Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 82

Trump is basically trying to disrupt the European Union while wanting them to arm themselves even more. This guy could be the biggest idiot the world has ever seen :D

Guess the neoliberal fanatics in the US see the EU as a threat rather than a partner now

quote from john erlichman

Just like there will be a campaign to swing the vote for a war vs Iran now.... Like 80% of population doesnt want it, but nobody cares, Bernays left them with enough experience

The only question is will Trump be able to do it, will they make a 2001 type attack on themselves again or will there be a "Savior" arising in 2022 as a president. I'm guessing they will wait for the financial crisis to happen so they could do a fast sweep through all checkpoints and blame it all on Trump

I switch from rich to poor to rich to poor every 5 years. I should run for office

They need another 911 to start a war with iran

When you go full Loco

the tweet seems correct about some things. obviously it's vitriolic content is not helpful. The people with massive property portfolio's are largely parasites, they do make more money out of having money, for basically doing nothing and providing no value to society. You don't really have to do anything if you have one of these property portfolio's, since you can pay someone to be your property manager, and do everything for you. It is also true that in the country she mentioned children get third world diseases from poor living conditions, such as rhematic fever. This was not true when the state provided housing in the welfare state era from 1930's-1984. The 'rotting heart' stuff is vitriol, but amnesty international has condemed NZ for human rights abuses related to child poverty, a lot of being tied in with the housing crisis which the rich have created.

Thats a misunderstanding of how capitalism works.

The profitability of any market is in direct relation to risk and effort/hability, if property managing is low risk + low effort, many people would flood the market, increasing competition making margins smallers reaching an equilibrium of a fair price, also its crazy to think they are parasiting, they are providing housing to people who cannot purchase a house.

You could make a "parasitic" argument about land-owners (not about people who build/rent housing), however the low risk & skill required gives minimal returns, the profits are on par with super low-risk finance investings like bonds etc., of course there is variance and corruption that make that not seem like the case, but it is.


Also arguing about parasitic non-productive activities from a professional gambler is pretty rich

Not to mention that the "solution" is to expropriate all the land and buildings and then the government will provide housing and businesses for everyone... that surely can't go wrong LOL

housing is not expensive because of capitalism

housing is cheap because of capitalism

housing is expensive because of chinese

Lol, i don't deny being a parasite, i agree that gambling is very parasitic as i've said on many occasions. I was just pointing out that some of what she said makes sense. It's not just the market, there are lots of tax laws/regulations that make it favourable. In the country she mentions the state used to provide housing for anyone that needed it, so i don't accept the argument that the propertied class are providing housing for people. If they wanted to provide housing for people they would just accept the old system that worked, but oh wait that would mean they can't make all their money.

On August 16 2018 14:37 Stroggoz wrote: Lol, i don't deny being a parasite, i agree that gambling is very parasitic as i've said on many occasions. I was just pointing out that some of what she said makes sense. It's not just the market, there are lots of tax laws/regulations that make it favourable. In the country she mentions the state used to provide housing for anyone that needed it, so i don't accept the argument that the propertied class are providing housing for people. If they wanted to provide housing for people they would just accept the old system that worked, but oh wait that would mean they can't makethey don all their money.

Do you believe renting property is overpriced? if so, please state specifically how its bending the laws of capitalism and why aren't you dumping every cent you have in real state.

Do you believe property owners should rent at breakeven price? That would stop any incentive to build property for rent, basically leaving anybody without the capital to purchase a home, homeless.

Do you beliieve the state should expropriate everybodys house, land and constructions and redistribute it as it sees fit?

I am dumping a bit of money into real estate actually because it is quite a profitable investment and i don't have to do anything. The vast majority of countries have at least some tax laws that discourage property speculation or make it less profitable, like capital gains tax. NZ does not.

Well assuming we live in a corporate state capitalist society, I don't think people should rent at a break-even price. I just don't think the system should be set up in a way where people in that business can become billionaires quite easily, which is what has happened. (even in small country like NZ they populate the rich list at a higher proportion than other countries and some have become billionaires off real estate ventures).

