|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On June 06 2019 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 02:46 Nebuchad wrote:On June 06 2019 02:13 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 01:34 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2019 00:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 05 2019 16:57 Acrofales wrote:On June 05 2019 12:09 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2019 11:05 JimmiC wrote:
What technological advancements has socialism produced so far? And this is not me saying that capitalism is better then socialism. It is me wanting some sort of proof other than your word that capitalism is 100% the problem and that socialism will create a utopia of equality. Because so far changing the ism has changed the group that is advantaged, but not created the equality you seem convinced will be achieved. So far culture, psychology, education, norms and a whole bunch of other factors have shown to have a much larger impact than which ism you run politically. Soviet scientists were pretty good. Numerous nobel prizes in a highly charged political atmosphere. Numerous inventions. Perhaps you have forgotten Sputnik? Post-WW2 Soviet Union had abandoned all pretenses of being socialist in anything but name only, though. But I do agree the premise is stupid. Most scientific breakthroughs don't come with profit in mind and tend to rely heavily on public funding. That is "socialist", regardless of what "ism" claims to be in power. Again, what are we talking about? Socialist approaches to science work when singular goals requiring massive resources are being pursued. The cost of this approach is that lesser innovation and breakthroughs get ignored. Stated another way, there was nothing wrong with Soviet scientists. What was wrong was how the state deployed them. Capitalist approaches to science are the reason we still don’t have fusion while the brightest scientific minds and the best equipped labs are dedicated to finding ways to make a hairspray that will unfrizz your hair. It’s also why the smartest financial minds with the most advanced modeling tools are dedicated to ensuring that as much wealth moves upwards as possible. This is 100% nonsense. The "scientists creating new hairsprays" and other seemingly trivial products are the difference between the wealthy US and the impoverished USSR. Those scientists may not be creating groundbreaking new technologies, but, cumulatively, they are integral to the process of capital formation and wealth generation. This ongoing and continuous creation of wealth and capital generates the resources that can then be applied to massive research projects. This is why the US was able to far-outpace the USSR in technological development. Not just on trivial things like hairspray, but also on the very technologies that gave birth to the Information Age. Bolded is the weak part of that argument. We've generated the profits, now comes the part where you have to tie that to innovation so that the defense works, and that tie is very weak. It's important to understand that as members of the capitalist class we don't have any direct incentive to apply those profits to massive research projects. Quite the opposite actually, as a lot of the research that we could work on has the potential to be immediately counterproductive. Edit: also it's starting to get annoying that half of the socialist vs capitalist arguments are framed in terms of more state and less state but I guess that's to be expected... Just picture me unimpressed. There's nothing weak about the bolded part at all. That's how it actually works in practice. The government taxes the private economy and then spends money on specific items for the theoretical public good. The key point is that the amount that the government is able to tax is a function of the strength and wealth of the private economy. If the private economy goes into the shitter, then the public funding of specific projects goes into the shitter as well. And I disagree with the proposition that capitalists have no incentive to invest into massive research projects. They absolutely do, which is why they do invest in such projects through public/private partnerships. The limiting factor for the capitalist is the amount of capital at their disposal. There simply is no capitalist that is big enough to tackle the same types of projects that the government can. Lastly, be annoyed all you want about the framing of socialism in terms of the size of the state. That's exactly how it always works in practice. And that's how it necessarily will work en route to your utopia in which all workers collectively own all capital. That doesn't happen without massive state intervention. The government taxes the private economy and then... mostly does what the private economy wants because they are the people who have the most power and influence. The theoretical public good is especially theoretical in that it is entirely secondary as a consideration.
Eh, sort of. There's certainly a level of corruption in the exercise of government power and spending, which, quite frankly, is a strong argument for reducing government's power. But taking the US as an example, most of the spending is pretty clearly intended to be for public benefit, even if people disagree over specific line items.
It's fairly easy to come up with a bunch of scenarios where capitalists are at odds with research. If you sell some expensive medication that someone has to take for their whole life, and then research finds a cure, you lose all those future sales on your medication. Coal and petrol are directly impacted by research on climate change and on renewable energy. People who sold products with sugar used to not be fans of research on the link between sugar and obesity, people who sold cigarettes used to not be fans of research on the link between smoking and cancer. It's consistent with what we see happen in the real world and it's consistent with ideology too, as there's no direct link between being profitable and being true, or being informed.
