Sharing Youtube discussion about LA homeless camps

[Andylusion]

Moreover, the popular claims about how Reagan shut down all the mental health facilities, is greatly over stated.

Reagan had a lot of company in making that mistake including his successor Democrat Jerry Brown.

Linda Ronstadt Jerry Brown Newsweek | The Pop History Dig

Yeah, most all Democrats favored closing the mental institutions.
That's my point.

 

[georgephillip]

There you go. You made my point. In left-wing states, with left-wing rules and regulations, the cost of an apartment is unaffordable. Just like I said.

And by the way... you have now pointed out yourself, that LA has some of the highest minimum wages in the country.... and yet as I said before.... LA has the biggest homeless problem.

The ability of rich people to manipulate property rights and market power in order to keep the rate of profit high, a feature intrinsic to capitalism, has more to do with high rental prices than any governmental inputs.

Must-read: Dean Baker: "The Upward Redistribution of Income: Are Rents the Story?" - Equitable Growth

"The 2020 real estate market has seen a number of changes, some of which were entirely unexpected. That being said, the top rental markets remain to be cities with high job and population growth. According to a study by Zumper, the following markets have the highest average rent:

1. San Francisco, CA: $3,500
2. New York, NY: $3,000
3. Boston, MA: $2,590
4. Oakland, CA: $2,500
5. San Jose, CA: $2,450
6. Los Angeles, CA: $2,260
7. Washington, DC: $2,260
8. Seattle, WA: $1,890

Highest Rent In The US By City 2020 | FortuneBuilders

Who do you blame for San Francisco's sky-high rents, Democrats in government or greedy Silicon Valley millionaires buying up city blocks and forcing working-class tenants to relocate?

 

[georgephillip]

Why didn't having a massive minimum wage result in prosperity for all?

Does it not tell you something, when every single time you try a left-wing socialist policy, it fails and you have to find someone to blame for it's failure?

How does Social Security impact prosperity?
True story: my grandmother had just begun her working life when FDR mandated SSA. She refused to register, and, fifty years later, when she could no longer work as an LVN and the family discovered her stupidity, she died from shame. This country has seldom tried to implement a major left-wing socialist policy like Medicare for All or a public alternative to for-profit employment like a Green New Deal, so none of us have anyway of knowing how prosperity would be affected by putting people over profits.

 

[Andylusion]

There you go. You made my point. In left-wing states, with left-wing rules and regulations, the cost of an apartment is unaffordable. Just like I said.

And by the way... you have now pointed out yourself, that LA has some of the highest minimum wages in the country.... and yet as I said before.... LA has the biggest homeless problem.

The ability of rich people to manipulate property rights and market power in order to keep the rate of profit high, a feature intrinsic to capitalism, has more to do with high rental prices than any governmental inputs.

Must-read: Dean Baker: "The Upward Redistribution of Income: Are Rents the Story?" - Equitable Growth

"The 2020 real estate market has seen a number of changes, some of which were entirely unexpected. That being said, the top rental markets remain to be cities with high job and population growth. According to a study by Zumper, the following markets have the highest average rent:

1. San Francisco, CA: $3,500
2. New York, NY: $3,000
3. Boston, MA: $2,590
4. Oakland, CA: $2,500
5. San Jose, CA: $2,450
6. Los Angeles, CA: $2,260
7. Washington, DC: $2,260
8. Seattle, WA: $1,890

Highest Rent In The US By City 2020 | FortuneBuilders

Who do you blame for San Francisco's sky-high rents, Democrats in government or greedy Silicon Valley millionaires buying up city blocks and forcing working-class tenants to relocate?

The ability of rich people to manipulate property rights and market power in order to keep the rate of profit high, a feature intrinsic to capitalism, has more to do with high rental prices than any governmental inputs.

Then why does your own data contradict that?

1. San Francisco, CA: $3,500 (left-wing city)
2. New York, NY: $3,000 (left-wing city)
3. Boston, MA: $2,590 (left-wing city)
4. Oakland, CA: $2,500 (left-wing city)
5. San Jose, CA: $2,450 (left-wing city)
6. Los Angeles, CA: $2,260 (left-wing city)
7. Washington, DC: $2,260 (left-wing city)
8. Seattle, WA: $1,890 (left-wing city)

You posted that, correct? Name one city in your list of highest rents, that is right-wing conservative free-market capitalist based?

And half of your entire list, is California, the most left-wing state in the Union.

Ranking the Hardest and Easiest Cities to Add New Apartments | National Apartment Association

www.naahq.org

Hardest Cities to Add Apartments

1. Honolulu (now obviously Honolulu is an island...)
2. Boston (yup)
3. Baltimore
6. Philadelphia
7. Seattle (yup)
8. San Francisco (yup)
10. New York (yup)

Now that should be telling. The cities that are because of government, are the most difficult cities to build apartments in.... 4 of your top 8 highest rent cities, are in the top 10 hardest cities to build anything.

So again, when you restrict supply... by making it difficult or impossible to build housing... you have less housing, which means supply is low, thus cost is high. Economics 101.

Who do you blame for San Francisco's sky-high rents, Democrats in government or greedy Silicon Valley millionaires buying up city blocks and forcing working-class tenants to relocate?

First, millionaires are not buying up city blocks and forcing working-class tenants to relocate.

Just not true.

What is forcing out is high rents. You know how to combat high rents? Basic economics.... supply and demand... Increase the supply, and the price will drop.

This is why Socialism constantly results in the utter destruction of the people who push socialism.

