231d
@AverageJoe1 saidYou draw unneeded lines.
I Worry about his Freedom. I would suggest that you always capitalize the word freedom, but then, you never have every used that word …..none of you have.
Reduce regulations? But but, since that is impossible under a liberal Democratic government, why does he say that?. And why does he not vote for Trump, who’s exact campaign is to reduce regulations?
What gen ...[text shortened]... m those who have money.’
Do you really think that is a solution to the USA problems? Do you?
The current housing regulations support the current system. Trump didnt improve any of it (remember he was president for 4 long years?). Indeed trump vocally supports regulations that prevent certain houses from being built in certain neighborhoods (and I think you know why).
Removing the restrictions on where houses can be built will increase inventory and reduce cost.
231d
@wildgrass saidAre you such the economist.? There a LOT of factors that you fail to mention, or that you ignore, which make your nirvana impossible. Ain’t worth threshing out, esp as your Marxist foundation can hardly be incorporated into a capitalistic society for a meaningful discussion.
You draw unneeded lines.
The current housing regulations support the current system. Trump didnt improve any of it (remember he was president for 4 long years?). Indeed trump vocally supports regulations that prevent certain houses from being built in certain neighborhoods (and I think you know why).
Removing the restrictions on where houses can be built will increase inventory and reduce cost.
Capitalism wins worldwide as we speak, so I hereby close this out by saying We Win.
If you boys spent less time studying up on people who are successful, you might be able to figure out how to go make a success of yourself. You obviously are not, or you would not knock it.
See this. What is the problem?? Leave it alone, man. Some 22 year old at McDonald will move throuigh the business world, setting his sights on success, and move into great things, income, etc. Doesn't everyone?
Per Capital Income 2024 in the United States of America: $85,373.00
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=2024+per+capital+income+USA&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
231d
@AverageJoe1 saidLol you just shoe horn in Marxism with no recognizable clarity of thought.
Are you such the economist.? There a LOT of factors that you fail to mention, or that you ignore, which make your nirvana impossible. Ain’t worth threshing out, esp as your Marxist foundation can hardly be incorporated into a capitalistic society for a meaningful discussion.
Capitalism wins worldwide as we speak, so I hereby close this out by saying We Win.
...[text shortened]... o figure out how to go make a success of yourself. You obviously are not, or you would not knock it.
We had another debate topic on the same issue of housing. Without all the regulation that trump supports, homebuilders would have constructed many millions more homes than we have now.
But the regulation is good for people who currently own property, jacking up prices. Yet it creates the problem you see now where the home costs are beyond affordable for working class heroes Scarcity drives this among other things, but the scarcity is not driven by capitalism it's driven by government. There's a huge lobby to prevent new housing projects.
Trump and his buddies don't want low income housing in their neighborhood so they use bureaucratic red tape to nix the projects.
231d
@wildgrass saidYes, it was my analogy, you are correct, I was wrong.
No it was your analogy sir. Analogize all day. Mention an earthquake, and then say "but bigger earthquakes happened earlier" you are justifying, minimizing, rationalizing. It's fine, not bad. You can't quit.the argument, maybe a bruised ego.
The analogy isn't necessary. I complained about a dock. You felt the need to intervene, and justified the sick, exorbitant cost bec ...[text shortened]... ny of your libertarian friends. Seems you might still need a primer on libertarian views of justice.
That was a set up so that you could have a learning experience, that it's Ok to make mistakes, but it's not Ok to deny them.
I made two assertions, both neutral, neither justifying nor condemning the spend on the floating dock. Time for you to be honest with, primarily, yourself.
“This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
― William Shakespeare, Hamlet
231d
@wildgrass saidI think you missed this, or you didn't understand it.
@WajomaThat was a set up so that you could have a learning experience,
I tried this move on a teacher back in the day, went something like this:
"I made that spelling error on purpose to see if you could find it..."
😆
“This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
― William Shakespeare, Hamlet
Words to live by.