Sure, specific capitalists may be opposed to certain kinds of research, but that doesn't mean that all capitalists are or that certain research will not be funded privately. This is simply an inherent feature and consequence of natural capitalist competition. Again, what we want is to let market forces naturally determine the outcomes of these disputes to the extent possible rather than have government dictate certain outcomes. The former promotes efficient allocations of resources. The latter promotes cronyism.
Saying that "socialism can only work with a big government" is quite different from arguing as if socialism equals big government and capitalism equals small government, which is what I was reacting to in the thread (not targeted at you specifically)
The fact of the matter is that socialism is big, authoritarian government by definition. Socialism requires the taking of property from one group of people and giving it to a different group of people. That doesn't happen without authoritarian government intervention. Now, you can certainly have largely capitalist societies with some socialist intervention (that's what pretty much all Western-style countries are), but that doesn't change the fact that the socialist interventions are fundamentally the uses of government authoritarian force.
|
A military are fundamentally the uses of government authoritarian force.
A police force are fundamentally the uses of government authoritarian force.
A Fire Service are fundamentally the uses of government authoritarian force.
Roads and railways and public transport fundamentally the uses of government authoritarian force.
A national health service is fundamentally the uses of government authoritarian force.
Sanitation are fundamentally the uses of government authoritarian force.
That's society. A hermit living alone owning land is fundamentally the beneficiary of government authoritarian force to enforce land ownership laws. All laws and legislations fundamentally the uses of government authoritarian force since the beginning of human civilisation. All of human society is based on the abilty to use authoritarian force as long as there is a society, since recorded history and prehistory. What's your point?
|
On June 06 2019 06:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:On June 06 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 02:46 Nebuchad wrote:On June 06 2019 02:13 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 01:34 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2019 00:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 05 2019 16:57 Acrofales wrote:On June 05 2019 12:09 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2019 11:05 JimmiC wrote:
What technological advancements has socialism produced so far? And this is not me saying that capitalism is better then socialism. It is me wanting some sort of proof other than your word that capitalism is 100% the problem and that socialism will create a utopia of equality. Because so far changing the ism has changed the group that is advantaged, but not created the equality you seem convinced will be achieved. So far culture, psychology, education, norms and a whole bunch of other factors have shown to have a much larger impact than which ism you run politically. Soviet scientists were pretty good. Numerous nobel prizes in a highly charged political atmosphere. Numerous inventions. Perhaps you have forgotten Sputnik? Post-WW2 Soviet Union had abandoned all pretenses of being socialist in anything but name only, though. But I do agree the premise is stupid. Most scientific breakthroughs don't come with profit in mind and tend to rely heavily on public funding. That is "socialist", regardless of what "ism" claims to be in power. Again, what are we talking about? Socialist approaches to science work when singular goals requiring massive resources are being pursued. The cost of this approach is that lesser innovation and breakthroughs get ignored. Stated another way, there was nothing wrong with Soviet scientists. What was wrong was how the state deployed them. Capitalist approaches to science are the reason we still don’t have fusion while the brightest scientific minds and the best equipped labs are dedicated to finding ways to make a hairspray that will unfrizz your hair. It’s also why the smartest financial minds with the most advanced modeling tools are dedicated to ensuring that as much wealth moves upwards as possible. This is 100% nonsense. The "scientists creating new hairsprays" and other seemingly trivial products are the difference between the wealthy US and the impoverished USSR. Those scientists may not be creating groundbreaking new technologies, but, cumulatively, they are integral to the process of capital formation and wealth generation. This ongoing and continuous creation of wealth and capital generates the resources that can then be applied to massive research projects. This is why the US was able to far-outpace the USSR in technological development. Not just on trivial things like hairspray, but also on the very technologies that gave birth to the Information Age. Bolded is the weak part of that argument. We've generated the profits, now comes the part where you have to tie that to innovation so that the defense works, and that tie is very weak. It's important to understand that as members of the capitalist class we don't have any direct incentive to apply those profits to massive research