have repeatedly shown your lack of economic understanding.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

red states on average have more crime than blue states.

Why do our libberpublicans think that might be the case? Places where their priorities are elevated, crime runs rampant. Yet they contend that giving those poor people independence from the oppression of liberalism, should enable them to thrive (without committing crimes).

Their dodge is that the crime is concentrated in the blue cities.

Well, duh, it's Republican policy to starve blue cities in red states. Is it any wonder they tend to have trouble?

 

[Toni]

Taxation is a form of central management.

But it is democratic. We elect the people who raise our taxes.

The fed can do anything it wants at any time and I do not even get to vote for them.

Which is a good thing. Centralized monetary policy should not be regulated by people who have the most to gain in the short-term.

Short term??! Congress can't pass a budget that lasts more than 2 months! They can't pass simple bills (border, funding for Ukraine and Israel, and etc) that a majority approve of. And we want them to know determine long term interest rates that will have lasting implications on our economy for a generation?! No thanks.....

Because they are only thinking short term/self interest.

I would argue that most policy should not be determined by people whose decisions are guided by self interest , especially short term self interest.

 

[Toni]

I'm not against taxation as long as I am represented. Even the hardest core libertarians like Ron Paul recognize the need for public common infrastructure and that it has to be paid for.

But after that it makes more sense to let the free market determine prices rather than put in place some soviet style elite group to run our economy. And free market capitalism is more democratic as well.

To characterize people who are appointed by democratically elected officials as "some soviet style elite group" is hyperbolic rhetoric.

Free market capitalism is voting with dollars. I don't view that as "more democratic" than voting to elect people who appoint others.

Certainly it is less democratic as free market capitalism gives most/all the power to those with the most dollars. Current system is already too heavily skewed in that direction, with wealthy bankrolling those who will enact laws and rules/regs that allow them to keep as many of their dollars and hopefully increase their share, rather than enact laws and policies that favor the best outcomes for the most people.

 

[Elixir]

I'm not against taxation as long as I am represented. Even the hardest core libertarians like Ron Paul recognize the need for public common infrastructure and that it has to be paid for.

But after that it makes more sense to let the free market determine prices rather than put in place some soviet style elite group to run our economy. And free market capitalism is more democratic as well.

To characterize people who are appointed by democratically elected officials as "some soviet style elite group" is hyperbolic rhetoric.

Free market capitalism is voting with dollars. I don't view that as "more democratic" than voting to elect people who appoint others.

Certainly it is less democratic as free market capitalism gives most/all the power to those with the most dollars. Current system is already too heavily skewed in that direction, with wealthy bankrolling those who will enact laws and rules/regs that allow them to keep as many of their dollars and hopefully increase their share, rather than enact laws and policies that favor the best outcomes for the most people.

Citizens United was a fatal wound to any prospect of “best outcome for most people”, I believe. The more concentrated power and wealth become in the hands of oligarchs, the harder it will be to reverse the trend. We’re going to end up with a vision of the TrumPutin variety unless there is a very hard turn to the left this fall. It might take a few more cycles, but it is becoming inevitable, because that’s what those with most of the power want. They will make sure they get what they want, because they can. It may be too late already.
I don’t have a platform, but if I did, it would be
VOTE - THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE

 

[Toni]

I'm not against taxation as long as I am represented. Even the hardest core libertarians like Ron Paul recognize the need for public common infrastructure and that it has to be paid for.

But after that it makes more sense to let the free market determine prices rather than put in place some soviet style elite group to run our economy. And free market capitalism is more democratic as well.

To characterize people who are appointed by democratically elected officials as "some soviet style elite group" is hyperbolic rhetoric.

Free market capitalism is voting with dollars. I don't view that as "more democratic" than voting to elect people who appoint others.

Certainly it is less democratic as free market capitalism gives most/all the power to those with the most dollars. Current system is already too heavily skewed in that direction, with wealthy bankrolling those who will enact laws and rules/regs that allow them to keep as many of their dollars and hopefully increase their share, rather than enact laws and policies that favor the best outcomes for the most people.

Citizens United was a fatal wound to any prospect of “best outcome for most people”, I believe. The more concentrated power and wealth become in the hands of oligarchs, the harder it will be to reverse the trend. We’re going to end up with a vision of the TrumPutin variety unless there is a very hard turn to the left this fall. It might take a few more cycles, but it is becoming inevitable, because that’s what those with most of the power want. They will make sure they get what they want, because they can. It may be too late already.
I don’t have a platform, but if I did, it would be
VOTE - THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE

I don’t disagree. Maybe I’m a tad more optimistic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not against taxation as long as I am represented. Even the hardest core libertarians like Ron Paul recognize the need for public common infrastructure and that it has to be paid for.

