Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 Chris- >For example, considers me >unable to have a discussion about human nature in any depth until I've read >_Blank_Slate_ and considers me unable to have a significant discussion of >propaganda and influence and power until I read _Trust Us We're Experts_. Not exactly. I've discussed both subjects with you. However, I do think you're wrong about them (which is not the same as " incapable of discussing them " ) and I suggested reading a couple sources I have a fair amount of respect for. That's not quite the same as saying " you're an ignoramus " or " you're naive " or what have you. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 Chris- Look, I don't want to debate this. This list is about people coming together and discussing nutrition and related subjects in a mature fashion. I don't want debate about the rules to become a significant consumer of bandwidth. To that end, I will create a very clearly defined list of rules as soon as I can, but with my GF in the hospital and my mom very sick, I don't have all the time in the world. I'm already spending more time arguing with you than I can afford to. <g> So for the time being, suffice it to say that it's not cool to make sarcastic, pejorative comments to people. It's OK to say things like " I think you're wrong " , " That's incorrect " , or even " That's absurd " , and it's OK to say " I think you don't know much about the subject " or " I recommend reading XYZ to learn about ABC " or " You're not considering these other alternatives " . It's even cool to say things like " That assumption doesn't hold up to logic/history/experiment " or " Your assumptions appear to be faith-based " . It's not cool to say things like " You're heartless " , or " You're so naive " , " You're an ignoramus " , even though there's obviously some semantic overlap between various statement pairs which straddle the line. Your comment came really, really close to the line, and I'd rather people maintain a bit of distance. This list deserves it. Is that clear and reasonable? >I agree that I shouldn't have said what I said, and wish that I hadn't, at >least not with the sarcasm with which I said it. But it was a defensive >and not >an offensive point. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 How in the world is that statement an infraction? I AM beginning not to care. This is ostensibly a group about nutrition, yet Chris' uniquely illogical, arrogant political posts constitute an disproportionate percentage of the posts here. Do what you need to do. From: Idol <Idol@...> Reply- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:37:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Re: money and health Gene- >I really don't care if I'm banned from th is list at this point Well, I do, and because they came at the same time I'll treat both infractions as one, but I'm serious: this is your last warning. Think what you will about and his politics, with one exception that I've observed he has not made this debate personal. >Let's try not >responding to one another from now on. I'm not going to make this an order, obviously, but surely you can do better than just trying. You two have gotten under each other's skin repeatedly, and not just in the last couple days either. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 In a message dated 1/18/04 1:49:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > Not exactly. I've discussed both subjects with you. However, I do think > you're wrong about them (which is not the same as " incapable of discussing > them " ) and I suggested reading a couple sources I have a fair amount of > respect for. That's not quite the same as saying " you're an ignoramus " or > " you're naive " or what have you. I agree. I also continued to discuss the issue with Gene, and called him neither an ignoramus or naive. I suggested a course in macroecon or applied calculus much in the way you suggested the two books. >Is that clear and reasonable? Absolutely. I apologize for drawing the point out. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 In a message dated 1/18/04 10:05:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, Dpdg@... writes: > You've clearly never been to San Francisco.... Christie I haven't, Christie. So, perhaps you could help me understand the situation there. Is there an excess of empty housing units over people looking for housing? If not, and there are less empty housing units than people looking, there is a housing shortage, and what people can afford is not the cause. If so, there are definitely gov't interventionist policies at work. If so, and this is a chronic state rather than a temporary state, what is stopping landlords from lowering prices? If a landlord has rent at $1000/month and has no tenant, she has to pay property taxes and receives no revenue. She would be far better off charging $800/month and having a tenant, and making money, than literally *paying* to keep an empty apartment. I don't know what the typical rent in San Francisco is, but one person working 60 hours a week at $6/hr would be making $1440 a month. If a one room apartment goes for $1100 that leaves enough money for basic necessities if one lives very frugally, and a diet based on lentils and cheap butter would afford decent nutrition for minimal cost. A person working the same hours at the same pay could split a two-room apartment that goes for $1600 and have $640/month left over for other necessities. Is the problem that people aren't able to get enough hours? If so, that's equivalent to an unemployment problem. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 In a message dated 1/18/04 12:12:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, implode7@... writes: > I didn't bring up the Soviet Union because they were an example of > socialism. I brought them up because said that state intervention into > the housing market was the primary cause of homelessness. Right... you never claimed they were socialist. That was ;-) But it remains that the USSR *didn't* intervene in their housing market, because they didn't have one. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 In a message dated 1/18/04 12:54:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, mhysmith@... writes: > Yes you are hitting a can of worms blaming the government for the Great > Depression. If anything, it was government's failure to do, not their doing. > According to this history book and I think most, the depression was caused > by: > Unequal distribution of wealth > High tariffs and war debts > Overproduction in industry and agriculture > Inconsistent monetary policy > Stock market crash and financial panic , Tarrifs, war debts, and monetary policy are all the domain of the government. Unequal distribution of wealth is obviously dubious, because we presently have and have had and have always head an unequal distribution of wealth... but, no depresion. Financial panic is superfluous, because it was caused by the government's bad monetary policy. " Britain's departure from gold in 1931 and the Federal Reserve's reaction to that event sharply intensified the bankng collapse, if indeed they did not nip a potential revival in the bud ... The drastic decline in the stock of money and the occurrence of a banking panic of unprecedented severity did not reflect the absence of power on the part of the Reserve System to prevent them. Throughout the contraction, the System had ample powers to cut short the tragic process of monetary deflation and banking collapse. Had it used those powers effectively in late 1930 or even in early or mid-1931, the sucecessive liequidity crises that in retrospect are the distinctive feature of the contraction could almost certainly have been prevented and the stock of money kept from declining or, indeed increased to any desired extent. " --Friedman and Shwartz, Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. Their chart reveals the money stock was significantly *more* stable before the establishment of the Federal Reserve. Dean Best argues in " Pride, Prejudice and Politics: Roosevelt Versus Recovery, 1933-1938 " that the anti-business approach of the US caused continued depression, whereas more pro-business approaches of other countries pulled them out much faster. " Comparisons of the recovery of the US with that of other nations may be found in the volumes of the League of Nations' World Economic Survey for the depression years. A table shows comparisons of unemployment rates. From it can be seen that in 1929 the US had the lowest unemployment rate of the countries listed; by 1932 the US was midway on the list, with 7 nations reporting higher unemployment rates and seven reporting lower unemployment. By mid-1938, however, after over five years of the New Deal, only three nations had higher unemployment rates, while 12 had lower unemployment. The US, then had lost gorund in comparsison with other nations betwen '32 and '38. [...] Of the 22 other nations listed, 19 showed a higher rate of recovery in industrial production than the US, while only 3 lagged behind. One of these, France, had folowed policies similar to those of the New Deal in the USA. As the WES put it, both the Roosevelt administration and the Blum government in France had 'adopted far -reaching social and economic policies which combined recovery measures with measures of social reform.' It added: 'The consequent doubt regarding the prospects of profit and the uneasy relations between business-men and the Government have in the opinion of many been an important factor in delaying recovery,' an the two countries had, 'unlike the United Kingdom and Germany,' failed to 'regain the 1929 level of unemployment and production.' " The US with its socialist policies and France took, iirc twice as long to recover as Britain, pursuing a more business-friendly policy. Best also points out that under Roosevelt suicides declined compared to Hoover, but deaths due to " accidental falls " shot through the roof! Hmm... someone cooking the books? :-) I think this is too tangential. The money in health thread-- which is *supposed* to be about how economics affects health and food, is a good thread, and might soon be steered back on topic when I get to 's latest query, but this is probably better left. Who's on the nt-politics list? Maybe we can move it there? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 In a message dated 1/18/04 1:48:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > I'm getting tired of the housing argument, but are you suggesting that any > time there's some vacant housing and also some homeless the problem is > automatically government intervention? What if developers simply made a > mistake and constructed too much luxury housing and not enough inexpensive > apartment buildings? Or is government the only party which can make a > mistake and contribute to social ills? No, I wasn't suggesting that. You're responding to a post which was a *query* to Christie or anyone else who knows the situation in SF. I have no idea what the problem is. Gentrification contributes too... lots of rich people move in so housing prices shoot up. I don't think only government can be the problem. Ultimately, I think that markets are the solution, and that a freer market means a bigger pie with bigger pieces. But as to the speific cause of the SF situation, it's too specific and requires details I simply don't have. My list of gov't policies that can affect the housing situation was meant as a lits of policies that *could* contribute, not a specific analysis of SF's situation. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 In a message dated 1/18/04 1:51:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, mhysmith@... writes: > No housing market, but no homelessness either as everyone was guaranteed > housing, even if it was in Siberia. That's not the point. Gene said he was offering the example as counter-evidence that one can intervene in the housing market without causing problems. In fact, it doesn't support that at all. If you're suggesting that markets are an inferior way to allocate housing resources, then my comments about famine and oppression become perfectly relevant. If not, it just isn't relevant to the issue we're discussing. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 From: Christie << >> That's pretty absurd, because anyone who can afford to work a full-time job can afford to rent. << You've clearly never been to San Francisco.... Christie ~~~ or tried to rent in London, England. Dedy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 In a message dated 1/18/04 2:13:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, implode7@... writes: > It supports it absolutely. An example where there is no 'housing market' > because of complete government intervention would be the limit example. But, > sorry, I guess I need a fresher course in " applied calculus " , LOL. Gene, You seem to be implying-- correct me if I'm wrong-- that a non-market economy can be taken as maximum government intervention, and therefore can be used as a model with which we can make extrapolations about the effects of different degrees of government intervention. Is that correct? If that is your view, I disagree. The effect of government intervention-- say, for example price caps-- on supply and demand is a result of it's interaction with market forces. If prices are determined by supply and demand, and resources are allocated according to prices, then government intervention to change prices affects the allocation of resources and divorces it from supply and demand. It's impossible for government intervention to have that affect in a non-market economy, because resources are not allocated by prices, and prices are not dependent on supply and demand. It represents a fundamentally different dynamic. Your point that you mentioned to about the shortage causing increased prices IS a good point. But that reflects the shortage-- it'd be a temporary circumstance that would lead to increased supply and prices would go back down. It also begs the question, how did we end up with a shortage in the first place? Homeless people should be cared for and a compassionate society does not leave people to rot with no help. But more intervention in the rental market is not the answer, IMO. If you have a shortage, the last thing you want is price caps, because you'll aggravate the shortage. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 In a message dated 1/18/04 3:30:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, mhysmith@... writes: > Monetary policy is the government. But you have to bear in mind our > system was developing, expertise in how to manage it was all new. We > actually had only recently transitioned from an agricultural economy to an > industrial. What you have posted is all hindsight now after lessons > learned, much subsequent experience gained. It doesn't demonstate there > should be no government involvement. Rather that government should do more > intelligent actions supportive of the markets. And since that depression > and ever increasing government involvment, there has not been one to equal > the Great Depression. , Our government innovated a new monetary policy that has destabalized, not stabalized, the monetary supply. I don't call bad monetary policy " doing nothing. " Tarriffs are immoral and do not protect anyone. I think demonstrated that before the Great Depression. Hasn't comparative advantage been understood since the 19th century? Granted, FDIC has had stabilizing effects. But that's a governmet band aid for government-induced problems. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 Gene wrote: > > Against my better judgement, here I go, responding again. Can't help > > myself, > > I guess....So, in your opinion it is " interferences in the market " that > > exacerbates homelessness. Ok - as I understand it, homelessness was not a > > big problem in the former Soviet Union. Or am I missing something? > wrote: > Your missing a lot of things. Like millions of people dying of famine. If this is in reference to the Soviet Union, they were not socialist, tv special I saw went into their vaults under the Kremlin where enough jewels and precious metals were kept by the government to more than take care of the people. MA. unemployment, minimum wage, homelessness unsure how that figures in with MA being one of the 4 New England states in the top10 states last year that had the highest numbers falling into poverty level. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 >>>>I'm not sure, but if you are going to find an answer, you can probably find it at www.anti-state.com. But an-cap, to my understanding, includes legal systems, so presumably enforcement of contracts occurs without " building insurance. " But, I'm not expert on it, and, admittedly, it seems considerably less practical than libertarian " minarchism " . ----->but there would be no *gov't* legal system - *everything* would be privately owned. i'm wondering how low income folks would fare in such a system...will do some reading - thanks for the URL. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 > > From: " Wanita Sears " <wanitawa@...> > Reply- > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:42:40 -0500 > < > > Subject: Re: Re: money and health > > > Gene wrote: >>> Against my better judgement, here I go, responding again. Can't help >>> myself, >>> I guess....So, in your opinion it is " interferences in the market " that >>> exacerbates homelessness. Ok - as I understand it, homelessness was not > a >>> big problem in the former Soviet Union. Or am I missing something? >> > wrote: >> Your missing a lot of things. Like millions of people dying of famine. > > If this is in reference to the Soviet Union, they were not socialist, tv > special I saw went into their vaults under the Kremlin where enough jewels > and precious metals were kept by the government to more than take care of > the people. > I didn't bring up the Soviet Union because they were an example of socialism. I brought them up because said that state intervention into the housing market was the primary cause of homelessness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 >>>>The government. Between , , and I, I think we've explained a total of thirty or forty times that libertarianism has a government that enforces contracts and protects property. >>>>>Then it is *enforced* just as contracts are enforced now. Do you understand that in libertarianism a government exists? ----->not in all brands of libertarianism, but in yours, david's and brandon's, perhaps. i know you know that, but i just thought that statement should be qualified. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 I just to happen to have a history book right beside my computer. According to it, the Social Security Act was part of Roosevelt's Second New Deal, passed in 1935 which provided aid to disabled, unemployed, and elderly. Truman's Fair Deal included an increase in the number of people who could benefit from social security. Eisenhower extended benefits during his term. In 1960, still 40% of elderly people where living below the poverty line. extended benefits and got Medicare passed in 1965 which provided medical insurance for those over 65. Yes you are hitting a can of worms blaming the government for the Great Depression. If anything, it was government's failure to do, not their doing. According to this history book and I think most, the depression was caused by: Unequal distribution of wealth High tariffs and war debts Overproduction in industry and agriculture Inconsistent monetary policy Stock market crash and financial panic The government had been more lasseiz faire prior to the depression. Hoover was in office at the time the fall started. He was greatly opposed to the socialistic ideas that took hold in Europe at that time to deal with their own economic crisis going on. He believed in " the American system of rugged individualism " and that " the individual initiative and enterprise through which our people have grown to unparalleled greatness " would solve the problems that were occurring. He believed private charity would feed the starving. They however went broke trying. Hoover believed the depression would purge the rot out of the system and the American people should just ride it out. So he took little action to improve the situation. It got worse and worse. Hoover became extremely unpopular and was replaced by Roosevelt who took the opposite position in that the government needed to do something. Thus the New Deal started. Impact of the New Deal: Extensive (and permanent) involvement of the power of the federal government in banking, industry, and agriculture Extension of the power of the President Deficit spending federal social programs - the welfare state greater concern for workers conservation gains renewal of faith in democracy The depression ended with World War II which got factories producing weapons, farmers producing food for Europe, and unemployed workers into the army, so many actually that women left their kitchens and took over many factory jobs that had been male. It is incorrect also to say the market responded to SSI problems by providing better retirement programs. Rather the opposite. Retirement programs by corporations have been declining (many have been