projects. Quite the opposite actually, as a lot of the research that we could work on has the potential to be immediately counterproductive. Edit: also it's starting to get annoying that half of the socialist vs capitalist arguments are framed in terms of more state and less state but I guess that's to be expected... Just picture me unimpressed. There's nothing weak about the bolded part at all. That's how it actually works in practice. The government taxes the private economy and then spends money on specific items for the theoretical public good. The key point is that the amount that the government is able to tax is a function of the strength and wealth of the private economy. If the private economy goes into the shitter, then the public funding of specific projects goes into the shitter as well. And I disagree with the proposition that capitalists have no incentive to invest into massive research projects. They absolutely do, which is why they do invest in such projects through public/private partnerships. The limiting factor for the capitalist is the amount of capital at their disposal. There simply is no capitalist that is big enough to tackle the same types of projects that the government can. Lastly, be annoyed all you want about the framing of socialism in terms of the size of the state. That's exactly how it always works in practice. And that's how it necessarily will work en route to your utopia in which all workers collectively own all capital. That doesn't happen without massive state intervention. The government taxes the private economy and then... mostly does what the private economy wants because they are the people who have the most power and influence. The theoretical public good is especially theoretical in that it is entirely secondary as a consideration. Eh, sort of. There's certainly a level of corruption in the exercise of government power and spending, which, quite frankly, is a strong argument for reducing government's power. But taking the US as an example, most of the spending is pretty clearly intended to be for public benefit, even if people disagree over specific line items. Show nested quote +It's fairly easy to come up with a bunch of scenarios where capitalists are at odds with research. If you sell some expensive medication that someone has to take for their whole life, and then research finds a cure, you lose all those future sales on your medication. Coal and petrol are directly impacted by research on climate change and on renewable energy. People who sold products with sugar used to not be fans of research on the link between sugar and obesity, people who sold cigarettes used to not be fans of research on the link between smoking and cancer. It's consistent with what we see happen in the real world and it's consistent with ideology too, as there's no direct link between being profitable and being true, or being informed. Sure, specific capitalists may be opposed to certain kinds of research, but that doesn't mean that all capitalists are or that certain research will not be funded privately. This is simply an inherent feature and consequence of natural capitalist competition. Again, what we want is to let market forces naturally determine the outcomes of these disputes to the extent possible rather than have government dictate certain outcomes. The former promotes efficient allocations of resources. The latter promotes cronyism. Show nested quote +Saying that "socialism can only work with a big government" is quite different from arguing as if socialism equals big government and capitalism equals small government, which is what I was reacting to in the thread (not targeted at you specifically) The fact of the matter is that socialism is big, authoritarian government by definition. Socialism requires the taking of property from one group of people and giving it to a different group of people. That doesn't happen without authoritarian government intervention. Now, you can certainly have largely capitalist societies with some socialist intervention (that's what pretty much all Western-style countries are), but that doesn't change the fact that the socialist interventions are fundamentally the uses of government authoritarian force.
Once again I'd like to bring your attention to how differently you treat socialism and lack of government intervention. In both cases we're talking about a goal that you perceive as good but impossible, but in the case of small government you want the government as small as possible, and in the case of socialism you want... full capitalism. There is a tension there.
I bring it up again because it's relevant to how you describe the situation. In the no government column, we have a firmly ideological description, where the markets are free to do what they want and outcomes are decided naturally, and that's efficient and desirable and good. In the socialism column, socialism is impossible and we're left with authoritarianism and big government.
Here's a description of libertarianism that is consistent with how you treat socialism: libertarianism wants no intervention on the free market, however it's impossible; as a result the only thing that's left is a weak government that is easily abused by crony capitalists and corrupt politicians, and there's a huge incentive to abuse that government because it's 100% safe and one of the quickest ways of maximizing personal profit. Therefore it's fair to equate libertarianism and cronyism.