So here in Columbus Ohio, we are becoming a huge tech hub. We actually have been for a long time. We have IBM, Microsoft, Amazon is here now, Google, Accenture, Facebook, Alliance, Battelle, and lots of big companies.

But we don't have astronomical rents. Texas is the same way.

And the reason why is really simple. We don't regulate the crap out of the housing market, and the result is low cost housing. We have dozens of companies operating out of Columbus Ohio, and many of them came here from California ironically. Yet none of them have caused rents to go sky high.

Again... it's really simple. Supply.... and Demand. We have higher supply, because we allow building of apartments. In California, they prevent apartment building, and then you cry rents are high.

Hello? Now you want to blame rich people? How you can constantly find someone to blame every single time your policies fail?

Here is something for you to consider. Just hear me out....

The profit margin on a Lexus is 14%, while the average Toyota car, like a Camry, has a profit margin of about 8%. More over, the Lexus is almost double the price of a Camry or Corolla. So the price is higher, and they make a much larger profit margin, on that higher price.

So let me ask you... since the profit margins are higher, why does Toyota not make only Lexus cars? I mean you understand the profit motive, and how Capitalism works.... so why does Toyota not just end those far less profitable cars, and sell primarily Lexus cars?

Why does Toyota only sell 80,000 big profit Lexus a year, but sells 600,000+ tiny profit Camrys and Corollas? Why is that?

I'll tell you why that is... it's because even though the profit margin is higher on luxury goods, the real money is always in selling much larger volumes of product to the general public.

The same is true in every single market in the world.

Silverdraft Demon MP EXTREME Workstation

Buy Silverdraft Demon MP EXTREME Workstation featuring For Motion Graphics, VFX & Compositing, 2 x 2.7 GHz Intel Xeon Platinum 28-Core, 192GB of 2933 MHz DDR4 RAM, 3 x NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 GPUs, 1TB NVMe PCIe M.2 SSD, Dual Gigabit Ethernet Ports, USB 3.1 Gen 2 | USB 3.1 Gen 1 | USB 2.0, S/PDIF...

www.bhphotovideo.com

This high end Intel work station can be yours, for only $49,500. Guarantee you the profit margins on that are huge. So why doesn't every computer company sell $49,500 computers?

Because the money is made by selling $2,000 computers to the general public.

Menus | Jeff Ruby's Steakhouse Columbus

From award winning steaks to fine wines, cocktails, and sushi, dining at Jeff Ruby's Steakhouse in Columbus is an unforgettable experience. Preview our menu today.

www.jeffruby.com

I guarantee Jeff Ruby Steak House, is making huge profits on a $99 Steak and Lobster dinner (not including drink or side).

So why is not every restaurant like that? Because the money is in serving the average people, not the elite. That's why there are dozens of Bob Evans and Red Robin restaurant, for every one single store like Jeff Ruby.

So here is my point to you.... in those cities you just listed, the market for housing is not working like it does in every other aspect of the entire economy.

When you see that, there has to be a specific reason. Because there are rich people everywhere. Why are they not causing Toyota to stop making cars for average people? Why the rich not causing computer companies, to only make the elite computers? Why are the rich not driving out all by the most expensive and elite restaurants? And why are they not affecting every other aspect of the market too?

And there is a reason. Socialism. Regulations on the market.

If housing builders are only building housing for the elite, and not average people, then there has to be a government, or regulation reason for it.

And there is.



Clear cut, undeniable, proven reasons why housing for average people, is not being built in California.

By the way, you know why Houston is one of the cheapest large cities to live in? They are so unregulated in their building and construction... they don't even have zoning laws. Thus, with people able to easily build more housing... they have lower prices. Again, supply and demand. Very easy concept.

 

[Andylusion]

Why didn't having a massive minimum wage result in prosperity for all?

Does it not tell you something, when every single time you try a left-wing socialist policy, it fails and you have to find someone to blame for it's failure?

How does Social Security impact prosperity?
True story: my grandmother had just begun her working life when FDR mandated SSA. She refused to register, and, fifty years later, when she could no longer work as an LVN and the family discovered her stupidity, she died from shame. This country has seldom tried to implement a major left-wing socialist policy like Medicare for All or a public alternative to for-profit employment like a Green New Deal, so none of us have anyway of knowing how prosperity would be affected by putting people over profits.

Well actually we do know what socialist policies would work.

We can see what happens, by what has happened in socialized systems in the US, and around the world. And it's never good. Never. There is not one single time in all the world, where that system has had a good result. Maybe in the short term, but eventually the bill comes due, and then everything goes to crap.

As for your Grand Mother, anyone that doesn't prepare for their retirement should die of shame.

Both of my grand parents saved for retirement. My parents saved for retirement. My aunts and uncles saved for retirement. I'm saving for retirement.

I remember helping deliver "Meals on Wheels". If you want to live in poverty and shame.... just trust government to take care of you. Just trust in putting people over profit, and see how your life turns out.

I remember walking into dingy tiny apartments, barely bigger than 400 sq ft, with old people living on Social Security. With a TV set, a recliner, and a bed, they lived alone in darkness. Some had flees that bit you when you entered.

That is a shame. Just living in poverty off the government, waiting until they die.

I also delivered medications to nursing homes. I can tell you straight up, that the private nursing homes were fantastic. They were clean. Lit up. Had people who cared. Staff that were glad to be there, and glad to help.

I went to a government nursing home, that put people over profits, and the floor had a hole through it, where you could see the dirt under the building. Every single room was dirty, and disgusting. The staff was rude, and acted like you were bothering them. Windows had screens over them, that had holes. I would assume these residents of the state, were chewed on by bugs every night.