I don't believe the state should expropriate ppl's houses, unless people vote for that option. Though, I would not vote for that unless the situation for the homeless was very dire. There are easier fixes to the solution that don't involve violating people's personal property rights, like the state could just spend money building houses for example. That is actually what the government is doing right now. This is their webpage on what their policy is to combat the housing crisis in NZ. https://www.labour.org.nz/housing. Even with all that policy labour is carrying out, real estate may be more profitable than stocks. But not sure, i'd actually have to read up on it. Connecting this with your first question, yes i could invest my time and all my money into real estate and become very rich but i don't find it fun or interesting. I'm quite satisfied with just having a couple of investments but don't care to go beyond that.

You have a view that the market will sort everything out. Economies are far more complicated than that. Ancapitalism is largely for out of touch academics and for rich people who want pay academics to come up with a theory that justifies their world view. It is not and never will be taken seriously in the real world.

Ok so you believe that property is overpriced, do you believe is just a natural temporal deviation like in any market, meaning a good investment oportunity or you believe its a loop-hole to the laws of the free market? (because a risk-free very profitable endeavor that is not flooded by ppl reaching equilibrum would break capitalism laws)

You think people become billionares in real state risk and labor free? what in the fuck lol, no, they go broke and work long hours an an alike proportion than any other enterprise, as I stated above, otherwise everybody would go that route, why take risk when real state is free money?

You have a view that the market will sort everything out. Economies are far more complicated than that.

Economies are very complex yet on a macro and microscale all follow the simple and elegant laws of the free market, a bit like the universe that its incomprehensibly complex to the point of looking chaotic, but it follows elegant and simple laws... or evolution or many analogies where extreme complexity arises from simple laws.

That being said economics does not encompass all society, there can be many issues in a society with a healthy economy.

Ancapitalism is largely for out of touch academics and for rich people who want pay academics to come up with a theory that justifies their world view. It is not and never will be taken seriously in the real world.

that is the exact non-argument Loco was making, I'm here to debate ideas, this kind of thing is a waste of time, dont do that

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45199034

New Zealand's parliament has banned many foreigners from buying existing homes in the country - a move aimed at making properties more affordable. The ban only applies to non-residents. Australians and Singaporeans are exempt because of free-trade deals. New Zealand is facing a housing affordability crisis which has left home ownership out of reach for many. Low interest rates, limited housing stock and immigration have driven up prices in recent years.

You are here to debate ideas about as much as PragerU is on YouTube to properly educate people for a brighter future. You come here with your agenda and you give no shit about representing people's positions accurately and exploring things mutually, how can you pretend to be interested in productive debate? How many times are you going to accuse me of being or siding with communists when I've been explicit about my anarchist views over and over again? The only thing that debating has ever done here is further entrench you into your position that the "freer" people are to compete with one another, the better off society is, or that it's virtually inevitable anyway due to the X factor in our biology. You start from that and work backwards to justify your conclusions every single time. If you ever concede some points here and there, they are soon glossed over or rationalized in order to favor your preferred narrative.

What Stroggoz is implying is that you are out of touch with reality and debating with your Competition™ crypto-religious views is a waste of time and basically anyone who studies this subject seriously knows this to be the case. He's just being nicer about it even though there is no point because you are not going to be more receptive to anything he says. So there, you're both wasting each other's time, but maybe that's exactly what you want, since you don't really value your time all that much.

On August 17 2018 21:35 Loco wrote: You are here to debate ideas about as much as PragerU is on YouTube to properly educate people for a brighter future. You come here with your agenda and you give no shit about representing people's positions accurately and exploring things mutually, how can you pretend to be interested in productive debate? How many times are you going to accuse me of being or siding with communists when I've been explicit about my anarchist views over and over again? The only thing that debating has ever done here is further entrench you into your position that the "freer" people are to compete with one another, the better off society is, or that it's virtually inevitable anyway due to the X factor in our biology. You start from that and work backwards to justify your conclusions every single time. If you ever concede some points here and there, they are soon glossed over or rationalized in order to favor your preferred narrative. What Stroggoz is implying is that you are out of touch with reality and debating with your Competition™ crypto-religious views is a waste of time and basically anyone who studies this subject seriously knows this to be the case. He's just being nicer about it even though there is no point because you are not going to be more receptive to anything he says. So there, you're both wasting each other's time, but maybe that's exactly what you want, since you don't really value your time all that much.