|
On June 06 2019 06:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:On June 06 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 02:46 Nebuchad wrote:On June 06 2019 02:13 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 01:34 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2019 00:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 05 2019 16:57 Acrofales wrote:On June 05 2019 12:09 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Soviet scientists were pretty good. Numerous nobel prizes in a highly charged political atmosphere. Numerous inventions. Perhaps you have forgotten Sputnik? Post-WW2 Soviet Union had abandoned all pretenses of being socialist in anything but name only, though. But I do agree the premise is stupid. Most scientific breakthroughs don't come with profit in mind and tend to rely heavily on public funding. That is "socialist", regardless of what "ism" claims to be in power. Again, what are we talking about? Socialist approaches to science work when singular goals requiring massive resources are being pursued. The cost of this approach is that lesser innovation and breakthroughs get ignored. Stated another way, there was nothing wrong with Soviet scientists. What was wrong was how the state deployed them. Capitalist approaches to science are the reason we still don’t have fusion while the brightest scientific minds and the best equipped labs are dedicated to finding ways to make a hairspray that will unfrizz your hair. It’s also why the smartest financial minds with the most advanced modeling tools are dedicated to ensuring that as much wealth moves upwards as possible. This is 100% nonsense. The "scientists creating new hairsprays" and other seemingly trivial products are the difference between the wealthy US and the impoverished USSR. Those scientists may not be creating groundbreaking new technologies, but, cumulatively, they are integral to the process of capital formation and wealth generation. This ongoing and continuous creation of wealth and capital generates the resources that can then be applied to massive research projects. This is why the US was able to far-outpace the USSR in technological development. Not just on trivial things like hairspray, but also on the very technologies that gave birth to the Information Age. Bolded is the weak part of that argument. We've generated the profits, now comes the part where you have to tie that to innovation so that the defense works, and that tie is very weak. It's important to understand that as members of the capitalist class we don't have any direct incentive to apply those profits to massive research projects. Quite the opposite actually, as a lot of the research that we could work on has the potential to be immediately counterproductive. Edit: also it's starting to get annoying that half of the socialist vs capitalist arguments are framed in terms of more state and less state but I guess that's to be expected... Just picture me unimpressed. There's nothing weak about the bolded part at all. That's how it actually works in practice. The government taxes the private economy and then spends money on specific items for the theoretical public good. The key point is that the amount that the government is able to tax is a function of the strength and wealth of the private economy. If the private economy goes into the shitter, then the public funding of specific projects goes into the shitter as well. And I disagree with the proposition that capitalists have no incentive to invest into massive research projects. They absolutely do, which is why they do invest in such projects through public/private partnerships. The limiting factor for the capitalist is the amount of capital at their disposal. There simply is no capitalist that is big enough to tackle the same types of projects that the government can. Lastly, be annoyed all you want about the framing of socialism in terms of the size of the state. That's exactly how it always works in practice. And that's how it necessarily will work en route to your utopia in which all workers collectively own all capital. That doesn't happen without massive state intervention. The government taxes the private economy and then... mostly does what the private economy wants because they are the people who have the most power and influence. The theoretical public good is especially theoretical in that it is entirely secondary as a consideration. Eh, sort of. There's certainly a level of corruption in the exercise of government power and spending, which, quite frankly, is a strong argument for reducing government's power. But taking the US as an example, most of the spending is pretty clearly intended to be for public benefit, even if people disagree over specific line items. It's fairly easy to come up with a bunch of scenarios where capitalists are at odds with research. If you sell some expensive medication that someone has to take for their whole life, and then research finds a cure, you lose all those future sales on your medication. Coal and petrol are directly impacted by research on climate change and on renewable energy. People who sold products with sugar used to not be fans of research on the link between sugar and obesity, people who sold cigarettes used to not be fans of research on the link between smoking and cancer. It's consistent with what we see happen in the real world and it's consistent with ideology too, as there's no direct link between being profitable and being true, or being informed. Sure, specific capitalists may be opposed to certain kinds of research, but that doesn't mean that all capitalists are or that certain research will not be funded privately. This is simply an inherent feature and consequence of natural capitalist competition. Again, what we want is to let market forces naturally determine the outcomes of these disputes to the extent possible rather than have government dictate certain outcomes. The former promotes efficient allocations of resources. The latter promotes cronyism. Saying that "socialism can only work with a big government" is quite different from arguing as if socialism equals big government and capitalism equals small government, which is what I was reacting to in the thread (not targeted at you specifically) The fact of the matter is that socialism is big, authoritarian government by definition. Socialism requires the taking of property from one group of people and giving it to a different group of people. That doesn't happen without authoritarian government intervention. Now, you can certainly have largely capitalist societies with some socialist intervention (that's what pretty much all Western-style countries are), but that doesn't change the fact that the socialist interventions are fundamentally the uses of government authoritarian force. Once again I'd like to bring your attention to how differently you treat socialism and lack of government intervention. In both cases we're talking about a goal that you perceive as good but impossible, but in the case of small government you want the government as small as possible, and in the case of socialism you want... full capitalism. There is a tension there. I bring it up again because it's relevant to how you describe the situation. In the no government column, we have a firmly ideological description, where the markets are free to do what they want and outcomes are decided naturally, and that's efficient and desirable and good. In the socialism column, socialism is impossible and we're left with authoritarianism and big government. Here's a description of libertarianism that is consistent with how you treat socialism: libertarianism wants no intervention on the free market, however it's impossible; as a result the only thing that's left is a weak government that is easily abused by crony capitalists and corrupt politicians, and there's a huge incentive to abuse that government because it's 100% safe and one of the quickest ways of maximizing personal profit. Therefore it's fair to equate libertarianism and cronyism.