If I can be blunt... any person who trusts in government to take care of them, is a complete and utter fool.

Do you learn nothing from the VA scandal?

2014 Veterans Health Administration controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's government in operation. And here's the sad part about left-wing ideology. You think that was fixed because Obama was in office.

But see, these kinds of things are inherent to a "people over profit" system. Nothing has changed. Nothing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whistleblower-says-theres-a-secret-va-wait-list-for-care-the-department-says-thats-not-true/2019/06/01/197e59a2-83df-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html

Five years after Phoenix scandal, VA still doesn’t keep reliable wait-time data

www.stripes.com

This is government health care. It doesn't matter if Obama was elected for a 3rd term, or if Hillary was in office, or Trump, or Biden, or anyone. This is how government run care works.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-surgery-backlog-1.5777843

Fears of 'two-tier' system as NHS waiting lists prompt more people to go private

Covid crisis leads to more people self-funding treatment or investing in private health insurance

www.theguardian.com

Need more? I could fill this thread with links to all over the world, of problems involving government run care. UK people going to private hospitals and doctors, because government run health care sucks. Canadian people coming to the US, because government run health care sucks.

Don't trust that? Read from your fellow democrats.

Healthcare: A Tale of Two ERs

On Wednesday of the Democratic National Convention, I spent over six hours in an emergency room and two urgent care facilities, trying to get treated for a bronchial infection that I feared had turned to pneumonia. The story of the...

momocrats.typepad.com

This is from 2008, the Denver Convention. This lady went to an Urgent Care government "people over profit" clinic and it was horrific. Then she went to an evil Capitalist clinic, and it was perfect. Treated well and helped.

Now do you know why? Because when you are not a customer... you are just a problem. Those people at the government run health care clinic, don't care about you, because they don't need to. If you are unhappy... sucks to be you. They are not getting a paycheck from you, so they don't care.

Just like the VA system. If you die on a waiting list... what is that to them? They still get paid. Government pays them, whether you live or die. That's your "people over profit" system at work.

In a private system, you are the customer. You matter. Without your money, they close, and everyone is unemployed. So making you happy, and glad come back next time you need help, is how you end up with good quality care, and they end up still in business.

Worst thing that can happen in private for-profit care, is for you to die, because then they don't get paid.

Your system results in hell on earth.

Canada's free "people over profits" health care is miserable.

Patients were dumped in the hospital bathroom.

Patients left in the hallways routinely. Like a normal aspect of the hospital, is just dumping patients in the hallway.

And I wager you are thinking this is because of Covid-19.... you would be wrong.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ontario-election-leaders-hospital-overcrowding-1.4674736

This is from 2018. This is normal in a "people over profit" system.

Why is that? Because of economics. In a government system, the amount of resources (funding) is static. The government says they have (X) amount of money for hospitals. So that's it.

If you have too little money for health care... then.... tough. You get to die slowly in the bathroom, or in the hallway.

But if you have a private Capitalist system, the amount of money is dynamic. More patients, means more customers, which means more money. More money, means you can use those profits, to expand the hospital, or open a new hospital.

Then you can actually have beds for patients, instead of dumping them like trash, into the hallway, or bathroom.

People over profits, always sounds good, but the reality is hellish and death.

 

[georgephillip]

You posted that, correct? Name one city in your list of highest rents, that is right-wing conservative free-market capitalist based?

Why don't you define "right-wing conservative free-market capitalist based" whatever?

Every city on my list has a vast majority of private, free-market, for-profit rental units which rich people like Silicone Valley millionaires manipulate in order to increase the size of their private, free-market fortunes.

Imagine if all those greedy, private landlords had to compete with an equal number of public rental units "owned" by those committed to making housing a human right instead of a speculative Ponzi scheme?

 

[Andylusion]

You posted that, correct? Name one city in your list of highest rents, that is right-wing conservative free-market capitalist based?

Why don't you define "right-wing conservative free-market capitalist based" whatever?

Every city on my list has a vast majority of private, free-market, for-profit rental units which rich people like Silicone Valley millionaires manipulate in order to increase the size of their private, free-market fortunes.

Imagine if all those greedy, private landlords had to compete with an equal number of public rental units "owned" by those committed to making housing a human right instead of a speculative Ponzi scheme?

Well I kinda did. Houston doesn't even have zoning laws. You don't need to spend 3 years, and a million dollars, and have 10 different committees and community studies, and such, to build an apartment complex.

Let me give you another counter example. The socialist left-wing regulate until housing is unaffordable.



This guys is an average Joe, so he rambles and repeats himself a lot, and goes on rants.

But the bottom line is, he's a self-made entrepreneur, who works by fixing people's computers.

He wanted to build a small store, to run his repair business out of.

Skip to 8:00 in, and he talks about meeting a contractor. The contractor explains that instead of following all the regulation and restrictions, and bureaucratic nonsense... that (and this is the professional contractor, telling Louis the 30 year old trying to make a living) what he will do, is get permit for a fence. Put the fence around the building. Then do all the work. That way the building inspectors can't see what they are doing, and they can avoid years of waiting on paperwork, and thousands of dollars in permits.

You want to know why rents are insane in New York city? It's because of that. People can't build anything, unless they openly, brazenly, and directly violate the law.

Because it wasn't Louis who was trying to break all the regulations of New York City, it was the contractor himself, saying this is the only way to get the work done.

Again, Houston is the opposite, and then you wonder why a city with similarly massive populations, have a fraction of the housing and rental costs, and has a much much lower homeless rate?

