Sharing Youtube discussion about LA homeless camps

[georgephillip]

Well first, with or without economic sanctions they would be poor. There is zero evidence that the US caused any of the decline in Cuba. Zero. That's opinion, without a factual basis.

You're lying.

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia

"Between 1954 and 1959, trade between Cuba and the United States was at a higher level than what it is today, with 65% of Cuba's total exports sent to the United States while American imports totaled 74% percent of Cuba's international purchases.

"After the formal implementation of the embargo and the passage of Proclamation 3355, there was a 95% decrease in Cuba's sugar quota, which canceled roughly 700,000 tons of the 3,119,655 tons previously allotted to the United States.[58]

A year later, Cuba's sugar quota was reduced to zero when President Eisenhower issued Proclamation 3383. This substantially affected Cuba's total exports, as Cuba was one of the world's leading sugar exporters at the time."

 

[Andylusion]

But that doesn't matter today. We know this because in the 1960s to 1970s, they moved blacks into new homes free of charge, and in a matter of years they were ghettos again.

Where did that happen?

I'm trying to find the citation now. But maybe I made a mistake. I thought it happened in a major city, like Washington DC, where they cleared out slums, and provided public housing, which by the 80s was a slum again.

But I can't find the citation, so I could be wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

" Camps" is a polite term for degenerate druggies and alcoholics to invade areas that used to be considered parks. Years ago I visited Seattle and was shocked to see permanent tents set up in parks that were once set aside for the enjoyment of people. Citizens didn't seem to mind the likelyhood of their kids witnessing some creep shitting or pissing in public or the waste associated with permanent camps.

By some accounts one in every thirty children in the US is homeless at some point during the year.

MAGA?

National Center on Family Homelessness.

1 in 30?

That sounds more like runaways, rather than an economic problem.
Also that would include battered women's shelters. Again, not an economic problem.

We have charities setup for runaway kids and battered women, and I would assume they would be the ones counted as homeless.

But, I think that's good. Our system is so wealthy, that we can provide shelter to homeless kids who run away from abusive or drug addicted parents, and abused women from their husbands and (usually) boyfriends.

The number of actual families that are homeless, are very very small.

Have you seen what happens in poor countries to these people? I was reading the story of a woman from Laos.... Laos if you remember went full on communist. She and her child, ended up sleeping on the fire escape of an apartment building for a year and half.

That's better than the US? Nah... not so much.

 

[Andylusion]

And why would you not have an address?

Why is it that Somalis can come here from the other side of the planet, can find a place to live, but a born bred American can not?

Homeless individuals often have no physical address; although, they may have a mailing address or a non-profit center where they receive employment opportunities. Forty years ago I could find work through daily hiring halls with or without a physical address, bur those days disappeared with Reagan and Clinton.

Somali migrants fled a country deeply de-stabilized by US aggression; they are absolutely entitled to receive benefits from the country that destroyed their homeland.

No, Somali was not de-stabilized by US aggression.. I have Somali friends. There was nothing the US did, that caused warlords to start slaughtering each other.

Yeah, the day of hiring halls is long over. So are the days of Unions, because they destroyed themselves.

Lesson to learn... don't destroy your own employment in the name of worker rights.

 

[Andylusion]

One reason for b.l.m.-a.n.t.i.f.a destruction and violence is to decrease the value of real estate. Venezuela? Socialism or not, housing has become unaffordable across the planet. Home ownership is a profoundly American concept.

We note houseless U.S. Army vets living in their vans in Eugene, Oregon, who could not vote.

So that is a very strange concept, if I understand what you just said.

You want to destroy property, in order to decrease the value of real estate?

Do you understand how supply and demand workers? If the supply of a product is low, and the demand for a product is high, the price goes up.

So if you have 1,000 houses, and you have 2,000 people who need houses, the price will be really high.

So then you have BLM ANTIFA burn down 100 houses. Now you have 900 houses, and 2,000 people who need houses.

What will happen to the price? It will go up even higher.

If you want to lower the cost of housing... BLM and ANTIFA should have started building new housing.

Now the only alternative is if you make the place so violent and undesirable, that people don't want to live there.

Here's the problem with that. You destroy 100 houses, and now you have 900 houses. And a bunch of people no longer want to live there, down from 2,000 to say 1,800.

Still the prices for those 900 houses left will be very high.... but now because people are leaving the city, they are less likely to rebuild the 100 houses.

Would you build a house in a city people are starting to leave? By the time you get it built, the value could drop like Detroit. Then you go bankrupt.

Either way.... that is not a solution. Getting violent and burning houses down, isn't going to have a good result ever.