There's no inconsistency in what I'm saying at all. A socialist system is one in which there is a bunch of government intervention. A capitalist system is one in which there is minimal government intervention. It's really not much more difficult than that. My point and use of terminology show that I'm less concerned with categorizing systems as capitalist or socialist than I am with simply looking at the underlying application of government force that is used in a given system.
|
Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit:
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said.
Source.
The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground.
|
On June 06 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit: Show nested quote +Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said. Source. The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground.
When places like Utah have shown it is cheaper to house people than to otherwise deal with the homeless, I think it is just good policy. If you want to save money, you should give homeless people places to live. I wish more than anything that Portland would do the same thing. The homeless situation in Portland is bad enough that there are some areas I'd rather just avoid. the costs of homelessness and the things that homeless people do is insane.
If it turned out that a state actually saved money by giving away houses to homeless people, would you want that to be applied to other states?
|
Care to elaborate beyond buzzwords? Guaranteed housing is the single most missed aspect of our former regime.
|
On June 06 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 02:46 Nebuchad wrote:On June 06 2019 02:13 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 01:34 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2019 00:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 05 2019 16:57 Acrofales wrote:On June 05 2019 12:09 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2019 11:05 JimmiC wrote:
What technological advancements has socialism produced so far? And this is not me saying that capitalism is better then socialism. It is me wanting some sort of proof other than your word that capitalism is 100% the problem and that socialism will create a utopia of equality. Because so far changing the ism has changed the group that is advantaged, but not created the equality you seem convinced will be achieved. So far culture, psychology, education, norms and a whole bunch of other factors have shown to have a much larger impact than which ism you run politically. Soviet scientists were pretty good. Numerous nobel prizes in a highly charged political atmosphere. Numerous inventions. Perhaps you have forgotten Sputnik? Post-WW2 Soviet Union had abandoned all pretenses of being socialist in anything but name only, though. But I do agree the premise is stupid. Most scientific breakthroughs don't come with profit in mind and tend to rely heavily on public funding. That is "socialist", regardless of what "ism" claims to be in power. Again, what are we talking about? Socialist approaches to science work when singular goals requiring massive resources are being pursued. The cost of this approach is that lesser innovation and breakthroughs get ignored. Stated another way, there was nothing wrong with Soviet scientists. What was wrong was how the state deployed them. Capitalist approaches to science are the reason we still don’t have fusion while the brightest scientific minds and the best equipped labs are dedicated to finding ways to make a hairspray that will unfrizz your hair. It’s also why the smartest financial minds with the most advanced modeling tools are dedicated to ensuring that as much wealth moves upwards as possible. This is 100% nonsense. The "scientists creating new hairsprays" and other seemingly trivial products are the difference between the wealthy US and the impoverished USSR. Those scientists may not be creating groundbreaking new technologies, but, cumulatively, they are integral to the process of capital formation and wealth generation. This ongoing and continuous creation of wealth and capital generates the resources that can then be applied to massive research projects. This is why the US was able to far-outpace the USSR in technological development. Not just on trivial things like hairspray, but also on the very technologies that gave birth to the Information Age. Bolded is the weak part of that argument. We've generated the profits, now comes the part where you have to tie that to innovation so that the defense works, and that tie is very weak. It's important to understand that as members of the capitalist class we don't have any direct incentive to apply those profits to massive research projects. Quite the opposite actually, as a lot of the research that we could work on has the potential to be immediately counterproductive. Edit: also it's starting to get annoying that half of the socialist vs capitalist arguments are framed in terms of more state and less state but I guess that's to be expected... Just picture me unimpressed. There's nothing weak about the bolded part at all. That's how it actually works in practice. The government taxes the private economy and then spends money on specific items for the theoretical public good. The key point is that the amount that the government is able to tax is a function of the strength and wealth of the private economy. If the private economy goes into the shitter, then the public funding of specific projects goes into the shitter as well. And I disagree with the proposition that capitalists have no incentive to invest into massive research projects. They absolutely do, which is why they do invest in such projects through public/private partnerships. The limiting factor for the capitalist is the amount of capital at their disposal. There simply is no capitalist that is big enough to tackle the same types of projects that the government can. Lastly, be annoyed all you want about the framing of socialism in terms of the size of the state. That's exactly how it always works in practice. And that's how it necessarily will work en route to your utopia in which all workers collectively own all capital. That doesn't happen without massive state intervention.