It's obvious. The city engaging in free-market capitalism has free-market results. The cities engaged in socialistic regulation and restrictions all over the place, have socialistic results of poverty and homelessness.

Every city on my list has a vast majority of private, free-market, for-profit rental units which rich people like Silicone Valley millionaires manipulate in order to increase the size of their private, free-market fortunes.

And so does Columbus, and Houston, and Memphis, and Dayton, and so on.

Why are not the millionaires manipulating in order to increase the size of their private free-market fortunes in those cities as well?

Because they can't. Without government preventing new building of homes and apartments, with increased supply, prices remain low.

The only way that rich people, can drive up the price of housing, is if government prevents the building of new housing.

It doesn't matter how much property you own, if there are thousands of companies building new homes and apartments around you. There is no way that you can hold back the flood of new apartments and homes that would be built if you had unrestricted building.

How do I know that? Again, all the cities that don't have socialist regulations and controls on every aspect of the housing market, don't have this problem.

Imagine if all those greedy, private landlords had to compete with an equal number of public rental units "owned" by those committed to making housing a human right instead of a speculative Ponzi scheme?

Right, and we tried that. We had public housing in the 60s and 70s. They were a disaster.

And the fact is, the number of rentals actually declined.

As the government builds more apartments, the total amount of apartments fells, and dramatically.

So why is that? Well pretend you yourself own an apartment building, that is for lower income people. Now the government opens their own public housing apartment building, that offers apartments at a lower price.

Now, your tenants start leaving, because your price is higher than the public housing price.

So you will be forced to do one of four options.

Option 1. You can just keep your rent prices where they are, end up with few renters, end up going bankrupt, and losing your entire life's work, and have your family impoverished and on the street.

Likely you are not going to do that.

Option 2. You can lower rents, so you keep people in the building, but likely won't make enough money to cover the cost of maintenance, which results in the building ending up a slum. This is one of the ways you end up with slum lords, is by making it impossible for them to make a profit and keep the building maintained.

Option 3. You could actually renovate the building, into a luxury apartment complex. I've actually seen this done, specifically in NYC, where they demolished the walls inside the building, and converted 3 small apartments into one big apartment, or two larger apartments. Then because it's a luxury apartment, you can attract high income renters.

Of course that means that now you have lost thousands of living spaces, and you have pushed out the poor in favor of the rich... but that's what people do if you have the government get involved.

Option 4.... and this does happen specifically in NYC. You simply abandon the building. This is usually because the government put in place rent-controls, which make it impossible for you to convert the building from low-income renters, to luxury high income renters.

If you are faced with either operating the building at a loss... so that you end up destroying your life and losing everything, or simply abandoning the building.... you will abandon the building.

This is an abandoned apartment building, in the middle of Manhattan, in a city with a critical housing shortage.

Now why would anyone abandon a building in a city with people desperate for housing?

Wouldn't you want to make millions renting this out, if you owned it?

So why is the market not working? Two reasons, which already mentioned. One, because the amount of regulation and controls, and permits, would cost you a half million dollars to get this building back up to code.

Two.... this is a rent controlled building, so after spending that half million, you would never be able to rent it profitably.

So in city filled with homeless people, you have apartment buildings completely empty, surrounded by people desperate for housing.

So, as I said before, even you, if you owned an apartment building, likely be forced out of the market and end up reducing the number of rentals, because of government public housing.

And that's just the effect on you directly if you are the owner of the building.

The indirect effect, is that all the home and apartment builders, are going to stop building homes... at least for normal people. Again, if you can't make a profit on the building renting to normal people, why would anyone build apartments for normal people?

So instead they are going to build luxury apartments, if any. Luxury homes, if any.

Again, it's going to naturally push out the lower and middle class.

That's the effect of public housing.

Apple wants affordable housing in California—but laws stand in the way

California can’t end its housing crisis without an overhaul of zoning rules.

arstechnica.com

Take a look at this. Apple Computer, offered $2.5 Billion dollars, specifically for affordable housing. But then.... found out they simply were not allowed by law to make affordable housing.

The problem is that the law doesn't allow this in most areas. A Los Angeles Times analysis found that 62% of land in Los Angeles is zoned for single-family homes only. In San Francisco, 75% of the land is zoned not to allow anything denser than a duplex. Laws in suburban Silicon Valley are even stricter.​

​

At the same time, the technology boom has put more and more money in the hands of residents associated with the technology sector. So more and more dollars are chasing housing, while the supply of housing has barely increased from year to year.​

Does that sound like "free-market capitalism" to you? No, because it isn't.

 

[Andylusion]

You posted that, correct? Name one city in your list of highest rents, that is right-wing conservative free-market capitalist based?

Why don't you define "right-wing conservative free-market capitalist based" whatever?

Every city on my list has a vast majority of private, free-market, for-profit rental units which rich people like Silicone Valley millionaires manipulate in order to increase the size of their private, free-market fortunes.

Imagine if all those greedy, private landlords had to compete with an equal number of public rental units "owned" by those committed to making housing a human right instead of a speculative Ponzi scheme?

So I just stumbled across this article, which was fascinating. So here is your "People over profits" vs "Profits over people" being played out.

How San Francisco Saved Its Public Housing By Getting Rid of It

The wealthy city couldn’t afford to make its public housing livable, so it turned it over to private owners. No one’s happier than the residents.

www.politico.com

True story. Here are the facts....