 

[Andylusion]

No it has nothing to do with that.

If it did, then how do you explain wealthy and successful blacks, that started off in poverty?

There are thousands of examples.

There are tens of millions of counter-examples.
Try considering facts for once instead of your personal life experiences or statistical anomalies.
In the real world of 2020 US African Americans have a 60% income ratio with white Americans and a 5% wealth ratio. This did not happen because most Blacks are lazy; it happened as a consequence of official government policies:

A 'Forgotten History' Of How The U.S. Government Segregated America

"On the FHA manual that explicitly laid out segregationist policies



"THE TWO-WAY
Interactive Redlining Map Zooms In On America's History Of Discrimination

"It was in something called the Underwriting Manual of the Federal Housing Administration, which said that 'incompatible racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communities.'

"Meaning that loans to African-Americans could not be insured.

"In one development ... in Detroit ... the FHA would not go ahead, during World War II, with this development unless the developer built a 6-foot-high wall, cement wall, separating his development from a nearby African-American neighborhood to make sure that no African-Americans could even walk into that neighborhood."

There are tens of millions of counter-examples.

But see, this is the problem... if there are thousands of examples, or even just dozens.... Then the counter theory is false.

The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) ⭐ 8.0 | Biography, Drama

1h 57m | PG-13

www.imdb.com

Chris Gardner
The story of Chris Gardner is one of a man who worked his butt off. Started off in poverty, from a broken family, ended up with a broken home, was EVEN HOMELESS, and a son to take care of.

And yet Chris Gardner succeeded. Was it easy? No. Were there troubles yes? But he is now a multi-millionaire with his own successful firm.

Why didn't the FHA rules prevent Chris Gardner from becoming a multi-millionaire?
Why didn't the government policies prevent Chris Gardner from becoming successful?
Why didn't the white people, in a white dominated market, prevent Chris Gardner from starting his own firm, and making $70 to $100 Million net worth?

The entire claim is obliterated by the absolute concrete fact, that black people can, when they work at it, be successful and extremely wealthy.

Take Robert F Smith.

Robert F. Smith (investor) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Has a networth of $5 Billion.
Why didn't the FHA prevent that? Or government police prevent that? Or white people prevent that?

How do you explain Denzel Washington, or Will Smith? How do you explain the NBA and NFL?

David Steward - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Owner of one of the largest black owned companies in the US. Bilionaire. Grow up in poverty.

How do you explain that? Why didn't the FHA stop that? Why didn't government policy prevent it?

How you can explain any of these things, if the FHA is preventing blacks from becoming wealthy?
Because it isn't. It's an excuse for bad behavior. That's all it is.

Blame shifting from "your choices, have your results"

This did not happen because most Blacks are lazy

Not just lazy. it's more than being just lazy, although lazy is part of it.

It also has to do with broken families, and drug use, and not saving wisely with money, and not working your way up the economic ladder.

Again, I have a had a manager who started off a part-time cashier at Advance Auto Parts. He worked for minimum wage. He came in every single day on time. He worked the entire time he was there. He didn't complain and didn't have an attitude. He did his job. He did this for years. Worked his way up. Full time. Weekends. Over time. Did the company training program. Put in 50, and even 60 hours a week.

Today he is store manager of his own store.

Now, you compare that to the guy I work with right now. He wanders off. We'll be working, and he'll just get up and walk out, and come back 30 minutes later.

"Well why don't you tell him...."

No, he's an adult. If he doesn't do his best, he'll be treated like a lazy person, that earns minimum wage.

Then you complain that white people like the guy above, earn more than black people like this guy.

No, that's how life works. You want to be successful? You need to work at it. You want to get promoted? You need to work your way up, and make yourself the best guy in the room, or as close to it as you can.

You want to be super wealthy? You are not getting there, doing 40 hours a week, at McDonald's as a fry cook.

 

[Andylusion]

No one was "prohibited" from buying homes. Further, if they had bought homes in the suburbs... the whites would have left the suburbs, and they would have lost value there too.

Blacks were prohibited from buying houses in white neighborhood and whites were not legally allowed to sell their house to Black families. As far as property rights vs human rights goes, you conservatives have been wrong about that choice for centuries.

A 'Forgotten History' Of How The U.S. Government Segregated America

"At the same time, the FHA was subsidizing builders who were mass-producing entire subdivisions for whites — with the requirement that none of the homes be sold to African-Americans."

Conservatives? Conservatives are the ones who fought for the end of slavery to begin with.

Further, name one Conservative pundit that has supported preventing blacks from owning homes in white neighborhoods?

You can just make up claims about other people, with zero support. That just makes you a liar.