Your whole argument is predicated on the assumption that the the wealthy people who run the private economy are actually moral people, not corrupted by greed. Huge amounts of money these companies take in don't get reinvested. Growth is depending on demand, if demand isn't increasing they will look for other ways to increase profit, such as finding cheaper labor in another country.
Or just stealing from employees like wells fargo.
We have countless examples of how corrupt that wealth class of people often is. The crash of 2008 and all the bank bail outs were just the most recent major example.
The pharmaceutical industry is an ongoing second major example. For no reason other than "we won't stop them" they charge prices in the US FAR beyond anything they charge in other parts of the world. The only reason for this is that our government won't stop them by arguing on our behalf. In Canada, the government says, "you can't gouge people, sorry." So they come to the US to do it instead. It's a scam... It doesn't need to be that way, but they gouge us regardless.
There are countless criminal examples.
|
United States43768 Posts
On June 06 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit: Show nested quote +Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said. Source. The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground.
We have guaranteed housing in the UK. You simply go to your local council and they either provide you with a council house or pay a landlord on your behalf.
It's not an especially complicated or controversial policy. Especially when housing the homeless is cheaper than not housing the homeless.
|
On June 06 2019 08:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said. Source. The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground. We have guaranteed housing in the UK. You simply go to your local council and they either provide you with a council house or pay a landlord on your behalf.It's not an especially complicated or controversial policy. Especially when housing the homeless is cheaper than not housing the homeless.
This is getting less true by the day but largely, yeah.
What you do see in the UK is that as that safety net is diminished there are more homeless people, there's more general suffering and its not clear what gains are being made.
|
United States43768 Posts
On June 06 2019 08:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 08:05 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said. Source. The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground. We have guaranteed housing in the UK. You simply go to your local council and they either provide you with a council house or pay a landlord on your behalf.It's not an especially complicated or controversial policy. Especially when housing the homeless is cheaper than not housing the homeless. This is getting less true by the day but largely, yeah. What you do see in the UK is that as that safety net is diminished there are more homeless people, there's more general suffering and its not clear what gains are being made.
True. The UK of my childhood has been under sustained attack from Labour's political bankruptcy and the excesses of the unopposed Tory party.
|
On June 06 2019 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said. Source. The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground. When places like Utah have shown it is cheaper to house people than to otherwise deal with the homeless, I think it is just good policy. If you want to save money, you should give homeless people places to live. I wish more than anything that Portland would do the same thing. The homeless situation in Portland is bad enough that there are some areas I'd rather just avoid. the costs of homelessness and the things that homeless people do is insane. If it turned out that a state actually saved money by giving away houses to homeless people, would you want that to be applied to other states?