For years, one of San Francisco’s worst public housing complexes sat just a stone’s throw from the home of one own of its most prominent citizens: Nancy Pelosi. Nestled in tony Inner Richmond, not far from the Presidio and Golden Gate Park, the low-slung building at 345 Arguello Street was a poster child for poorly maintained public housing.​

​

Roaches and rats had long since colonized the building, which was built in 1973, when the city was in the throes of its “Dirty Harry” era of drugs, crime and rock and roll. Leaks sprung from the ceiling. The water would often be shut off, seemingly at random. Only one of the property’s two elevators was functional, a serious problem in a building populated by seniors and disabled people, many of whom can’t walk without assistance. And the people who lived there were all but neglected by the city of San Francisco, whose management of the property can only be described as absentee.​

Let's review.... public housing... that put 'people over profits'.... resulted in rats, roaches, broken elevators, leaking ceilings, shut off water.... effectively people treated like stray dogs.

That's your "people over profit" system.

Now let's look at the solution....

Today, things are quite a bit different at 345 Arguello. The decrepit apartments have been gutted, and the residents now have new kitchens, new floors, new windows and beautiful balconies. The infestations are over. No longer ignored, the residents now have access to services like backrubs and field trips. The building, freshly painted, looks fabulous from the outside as well. Indeed, the average passerby would have no idea that 345 Arguello even is public housing: Only a small placard next to the front door indicates that this is housing for the indigent, and not just another pricey Inner Richmond condo building.​

Wow.... amazing! So what did the government do? How did they accomplish this?

Well they didn't........

​

Over the past few years, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the city of San Francisco has turned over all of its heretofore publicly owned housing—345 Arguello was one such building—to private property management companies and developers​

Let me recap that for you..... that's called "Profit based CAPITALISM".

Your system... people treated like dogs.
My system... people treated like human beings.

Socialism... you are nothing but an animal.
Capitalism.... you are a valued customer.

Can you explain to me why your system has NEVER WORKED? Every single time anyone anywhere does what you support, engages in the policies you believe in.... it never works..... and then you blame the rich.

Your system always fails... and you are always trying to find someone to blame for your policies not working. Why is that?

 

[georgephillip]

Well I kinda did. Houston doesn't even have zoning laws. You don't need to spend 3 years, and a million dollars, and have 10 different committees and community studies, and such, to build an apartment complex.

How do zoning laws prioritize people over profits?

"Last Friday, an explosion at the Watson Grinding and Manufacturing plant in Northwest Houston rocked residents out of their beds in the early morning hours.

"The blast was heard by residents as far as 20 miles away and claimed the lives of two people.

"Because Houston’s lack of zoning laws does not prevent residential developments near manufacturing and chemical plants, residents continue to live near facilities despite extremely high-profile incidents over the past few years.

Houston Explosion: The Danger of Lack of Zoning Laws - Reform Austin

 

[Andylusion]

Well I kinda did. Houston doesn't even have zoning laws. You don't need to spend 3 years, and a million dollars, and have 10 different committees and community studies, and such, to build an apartment complex.

How do zoning laws prioritize people over profits?

"Last Friday, an explosion at the Watson Grinding and Manufacturing plant in Northwest Houston rocked residents out of their beds in the early morning hours.

"The blast was heard by residents as far as 20 miles away and claimed the lives of two people.

"Because Houston’s lack of zoning laws does not prevent residential developments near manufacturing and chemical plants, residents continue to live near facilities despite extremely high-profile incidents over the past few years.

Houston Explosion: The Danger of Lack of Zoning Laws - Reform Austin

Right, but under your system, they wouldn't even have houses, to be residents in.

We know that from the difference between Houston and California.

Start with this.

Venice Beach Up in Flames: Frequent Homeless Tent Fires Threaten Residents and Tourists

Just this week, a tent on the world-famous Venice Boardwalk was on fire at 9 a.m. while surfers and tourists strolled by.

www.nbclosangeles.com

Which would you rather have? Half your city catching fire from homeless people in tents, or people in homes, who could hear an explosion?

Would you rather have Typhus, and other medieval diseas breaking out in '3rd world California', or the rare event of an explosion, that made a loud noise?

‘Medieval’ Diseases Flare As Unsanitary Living Conditions Proliferate - California Healthline

Outbreaks of infectious diseases such as typhus and hepatitis A are resurging in California and around the country, particularly among homeless populations. Public health officials warn that such diseases could spread broadly.

californiahealthline.org

I guarantee you, that people would rather be in no-zoning-laws Texas, over highly regulated California, and I know this for a fact because people are moving there from California.

The California Effect: Texas is the Top Destination State for Californians

Americans are known to be one of the most mobile nations in the world, and Californians manage to top the charts, with over 690,000 of them moving to a different state during 2018. However, the Golden State has always exerted a particular attraction on the rest of the states, if not the world...

www.rentcafe.com

You can spout until the end of time, how you think not having zoning laws is bad... but the reality is, people are speaking what matters with their feet, by moving to Texas from your Socialist California. Just like they are moving here from Venezuela, and Cuba, and Laos, and everywhere else that attempts socialism.

 

[georgephillip]

The only way that rich people, can drive up the price of housing, is if government prevents the building of new housing.

Rich people drive up the price of housing when they use their government-granted rights to private property to buy up entire city blocks, raise rents to remove the working class families currently residing there wherever government allows, and "gentrify" the community, increasing the homeless population which, of course, government is then obligated to ignore.

Privatize profits.
Socialize costs.
Capitalism can't exist otherwise.