231d
@wildgrass said? Why would one find it acceptable to create a neighborhood of low income housing in an upper income neighborhood? Tell me, in terms of ‘good growth’, would the whole area grow into a larger upper income neighborhood, the dream of many hard working families, or would the whole area become a neighborhood not unlike the rough neighborhoods that I conjure in my mind?
Lol you just shoe horn in Marxism with no recognizable clarity of thought.
We had another debate topic on the same issue of housing. Without all the regulation that trump supports, homebuilders would have constructed many millions more homes than we have now.
But the regulation is good for people who currently own property, jacking up prices. Yet it creates the proble ...[text shortened]... want low income housing in their neighborhood so they use bureaucratic red tape to nix the projects.
231d
@wildgrass saidAnother learning experience for you, if I spot an error you've made and wish to make you aware of it, I copy/paste your words verbatim.
You've hoisted your own petard on this thread mate.
For example:
wildgrass said "A libertarian would say neither. That's not you."
When challenged the correct response would be,
wildgrass: Here is where you said the money for the dock is justified.'....verbatim quote here...."
That you haven't been able to and the lengths you'll go to, to avoid this, it's a curiosity, like watching a slater beetle on it's back. The stubborn denial, it's intriguing. The slater beetle only has a slater beetle brain, it can't figure out the futility of flailing it's legs, but you? What's your excuse?
231d
@AverageJoe1 said
? Why would one find it acceptable to create a neighborhood of low income housing in an upper income neighborhood? Tell me, in terms of ‘good growth’, would the whole area grow into a larger upper income neighborhood, the dream of many hard working families, or would the whole area become a neighborhood not unlike the rough neighborhoods that I conjure in my mind?
Why would one find it acceptable to create a neighborhood of low income housing in an upper income neighborhood?
Property developers want to build high density housing in wealthy communities because people want to live there.
It's only your precious regulations that prevent this.
231d
@AverageJoe1 saidThe solution is voluntary covenants.
? Why would one find it acceptable to create a neighborhood of low income housing in an upper income neighborhood? Tell me, in terms of ‘good growth’, would the whole area grow into a larger upper income neighborhood, the dream of many hard working families, or would the whole area become a neighborhood not unlike the rough neighborhoods that I conjure in my mind?
A developer opens a new sub division, in order to lure certain customers he might make conditions eg, no junk cars, only colors from a certain color chart, no homes over two storeys high etc etc. He wants to sell sections but customers want to be sure they're not going to live next to a gang pad surrounded by barbed wire. All this can be done without local council power tripping bureaurats forcing their dream feelings on everyone.
231d
@Wajoma said"She"?
I think we're at the root of your problem, it is the slimey slug world of moral relativism, and because you wallow in it you need to convince yourself others live there with you.
I do not.
Lets play with your latest analogy. Instead of politicians let's substitute mass murderers, see how it stands.
Mass murderers, "well actually (wildgrass tries to bolster her post w ...[text shortened]... ed mass murderer actions.
Oh dear, and all because wildgrass couldn't admit she'd made a mistake.
What is wrong with you?
@Wajoma saidVery good, Wajoma. But these people want us all to be equal at the end of the day. One cannot be equal if they live next to a house with a clothes line, et al, and have to hire a guard to keep people out of their pool.
The solution is voluntary covenants.
A developer opens a new sub division, in order to lure certain customers he might make conditions eg, no junk cars, only colors from a certain color chart, no homes over two storeys high etc etc. He wants to sell sections but customers want to be sure they're not going to live next to a gang pad surrounded by barbed wire. All this can be done without local council power tripping bureaurats forcing their dream feelings on everyone.
Anyway, as much as they want to raise taxes on property of rich people (Spruce), the homes of the rich will drop in value, as the neighborhood naturally erodes with the sounds of gunshots, domestic quarrels etc, so we need to tell Spruce that when this happens, the reduced appraised values will cause the tax receipts to go down.
This is a classic Forum point (thanks Spruce) to show that people like Spruce do not think things through. He says line the streets of a high income subdivision with lowcost housing, and at the same time wants to raise taxes on the expensive houses, which will not longer be expensive.
A true charlatan!!!!!