Deciding to spend public money to provide a social benefit is one thing. Making a pronouncement that people should not be allowed to earn profits until said social benefit is provided is quite another.
|
On June 06 2019 09:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On June 06 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said. Source. The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground. When places like Utah have shown it is cheaper to house people than to otherwise deal with the homeless, I think it is just good policy. If you want to save money, you should give homeless people places to live. I wish more than anything that Portland would do the same thing. The homeless situation in Portland is bad enough that there are some areas I'd rather just avoid. the costs of homelessness and the things that homeless people do is insane. If it turned out that a state actually saved money by giving away houses to homeless people, would you want that to be applied to other states? Deciding to spend public money to provide a social benefit is one thing. Making a pronouncement that people should not be allowed to earn profits until said social benefit is provided is quite another.
It's better. Particularly when those profits are stolen social benefits in the first place, as is the case in examples like Walmart.
EDIT: Also None of the world’s top industries would be profitable if they paid for the natural capital they use
As Paul Hawken likes to put it, we are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it GDP.
|
On June 06 2019 09:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On June 06 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said. Source. The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground. When places like Utah have shown it is cheaper to house people than to otherwise deal with the homeless, I think it is just good policy. If you want to save money, you should give homeless people places to live. I wish more than anything that Portland would do the same thing. The homeless situation in Portland is bad enough that there are some areas I'd rather just avoid. the costs of homelessness and the things that homeless people do is insane. If it turned out that a state actually saved money by giving away houses to homeless people, would you want that to be applied to other states? Deciding to spend public money to provide a social benefit is one thing. Making a pronouncement that people should not be allowed to earn profits until said social benefit is provided is quite another.
I mean isn't the only step from the existing Utah policy to AOC's stated goal paying for the policy using taxes levied on landlord profits. (And levying taxes on specific economic activity as a matter of policy is already a thing that is commonly done in America so that's not even anything new).
Taking a step back I think people tend to vastly overestimate the effect economic policy has on growth/economic wellbeing.
Per capita GDP growth growth rates in North America and western Europe are more or less matched when averaged over the past 100 years. Significantly lower in Europe between 1913 and 1950, significantly higher in Europe between 1950 and 1970 as the continent rebuilt after the wars. Entirely matched between 1970 and now. From 1960s French style state ownership of large segments of the economy to American style free markets. It all comes out in a wash, given at least somewhat free markets.
|
On June 06 2019 10:17 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 09:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On June 06 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said. Source. The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground. When places like Utah have shown it is cheaper to house people than to otherwise deal with the homeless, I think it is just good policy. If you want to save money, you should give homeless people places to live. I wish more than anything that Portland would do the same thing. The homeless situation in Portland is bad enough that there are some areas I'd rather just avoid. the costs of homelessness and the things that homeless people do is insane. If it turned out that a state actually saved money by giving away houses to homeless people, would you want that to be applied to other states? Deciding to spend public money to provide a social benefit is one thing. Making a pronouncement that people should not be allowed to earn profits until said social benefit is provided is quite another. I mean isn't the only step from the existing Utah policy to AOC's stated goal paying for the policy using taxes levied on landlord profits. (And levying taxes on specific economic activity as a matter of policy is already a thing that is commonly done in America so that's not even anything new). Taking a step back I think people tend to vastly overestimate the effect economic policy has on growth/economic wellbeing. Per capita GDP growth growth rates in North America and western Europe are more or less matched when averaged over the past 100 years. Significantly lower in Europe between 1913 and 1950, significantly higher in Europe between 1950 and 1970 as the continent rebuilt after the wars. Entirely matched between 1970 and now. From 1960s French style state ownership of large segments of the economy to American style free markets. It all comes out in a wash, given at least somewhat free markets.
Taxing specific types of economic activity typically occurs when the government is trying to discourage certain behaviors. Think sin taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco. But taxing rental housing? That’s just dumb policy.
And I disagree with the idea that fiscal regulation and economic policy has no impact. It clearly does. The impact is quite obvious when you look at failed states like Venezuela. And there is no shortage of examples where deregulation boosted economic activity.
Edit: Just to hammer home how stupid taxing rental housing is — taxes raise prices. It is completely idiotic to address homelessness and access to housing by raising the price of housing.
|
On June 06 2019 08:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 08:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 06 2019 08:05 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said. Source. The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground. We have guaranteed housing in the UK. You simply go to your local council and they either provide you with a council house or pay a landlord on your behalf.It's not an especially complicated or controversial policy. Especially when housing the homeless is cheaper than not housing the homeless. This is getting less true by the day but largely, yeah. What you do see in the UK is that as that safety net is diminished there are more homeless people, there's more general suffering and its not clear what gains are being made. True. The UK of my childhood has been under sustained attack from Labour's political bankruptcy and the excesses of the unopposed Tory party.