eliminated) just as SSI has been becoming more insolvent and less capable of supporting retirement. Another point of disagreement. The effect of taxation is redistribution of wealth. You are also incorrect on the railroads. Government funding built them. The company's in fact, where given free land, much of which they did not use and sold. There were big dollars given away and with it, a tremendous amount of graft and corruption. Because of their monopoly position and deals they made with large company farms, the small farmer was at mercy in competing, many being squeezed out. This all ultimately led to severe regulation of railroads. I think they are one of the first examples of the need for government regulation in a capitalistic society because of the human nature for greed. I would also disagree that all semi-private turnpikes are superior. There are many states such as my own whose major roads are free and they are just as excellent (many better) as the turnpikes in other states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 Gene- >How in the world is that statement an infraction? It wasn't, and I didn't mean to suggest it was. I was just urging you to follow your own advice -- but not by way of an order or a threat or anything. >This is ostensibly a group about nutrition, Every now and then political discussions flare up, and to a large degree I don't think that's at all bad, at least not in and of itself. Part of the trouble we face in getting hold of good, nutritious food is political, so I think politics is fair game. Political discussions are fairly infrequent, though, and they ought to (and no doubt will) stay that way. Unfortunately, passions tend to flare, and some people wind up feeling insulted when they haven't been and others find themselves sorely tempted to be insulting. But it's the exception, not the rule. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 Chris- I'm getting tired of the housing argument, but are you suggesting that any time there's some vacant housing and also some homeless the problem is automatically government intervention? What if developers simply made a mistake and constructed too much luxury housing and not enough inexpensive apartment buildings? Or is government the only party which can make a mistake and contribute to social ills? >If not, and there are less empty housing units than people looking, there is >a housing shortage, and what people can afford is not the cause. If so, >there >are definitely gov't interventionist policies at work. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 > But it remains that the USSR *didn't* intervene in their housing market, because they didn't have one. No housing market, but no homelessness either as everyone was guaranteed housing, even if it was in Siberia. Re: Re: money and health In a message dated 1/18/04 12:12:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, implode7@... writes: I didn't bring up the Soviet Union because they were an example of > socialism. I brought them up because said that state intervention into > the housing market was the primary cause of homelessness. Right... you never claimed they were socialist. That was ;-) Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 Gene- >You are also claiming that rent control, e.g. attempts to keep some units >below market rate so that people can afford them, helps CAUSE homelessness?! Rent control may or may not cause any homelessness, but if you think about it, it certainly can exacerbate market problems -- if you have a housing shortage combined with enormous numbers of apartments stuck at far below market rate, it's going to tend to drive up the cost of uncontrolled rental apartments. That doesn't mean we should give up on the idea of stabilizing rents, because without taking some measures, unscrupulous landlords can just evict people practically at will, but rent control (at least as it's practiced here in NYC) is not an ideal solution. >since people who can't >afford a place to live generally will be more likely to be able to rent a >place that is below market rate. Perhaps it works differently elsewhere, but in NYC, rent control on an apartment expires when the person (or family? I'm not sure) which is living in the rent-controlled apartment stops renting it. I'm not actually sure offhand whether or how new apartments are added to the rosters of the rent-controlled, but that expiration is why we have a bit of rent fraud here, with rent-controlled lease holders subletting illegally and pretending to live where they don't in order to hold onto their precious rent-controlled apartments. You can't just go in and start renting an apartment at way-below-market. If you're very poor you can try to get subsidized housing and/or rent assistance (and rent assistance comes to just about nothing). Maybe it works differently elsewhere? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 > > > From: " kristenchavez " <kristenchavez@...