"What Is Privatizing Profits And Socializing Losses?
Privatizing profits and socializing losses refers to the practice of treating company earnings as the rightful property of shareholders, while losses are treated as a responsibility that society must shoulder."

Privatizing Profits And Socializing Losses

 

[georgephillip]

Let me recap that for you..... that's called "Profit based CAPITALISM".

Your system... people treated like dogs.
My system... people treated like human beings.

Socialism... you are nothing but an animal.
Capitalism.... you are a valued customer.

Your link:

"As physical problems piled up, San Francisco’s public housing was 'entering a death spiral for a lot of these properties,' Ely says.

"She cites a particularly telling example: One building, completed in 1942, was still using its original plumbing. 'The status quo was not an option,' Ely says.

"If nothing was done, buildings would have eventually become uninhabitable, leading to a reduction in the total number public housing units. Indeed, this is already happening nationwide, where an estimated 10,000 public housing units are being taken offline annually because they have become literally uninhabitable."

Do you blame indifferent government bureaucrats or greedy, tax-dodging capitalists for the extent of problems like 80 year-old plumbing in public housing?

Since you seem to place a great deal of confidence in personal anecdotes, I can tell you from my 10 year experience of living in subsidized housing like the property you spotlight, quality of life depends entirely on the integrity of the management company, and capitalism has little use for strong moral principles.

Adam Smith's "Moral Sentiments" Thwart The Real But Barbarous Impulses Of Capitalism

 

[Andylusion]

The only way that rich people, can drive up the price of housing, is if government prevents the building of new housing.

Rich people drive up the price of housing when they use their government-granted rights to private property to buy up entire city blocks, raise rents to remove the working class families currently residing there wherever government allows, and "gentrify" the community, increasing the homeless population which, of course, government is then obligated to ignore.

Privatize profits.
Socialize costs.
Capitalism can't exist otherwise.

"What Is Privatizing Profits And Socializing Losses?
Privatizing profits and socializing losses refers to the practice of treating company earnings as the rightful property of shareholders, while losses are treated as a responsibility that society must shoulder."

Privatizing Profits And Socializing Losses

First, no one I know, supports socializing loses. If anything, that's what left-wingers push.

One way I know that the person I'm talking to, doesn't have a good argument, is when their augment is basically that no matter what people do, it's bad.

When people leave the area and values crash, you call it white flight.
When nothing happens in an area, you call it redlining.
When people move into the area, you call it gentrification.

So basically under your system, no matter what happens, it's bad.

Nah... you just don't have an argument.

Again, I personally own my home. If the rich bought up everything, how is it possible that I own my home?

 

[Theowl32]

So I watched a video about the fight between people who live there, verses the city allowing homeless people just destroy their property and ruin their lives. I got into a discussion with some apparent homeless supporter. My first thought was "Ok, let's dump them on your property and see how you like walking out your front door to step in human poop every day." But I decided to go a different direction. Thought I'd open my comment for response.



Richard K
This is disgusting. The city officials should be ashamed.

DiscordedBraeburn
I hope to god you are homeless one day so you learn a little humility. May the next time you say “i help those who need or want it” or allude to being that type of person, be your last.

@DiscordedBraeburn See that's the problem. I've worked at the homeless shelters. The people who don't want to be there, get a job. They find work, they earn a living, and then they move out of the shelter. We provide free job training. We provide free job placement. We provide free health clinic services. Free food. Free clothing. Even a free package bundle for moving into your apartment, with bed sheets, towels and other things you need when you start with nothing.

And yet we have people that lay in the cot, do nothing, go no where, and refuse to even attempt to better their lives.

My church has what is called the a Samartian offering. A special officer to help people in dire need within the church. Plus I have family, and extended family, all which would be willing to help me, and I them, if needed. Then I even have friends who would put me up for a short time until I could find work and my own place. On top of that, I am extremely conservative in my spending. I have no less than $5,000 in my bank account at all times, and no bills.

Before you end up homeless... where is your money that you saved, by spending less than you make? Where is your savings you have for a rainy day? Where is your family that you have maintained good relations with? Where is your extended family? Where is your church that you have been faithful to? Where are your close friends?

This is my problem with people today. You cuss out your family and tell them to get lost. You make no attempt save money. You have no close friends. You swear off the church. You cut all ties, cut friendships, have a trail of broken relationships behind you, and then.... you turn around when your life implodes, and pretend as if society itself owes you for your irresponsible behavior.

No. You dug your hole, and now you get to dig yourself out. Learn to take responsibility for your choices. Join a church, and be part of it. Get with your family, and apologize for your actions. Get friends, and treat them like they are worth knowing. Find a spouse, and treat someone as being more important than yourself. And save your money, and stop blowing it on things you don't need, so that when bad things happen... AND THEY WILL... you will have money to deal with it.

Socialism = Feudalism

The rich and thoroughly fucked.

No more middle class

Welcome

 

[Andylusion]

Let me recap that for you..... that's called "Profit based CAPITALISM".

Your system... people treated like dogs.
My system... people treated like human beings.

Socialism... you are nothing but an animal.
Capitalism.... you are a valued customer.

Your link:

"As physical problems piled up, San Francisco’s public housing was 'entering a death spiral for a lot of these properties,' Ely says.

"She cites a particularly telling example: One building, completed in 1942, was still using its original plumbing. 'The status quo was not an option,' Ely says.

"If nothing was done, buildings would have eventually become uninhabitable, leading to a reduction in the total number public housing units. Indeed, this is already happening nationwide, where an estimated 10,000 public housing units are being taken offline annually because they have become literally uninhabitable."