But after that it makes more sense to let the free market determine prices rather than put in place some soviet style elite group to run our economy. And free market capitalism is more democratic as well.

To characterize people who are appointed by democratically elected officials as "some soviet style elite group" is hyperbolic rhetoric.

Free market capitalism is voting with dollars. I don't view that as "more democratic" than voting to elect people who appoint others.

Certainly it is less democratic as free market capitalism gives most/all the power to those with the most dollars.

I read these "free market" posts and ponder how someone can have never heard of the 19th Century. Slave wages, corporate stores/housing, black listing.

Oh but that isn't a free market either, what I support is an IPU that can't actually exist, and we need to incorporate that now!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

red states on average have more crime than blue states.

Why do our libberpublicans think that might be the case? Places where their priorities are elevated, crime runs rampant. Yet they contend that giving those poor people independence from the oppression of liberalism, should enable them to thrive (without committing crimes).

Their dodge is that the crime is concentrated in the blue cities.

Well, duh, it's Republican policy to starve blue cities in red states. Is it any wonder they tend to have trouble?

I wish cities would run stronger on that. The GOP in the legislature in Columbus have done a fine and dandy job "cutting taxes" all the while my (and everyone else's) local taxes have gone up. Then the cities try to manage their affairs Columbus comes in with a big stick saying cities can pass laws that manage those affairs.

 

[ZiprHead]

1) "Smart" isn't a unary thing. One person can know more about a given field without being smarter overall.

I thought that said urinary at first.

 

[Toni]

red states on average have more crime than blue states.

Why do our libberpublicans think that might be the case? Places where their priorities are elevated, crime runs rampant. Yet they contend that giving those poor people independence from the oppression of liberalism, should enable them to thrive (without committing crimes).

Their dodge is that the crime is concentrated in the blue cities.

Well, duh, it's Republican policy to starve blue cities in red states. Is it any wonder they tend to have trouble?

I wish cities would run stronger on that. The GOP in the legislature in Columbus have done a fine and dandy job "cutting taxes" all the while my (and everyone else's) local taxes have gone up. Then the cities try to manage their affairs Columbus comes in with a big stick saying cities can pass laws that manage those affairs.

Exactly: it’s very evident in my hometown as well.

 

[bilby]

1) "Smart" isn't a unary thing. One person can know more about a given field without being smarter overall.

I thought that said urinary at first.

That would just be taking the piss.

 

[RVonse]

Taxation is a form of central management.

But it is democratic. We elect the people who raise our taxes.

The fed can do anything it wants at any time and I do not even get to vote for them.

Your cult leader doesn't like the Fed because they won't turn up the fire before an election. Give "democratic" control and you'll get an inflation spike after every election. We need people at the helm who look to the long term, not just the next election. Compare Warren Buffet to Wall Street to see the difference.

Who is my cult leader? Trump or Ron Paul? Trump has never advocated getting rid of the fed that is what Ron Paul wants.

But more importantly, I can agree with Ron Paul without becoming in a cult. We just don't want a fed in the first place because we know there wasn't one before 1913. It was a bad solution to a non problem at that time that did no good at all stopping the great depression. So without having a fed in the first place your arguing we want it to be "democratically controlled" makes no sense at all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your cult leader doesn't like the Fed because they won't turn up the fire before an election. Give "democratic" control and you'll get an inflation spike after every election. We need people at the helm who look to the long term, not just the next election. Compare Warren Buffet to Wall Street to see the difference.

Who is my cult leader? Trump or Ron Paul? Trump has never advocated getting rid of the fed that is what Ron Paul wants.

But more importantly, I can agree with Ron Paul without becoming in a cult. We just don't want a fed in the first place because we know there wasn't one before 1913. It was a bad solution to a non problem at that time that did no good at all stopping the great depression.

FFS! Why do you post on a web board if you don't listen to anyone else that posts there? The Fed was put into place because there WAS a problem. The great depression was made worse due to isolationist tactics that the world didn't employ in 2008, which prevented a second Great Depression. The Fed is like the UN. It isn't there to solve every economic problem. It is trying to reduce the severity of them. And it's done a pretty good job.

But I look forward to your post in another month saying the Fed was created to fix a non-existent problem.