 

[Andylusion]

So no, the reason for black poverty is not that they were prevented from moving to the suburbs or something. They would have just made the suburbs ghettos too. The problem is crime and drugs.

Can you wrap your mind around the possibility that one major reason we see high levels of crime today in Black communities is the fact the last several generations of African Americans have been denied the right to accumulate wealth through homeownership, and that example of racism was official government policy?

A 'Forgotten History' Of How The U.S. Government Segregated America

"Today African-American incomes on average are about 60 percent of average white incomes.

"But African-American wealth is about 5 percent of white wealth.

"Most middle-class families in this country gain their wealth from the equity they have in their homes.

"So this enormous difference between a 60 percent income ratio and a 5 percent wealth ratio is almost entirely attributable to federal housing policy implemented through the 20th century.

"African-American families that were prohibited from buying homes in the suburbs in the 1940s and '50s and even into the '60s, by the Federal Housing Administration, gained none of the equity appreciation that whites gained."

No, that's a ridiculous claim. People do not go around murdering, because my great great great grampa couldn't get a house he didn't have the money to buy anyway. Very dumb claim.

Further, wealth can only be accumulated through home ownership under the following situation:

A: You have the money to pay for the house.

It doesn't matter if you are allowed to buy the house or not, if you do not spend less than you make, and pay the mortgage.

B: You not only have enough money to pay for the house, but also have the money to maintain the house.

Again, if you move slum people into new homes, they become slum homes.

I've seen this first hand with a different product. I worked at a Cadillac Dealership. People that could not afford Cadillacs, would buy them. We would see these people get into cars they never had the ability to buy. Then the car would have a problem, they couldn't afford to fix. Then the car was trash. One guy, I felt kind of sad for, bought the car a year or two before, had a problem, couldn't afford to fix it. He went to some backyard mechanic, who broke the engine block. Now the expensive problem, turned into a $10,000 problem. Car was junk. The cost of fixing it, was almost as much as the value of the car at that point.

Same is true of homes. Homes are expensive. You have to fix the drive way. Fix the roof. Fix the furnace and hot water heater. You have to replace the windows, carpet, and anything else.

If you can't do that, you won't be accumulating wealth. You'll be accumulating bills.

C: You have to not lose it.

One of the biggest causes of poverty in the country is divorce. You buy a house with your boyfriend, or girlfriend, and then you have a fight and break up. Now neither one of you can afford the payment, and the house gets foreclosed on.

Or you divorce, and you end up selling the house while you split up the assets.

And maybe you missed it, but broken families on the black side, is a much higher rate today, than it was in the 1950s and before.

So no.... Just owning a house, does not magically make you wealthy.

In fact, maybe you missed it, but we just tried that with the sub-prime crash. Giving people who didn't qualify for homes, loans... only made poor people poorer.

 

[Andylusion]

There are billionaires in EVERY SOCIALIST ECONOMY.

Name *ONE* that doesn't have billionaires? Name one. ONE!

Socialist economies have nationalized their banks.
That's not the case in Venezuela where Chavez's billionaire daughter keeps her looted money in US banks denominated in US dollars.

How does the number of billionaires in Russia today compare with USSR days?

No economic system in history has created as many billionaires as capitalism.

Well logically, as you move more towards Capitalism, you end up with more wealthy people.

And maybe you missed it, but before all the sanctions against Russia from their Ukraine activities and such, the standard of living for all average Russian citizens was drastically better today than it was under the USSR when people were killing each other for food. Cannibalism was a thing in Soviet Russia. I've read stories from people who lived in the USSR.

No economic system in history has created as many billionaires as capitalism.

Yeah, and that is fantastic. Which is better... everyone starving in equality, or the top 1% of the world that is the middle class of our Capitalist society?

I think our system is better. The middle class of the rest of the world, can only dream of the luxury our lower class, and middle class lives.

 

[Andylusion]

Well first, with or without economic sanctions they would be poor. There is zero evidence that the US caused any of the decline in Cuba. Zero. That's opinion, without a factual basis.

You're lying.

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia

"Between 1954 and 1959, trade between Cuba and the United States was at a higher level than what it is today, with 65% of Cuba's total exports sent to the United States while American imports totaled 74% percent of Cuba's international purchases.

"After the formal implementation of the embargo and the passage of Proclamation 3355, there was a 95% decrease in Cuba's sugar quota, which canceled roughly 700,000 tons of the 3,119,655 tons previously allotted to the United States.[58]

A year later, Cuba's sugar quota was reduced to zero when President Eisenhower issued Proclamation 3383. This substantially affected Cuba's total exports, as Cuba was one of the world's leading sugar exporters at the time."