> > Reply- > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:25:28 -0000 > > Subject: Re: money and health > > > >> Understanding when something is a joke would help, though, wouldn't it? > How >> could you possibly construe that as a serious request? > > ------I sincerely hope I'm not crossing the line into " psyoanalyzing " or > making a > personal attack... but there are friendly jokes done in the spirit of fun and > good > will, and then there are barbs presented as jokes, and these kind are passive > aggressive and inappropriate. Your hostility towards is apparent to > those > of us reading your messages, and thus your " jokes " aren't really, since the > underlining ill will is clear, despite the " but it was just a joke " defense. > > I probably should have waited to see what is going to say, since the job > of > moderator is his, and not mine. If I've overstepped my bounds, , please > let > me know. > > > While I do think that it crosses 's line, I personally don't agree with 's lines, so I don't mind. But I do disagree. Obviously, regardless of how I feel about Chris' posts, we all recognize that there have been hostile exchanges between us, and is trying to establish and enforce rules that will minimize this kind of rancor. Given the group recognition of these factors, I thought that it was quite silly to recommend as a solution that I be allowed to insult Chris once a month. Thus it was an attempt to make light of the situation, not to add to it. So, " passive aggressive " - no, not at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 > > From: ChrisMasterjohn@... > Reply- > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:28:28 EST > > Subject: Re: Re: money and health > > In a message dated 1/18/04 1:49:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, > Idol@... writes: > >> Not exactly. I've discussed both subjects with you. However, I do think >> you're wrong about them (which is not the same as " incapable of discussing >> them " ) and I suggested reading a couple sources I have a fair amount of >> respect for. That's not quite the same as saying " you're an ignoramus " or >> " you're naive " or what have you. > > I agree. I also continued to discuss the issue with Gene, and called him > neither an ignoramus or naive. I suggested a course in macroecon or applied > calculus much in the way you suggested the two books. > Please. You might as well have called me an " ignoramus or naive " , since that was really the intent. Obviously the intent was NOT to try to help me (LOL!) If I suggested that you take a course in basic logic or a good course in philosophy, that would have been similarly patronizing. Personally, at that point I think it's more honest to just go for the personal attacks. You wanted to, but simply insulted me in a way that would get past the censors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 LOL! From: ChrisMasterjohn@... Reply- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:38:47 EST Subject: Re: Re: money and health In a message dated 1/18/04 12:12:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, implode7@... writes: > I didn't bring up the Soviet Union because they were an example of > socialism. I brought them up because said that state intervention into > the housing market was the primary cause of homelessness. Right... you never claimed they were socialist. That was ;-) But it remains that the USSR *didn't* intervene in their housing market, because they didn't have one. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 Gene- >I just can't see how rent control, applied in a >way to actually increase the available affordable housing, could possibly >lead to increased homelessness. Well, by your definition -- " applied in a way to actually increase the available affordable housing " -- it can't. The problem is that you're defining it by an end result, and the end result isn't always easy to accomplish. But like a lot of these political arguments lately, disagreement is in part caused by semantics. One person means one thing by " socialism " , I mean, " rent control " , and another means another thing. Here in NYC, for example, " rent control " has a very specific, limited meaning, and " rent stabilization " has another very specific, limited meaning. Laissez-faire types, however, might cover _any_ government intervention in the housing market, either direct or indirect, with the term, and I gather you're using a similarly broader meaning. >Well, ok, but then the answer is more intervention, not less. If there's not enough housing to go around among all economic tiers and there are sufficient rent-controlled apartments to drive up the price of uncontrolled apartments, what kind of additional control would you suggest? The government constructing more housing? Extending control to cover all apartments? >Well, that sounds like a policy implemented by forces that are anti-rent >control. It will die out eventually, Assuming my description was correct, yes, but you have to understand that here in NYC, " rent control " means " indefinite rent freeze not adjusted for inflation " . So if someone's been living in a rent-controlled apartment for a very long time, they could be paying a small fraction of market rate -- like a quarter, or even a lot less. We also have rent stabilization here, which is a system which allows rents to go up and new tenants to move in but which regulates that amount rent can increase. Some kind of housing board meets every year to debate and establish the maximum allowable increase. That protects people from suddenly being evicted at the whim of their landlords, but I'm not sure that it does much to ensure a full market of affordable housing. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.