Do you blame indifferent government bureaucrats or greedy, tax-dodging capitalists for the extent of problems like 80 year-old plumbing in public housing?

Since you seem to place a great deal of confidence in personal anecdotes, I can tell you from my 10 year experience of living in subsidized housing like the property you spotlight, quality of life depends entirely on the integrity of the management company, and capitalism has little use for strong moral principles.

Adam Smith's "Moral Sentiments" Thwart The Real But Barbarous Impulses Of Capitalism

"As physical problems piled up, San Francisco’s public housing was 'entering a death spiral for a lot of these properties,' Ely says. ​

​

"She cites a particularly telling example: One building, completed in 1942, was still using its original plumbing. 'The status quo was not an option,' Ely says.​

You are posting that to me, as if I didn't read the article myself.

Yes, they were using the original plumbing.

Why is that? Because this is how socialism works.

Do you know how land lords replace the plumbing in their apartment buildings?

They don't just pay for it out of pocket, or because they are benevolent.

They pay for it using........... "Profits".

Right... profits. That's how everything works. Everything that is maintained, that is upgraded, that is improved and advanced.... is with money from "PROFIT".

When the government runs the building, they don't have profit. That would defeat the purpose, remember? "People over Profits".

The problem with "People over Profits" is that without profit, how do you pay for replacing the heat, or fixing the roof, or anything else?

Well you don't.... which is exactly what the article said.

How San Francisco Saved Its Public Housing By Getting Rid of It

The wealthy city couldn’t afford to make its public housing livable, so it turned it over to private owners. No one’s happier than the residents.

www.politico.com

Roaches and rats had long since colonized the building, which was built in 1973, when the city was in the throes of its “Dirty Harry” era of drugs, crime and rock and roll. Leaks sprung from the ceiling. The water would often be shut off, seemingly at random. Only one of the property’s two elevators was functional, a serious problem in a building populated by seniors and disabled people, many of whom can’t walk without assistance. And the people who lived there were all but neglected by the city of San Francisco, whose management of the property can only be described as absentee.​

When you don't make a profit, you can't fix the leaks, the rats, the roaches, the elevators, the water.

And this is what you see everywhere you have "People over profits".

Healthcare: A Tale of Two ERs | MOMocrats Legacy Posts: 2007-2011

momocrats.com

Since it was across the street, we walked over and signed in at
12:30. I could see the names of all the people who signed in before me,
which seemed to me to be a violation of the patient privacy regulations
in HIPAA.​

​

“Urgent Care” is a misnomer, since this place was not “urgent”
nor did they care. We walked into a room full of about 40 poor people,
most of them coughing, sneezing, crying, wheezing, or just slumped over
in their chairs and wheel chairs. Most of them were Spanish-speaking
or elderly.​

​

It was like being in a 19th century tuberculosis ward, as described
by Charles Dickens. The room was under construction, there weren’t
enough chairs for all the people, there was no water or food available,
and very little ventilation. If there was air-conditioning, I sure
didn’t feel it.​

​

I signed in again, once again, noting that none of the names ahead of mine were hidden, and waited to be called.​

​

At 3:00, after I had been there for an hour and a half, coughing and
wheezing, a nurse appeared from nowhere, and slapped a mask in my hands
and scolded me, “You need to wear this.” I couldn’t get it to fit
right, so she snapped my face with it and pinched my nose. I seriously
wanted to punch her.​

​

The mask made the warm, stifling room even hotter. I
coughed into it, and since I was already short of breath, could hardly
breathe through it. I thought about leaving.​

​

At 4:15, a woman came out of the examining room, hysterical. She
said to the front desk that she had been there for 5 hours and had not
been seen by a doctor yet. She demanded to know when she would be
seen. A nurse came out and said that all the attendings were busy and
she would be seen soon. She shouted, “I missed a whole day of work for
this? I am sick! Where is the doctor?”​

​

That was it for me. I realized then that for 3 hours, people had
been called, and not a single one of them had come back out. I feared that I would go
in and leave Donna in the waiting room for 3 more hours. I told Donna,
“I can’t take it any more.”​

​

In my hoarse, low, nearly-gone voice, I told them it was appalling that all of these people had to wait so long. The young male desk attendant just shrugged.​

So again, why could not the public Urgent Care center provide good care? Why couldn't they fix the AC? Why couldn't they buy a few chairs? Why wouldn't they fix the room, have privacy, and see people "urgently" in less than 5 hours? Why were people missing an entire day of work, and still never being seen by a doctor?

Answer.... "Socialism" = "People over profits".

You need profits. You need money, to fix the air conditioning, so people are not suffering in the waiting room. You need money to buy the chairs, so people can sit down. You need money, to hire more doctors, so you can see patients in a reasonable amount of time.

Ironically, I just had to go to Urgent care just two weeks ago. I had no insurance. I could have gone to a public clinic, but I've been to those, and they suck. So I went to a private clinic. And I'll pay pretty large bill. But.... I was seen by a doctor in less than 15 minutes. And that doctor got me fixed up really well. I am very happy with both the speed, and the solution to my problem.

I'm willing to pay the bill out of pocket, because it was good care. If I had gone to one of your socialist clinic, I would been there for a day and half, waiting to be seen. Or maybe never being seen.

Again, everything she said in that post, is exactly what I've seen at government run clinics here in Ohio. Government run "People over Profit" systems ALWAYS SUCK. ALWAYS.

 

[georgephillip]

First, no one I know, supports socializing loses. If anything, that's what left-wingers push.