Whenever Tories get into power I imagine a Metal Gear Solid-style alert noise and the text 'Attack the homeless' flashing above it. The Tories love making homeless people's lives even more miserable. They've made it so the homeless get turfed out of shelters in Bristol due to spending cuts. You almost never saw them in the past, now they're everywhere in the city centre at night sleeping in shop entrances and other niches where they can get a windbreak for the night.
|
New York is finally making de-clawing cats illegal unless medically necessary.
Finally America.
Listen to New York. They just want the cat torture stopped.
Interestingly, this is from a former US diplomat now living in the UK (Judd Birdsall):
"For Americans, it's a matter of freedom and convenience - the right to the freedom to make decisions in terms of how you raise your cat, and convenience, because once you remove the claws, you don't ever have to worry about you or the furniture getting scratched."
"By contrast, in the UK, any concerns for freedom and convenience are vastly dwarfed by concern to the welfare of the cat - it's unthinkable to declaw cats in Europe."
Its funny to me how freedom in cases like this always ends up meaning convenience at someone else's expense. Its the same with gun control.
|
On June 06 2019 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 10:17 KlaCkoN wrote:On June 06 2019 09:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On June 06 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said. Source. The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground. When places like Utah have shown it is cheaper to house people than to otherwise deal with the homeless, I think it is just good policy. If you want to save money, you should give homeless people places to live. I wish more than anything that Portland would do the same thing. The homeless situation in Portland is bad enough that there are some areas I'd rather just avoid. the costs of homelessness and the things that homeless people do is insane. If it turned out that a state actually saved money by giving away houses to homeless people, would you want that to be applied to other states? Deciding to spend public money to provide a social benefit is one thing. Making a pronouncement that people should not be allowed to earn profits until said social benefit is provided is quite another. I mean isn't the only step from the existing Utah policy to AOC's stated goal paying for the policy using taxes levied on landlord profits. (And levying taxes on specific economic activity as a matter of policy is already a thing that is commonly done in America so that's not even anything new). Taking a step back I think people tend to vastly overestimate the effect economic policy has on growth/economic wellbeing. Per capita GDP growth growth rates in North America and western Europe are more or less matched when averaged over the past 100 years. Significantly lower in Europe between 1913 and 1950, significantly higher in Europe between 1950 and 1970 as the continent rebuilt after the wars. Entirely matched between 1970 and now. From 1960s French style state ownership of large segments of the economy to American style free markets. It all comes out in a wash, given at least somewhat free markets. Taxing specific types of economic activity typically occurs when the government is trying to discourage certain behaviors. Think sin taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco. But taxing rental housing? That’s just dumb policy. And I disagree with the idea that fiscal regulation and economic policy has no impact. It clearly does. The impact is quite obvious when you look at failed states like Venezuela. And there is no shortage of examples where deregulation boosted economic activity. Edit: Just to hammer home how stupid taxing rental housing is — taxes raise prices. It is completely idiotic to address homelessness and access to housing by raising the price of housing.
There are all kinds of problems with housing, but I actually quite firmly believe that you shouldn't be able to make a profit off land ownership itself. How that can be made to work I don't know, but massive taxes on profits from renting or selling real estate would be a good start.
Also, your examples are lacking. All kinds of industries are taxed and/or subsidized directly. Generally when the government wants to encourage or discourage some type of activity. Not necessarily for individuals' health as in the case of tobacco, but in the case of societal benefit, as in the case of agriculture.
Discouraging running land ownership as a money making scheme can be seen as a societal benefit.
|
Forbidding to make a profit from land/property you own seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm fully on board with hard regulations that make property owners responsible to keep their stuff in a good condition, just offering an appartment for rent and letting it go to shit while making a profit should be plain illegal.
Raising rents just for the sake of generating more rent also shouldn't be allowed, if you want to raise the rent on an appartment you own, you should need a reason aside from "more profit" to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