I just walked in late to the party but just curious, since I think Prager U is actually pretty informative, can you point to a specific fact or claim in any of the videos that are veritably false? It seems like that should be easy considering the way you use the analogy in such a matter-of-fact way.

On August 17 2018 00:56 Stroggoz wrote: I am dumping a bit of money into real estate actually because it is quite a profitable investment and i don't have to do anything. The vast majority of countries have at least some tax laws that discourage property speculation or make it less profitable, like capital gains tax. NZ does not. Well assuming we live in a corporate state capitalist society, I don't think people should rent at a break-even price. I just don't think the system should be set up in a way where people in that business can become billionaires quite easily, which is what has happened. (even in small country like NZ they populate the rich list at a higher proportion than other countries and some have become billionaires off real estate ventures). I don't believe the state should expropriate ppl's houses, unless people vote for that option. Though, I would not vote for that unless the situation for the homeless was very dire. There are easier fixes to the solution that don't involve violating people's personal property rights, like the state could just spend money building houses for example. That is actually what the government is doing right now. This is their webpage on what their policy is to combat the housing crisis in NZ. https://www.labour.org.nz/housing. Even with all that policy labour is carrying out, real estate may be more profitable than stocks. But not sure, i'd actually have to read up on it. Connecting this with your first question, yes i could invest my time and all my money into real estate and become very rich but i don't find it fun or interesting. I'm quite satisfied with just having a couple of investments but don't care to go beyond that. You have a view that the market will sort everything out. Economies are far more complicated than that. Ancapitalism is largely for out of touch academics and for rich people who want pay academics to come up with a theory that justifies their world view. It is not and never will be taken seriously in the real world.

Tweet makes more sense after reading this. I've read a bunch of articles about the US real estate in some states and the average landlord there basically covers his costs/expenses (taxes, maintanence, w/e) in the long term, while staying competitive, thus he basically gets no profit and maintains his property. So its a no-risk, no-reward type of investment, apart from keeping stored value.

By average landlord, I mean people that invest into real estate (which s probably not the average landlord) with the idea to rent it out, it's a terrible idea mostly and there's a bunch of other close-to-same-risk-higher-reward options .

There's also states where it would be a wiser decision to live in a rented apartment/house rather than get one yourself through a loan/mortgage. You don't really have maintanance costs, except you don't own the property, nor do the risks though. People don't really tend to act rationally when it comes to real estate though and when they start thinking/getting kids, they'd make the -EV call to buy a real estate, just for the feeling of "safety" they receive.

It's sad to hear that things in NZ really got that out of hand.

@Baal it seems to me as if you're a believer of the "invisible hand" of the market, not sure if I understood you correctly though

I don't even think standard neoclassical economics is in touch with reality, to a large extent. Actually according to richard wolf, the reason business school was developed because the people who run the world were having a lot of trouble doing it from taking standard economics courses, they were miseducating themselves and so the MBA fixed that problem. Not sure if richard wolf's claim is true (he didn't give a source), but it wouldn't surprise me if it was.

Don't think my claims in general about the modern economy have been that extreme, it's accepted by some economist commentators on the right wing, like martin wolf, who calls the modern economy a parasitic host that is eating itself from the inside.

To be fair, out of the F.I.RE economy; finance is a worse offender in terms of rent seeking in the economy than real estate is, and I think most of the problem is caused from speculation rather than landlords collecting rent. But in New Zealand the real estate problem is worse than it is in other countries.

I don't really think twittering with vitrolic comments is that helpful at all and me coming on LP to argue about this isn't either, since no one reads LP lol.

I think i agree that economics looks at abstract principles in the same way physics does, and that reality is very complex for both of those subjects. If the economics profession want's the study the economy in an abstract way with less focus on real world economies and economic history, that's fine, but they have to accept that they don't know much about what's going on.