If the practice of treating company earnings as the rightful property of shareholders while losses are regarded as something society must shoulder, then I don't know of any leftist supporting such policies. When fossil fuel shareholders prosper by fouling the air and water and then expect government to pay for cleaning up their mess, that is classic "free market" capitalism.

 

[georgephillip]

When people leave the area and values crash, you call it white flight.
When nothing happens in an area, you call it redlining.
When people move into the area, you call it gentrification.

Redlining did not result from doing nothing.
It came into existence by official government fiats, denying African-Americans the same right to home ownership as equally qualified white applicants. What other institution except government can correct such discrimination?

 

[georgephillip]

Do you know how land lords replace the plumbing in their apartment buildings?

They don't just pay for it out of pocket, or because they are benevolent.

They pay for it using........... "Profits".

Right... profits. That's how everything works. Everything that is maintained, that is upgraded, that is improved and advanced.... is with money from "PROFIT".

The Great Depression should have shown everyone the limits of PROFIT. Public housing is non-profit and government is answerable to society for how it functions. Section 8 housing involves private PROFIT, and I can tell you from personal experience that is usually when property rights begin to TRUMP human rights. Public housing is still the best solution to our housing crisis. It can exert downward pressure on private rents which counters the removal of low-income people in urban neighborhoods and reduces homelessness.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm willing to pay the bill out of pocket, because it was good care. If I had gone to one of your socialist clinic, I would been there for a day and half, waiting to be seen. Or maybe never being seen.

Again, everything she said in that post, is exactly what I've seen at government run clinics here in Ohio. Government run "People over Profit" systems ALWAYS SUCK. ALWAYS.

When you're a little older, perhaps you'll understand; two kinds of Americans get the very best healthcare imaginable...the very rich and the very poor.

When I turned 65 and became eligible for Medicare my income was low enough to qualify for Medicaid (Medical or Medi-medi).

I used my new insurance the first time to have a skin cancer lesion that had been growing for five years removed because I could not afford to pay for profit rates.

My dermatologist was located in downtown LA; he referred me to a cosmetic surgeon on Rodeo Drive (perhaps you've heard of it)?

My surgeon was chief of staff of cosmetic surgery at UCLA medical school.
I saw him a dozen times.
The surgeries themselves took almost one full afternoon.
I paid $0 out of pocket except for prescriptions @$1.80 each.
Ready for the Good News?
Every US citizen could have exactly the same quality of medical care if they weren't afraid of socialism.
Medicare for All | Bernie Sanders Official Website

 

[Andylusion]

First, no one I know, supports socializing loses. If anything, that's what left-wingers push.

If the practice of treating company earnings as the rightful property of shareholders while losses are regarded as something society must shoulder, then I don't know of any leftist supporting such policies. When fossil fuel shareholders prosper by fouling the air and water and then expect government to pay for cleaning up their mess, that is classic "free market" capitalism.

Conservative Republicans offer bailout alternative

A group of conservative Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives offered a mortgage insurance plan on Thursday as an alternative to the Bush administration's $700-billion Wall Street bailout.

www.reuters.com

The conservative caucus in the house, offered up an alternative plan to the bailouts in 2008. You can read about that above.

The conservative alternative would have setup a system, that used zero public money. No socializing the loss.

Left-wingers have routinely supported government bailouts consistently. When Obama gave the bankruptcy of GM, to the unions, which in many cases was a violation of law, not a single person on the left claimed it was wrong.

When left-wingers say that Obama saved us from a new "great depression" what they are saying is that they support government socializing the loss.

And by the way, all people do this. When people build homes that are not hurricane resistant in Hurricane zones, and then demand government send FEMA to bail out their stupidity... what do you call that? That privatizing the profit, and socializing the loss.

When people make the choice to live above their means, borrow money they don't have, and then demand government cancel their student loans, or their credit card debts, or their car debt.... what is that? That is privatizing the profit, and socializing the loss.

When people refuse to get higher paying jobs, and then have government pay for their food, housing, and their phones and everything else they can get.... what is that? That is socializing the loss.

And people are the same everywhere.

So yeah, companies try and get government to socialize the loss... this is why you should vote Conservative Republican, which oppose socialism. When you vote Democrats, you vote for socializing the loss.

And lastly, as far as energy companies polluting and everything... you are bit ignorant then on the massive failure in socialist countries around the world.

Would you really want nation wide black outs? Like they have routinely in Venezuela under socialized energy?

Seriously, you have to intentionally ignore reality to think that our Capitalist system is the worst on polution, compared to non-capitalist.

How do you explain Chernobyl Ukraine, Dzerzhinsk Russia, Linfen China, Mailuu-Suu Kyrgyzstan, or Tianying China?

According to you, pollution is 'classic free-market capitalism', and yet in the top 10 most polluted places in the world, not one is in the US, and almost all are in socialist, or formerly socialists countries.

You do know that Chernobyl was almost exclusively the result of the Socialist government deliberately hiding the dangers of the reactors they were making, and that those dangers were almost all exclusively due to the socialist governments not want to spend the money to make them safe.

Please do tell, which US pollution problem, even comes close to the mass radioactive contamination of the 1,000 sq Mile exclusion zone in the Ukraine? Honestly, even capitalist Japans Fukushima, is barely a single rain drop hitting the ocean, in comparison to socialist Chernobyl.

And the entire accident itself, was a function of the socialist system, because people in government, made risky demands on nuclear reactors.

Any attempt to blame Capitalism for pollution is a absolute ignorance based joke. You want to see real pollution and destruction of the environment and people's lives? Go look at the damage done in socialist countries.