But Cuba right now is selling every single ton of sugar they produce.

Why would they magically be able to produce more sugar, simply because the US ended the embargo?

Did you ever read the book on this?

https://www.amazon.com/Sugar-King-H...hvtargid=pla-569022480921&psc=1&tag=ff0d01-20

Production of sugar didn't fall because of the embargo. It fell because they nationalized the sugar plantations, and that destroyed production.

This is well documented.

Again, they are selling all the sugar they are producing now.

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/cub

This is well documented as well.

So... no, the billions of dollars you think Cuba would get.... not true.

But here's the real killer.... even if it was true.... even if we pretended you were right....

Who gets the money? Do the poor Cubans get the money? No. They are not getting the money from the resorts. They are not getting the money from the exported sugar now. They are not getting anything.

All it would do, is enrich the wealthy elite in the Cuba government. Just like it's enriching them already.

 

[Issa]

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.

As someone who lived in not a rich developed country we had hardly any homeless, families and communities took care of their own drug addict or mentally ill it is unacceptable to le them in the streets no matter what.
Many homeless if not most here in LA came from other states and cities because of the weather, food banks, shelters and in some cases housing opportunities and rehab. This stuff they couldn't get in their red states mainly, god fearing states where they always read the bible and go to church and follow Jesus steps.

 

[georgephillip]

How is that possible? If the US embargo is the cause of them not being able to build anything... how are they able to build this?

"Despite the existence of the embargo, Cuba can, and does, conduct international trade with many countries, including many US allies; however, US based companies which trade in Cuba do so at the risk of US sanctions.[6]

"Cuba has been a member of the World Trade Organization since 1995.[7]

"The European Union is Cuba's largest trading partner, and the United States is the fifth-largest exporter to Cuba (6.6% of Cuba's imports come from the US).[8]

"Cuba must, however, pay cash for all imports, as credit is not allowed.[9]"

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism was never concerned with providing living wages, and there were just as many low paying jobs in the 1950s. People just didn't work low paying jobs.

Nothing has changed with Capitalism ever.

What's changed in the US since the 1950s?

What happened in 1980 to spike income inequality?

Causes of income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

"Researchers have offered several potential rationales.[12][13] Various rationales conflict or overlap.[14] They include:

• "globalization – Lesser-skilled American workers have been losing ground in the face of competition from workers in Asia and other emerging economies.[15]
• skills – The rapid pace of progress in information technology has increased the relative demand for higher-skilled workers.[15]
• superstars – Compensation in many sectors turned into a tournament in which the winner is richly rewarded, while the runners-up get far less. This affects both workers and investors (in dominant firms).[15][16]
• immigration – Relatively high levels of immigration of less-skilled workers since 1965 may have reduced wages for American-born high school dropouts.[17]
• decline of unions – Unions helped increase wages, benefits and working conditions. Unionized workers declined from over 30% to around 12%.[18]
• social norms – Social norms constrained executive pay. CEO pay rose from around 40 times the average workers pay in the 1970s to over 350 times in the early 2000s.[19]"

 

[Ken Mac]

Most street bums are white, Karl.

Not in my hood, Ayn.
Any thoughts on why Black incomes today are about 60% of whites' or why Blacks possess about 5% of white's wealth?

1. Lefty policies have chained them to reliance on government to garner votes.
2. Lefties have taught them victimhood instead of self-reliance and taking responsibility for themselves.

 

[georgephillip]

That's wealth. Wealth is distributed to everyone. Some of middle class around the world, live a lower standard of living, than the poor in our country.

So no, distribution of wealth is better under Capitalism than Socialism, by a wide margin.

Not in this country.
Capital is money, or the realizable money value of collateralizable property and that is the main generator of wealth/income inequality in this country.
How Capitalism Actually Generates More Inequality - Evonomics

The Truth Behind American Prosperity: Income Inequality is Reaching Critical Mass

 

[georgephillip]

"And those maps were color-coded by first the Home Owners Loan Corp. and then the Federal Housing Administration and then adopted by the Veterans Administration, and these color codes were designed to indicate where it was safe to insure mortgages."

Yeah.... that was my point.

And that point was not based on reality.

A 'Forgotten History' Of How The U.S. Government Segregated America

"The Federal Housing Administration's justification was that if African-Americans bought homes in these suburbs, or even if they bought homes near these suburbs, the property values of the homes they were insuring, the white homes they were insuring, would decline.

"And therefore their loans would be at risk

There was no basis for this claim on the part of the Federal Housing Administration.

"In fact, when African-Americans tried to buy homes in all-white neighborhoods or in mostly white neighborhoods, property values rose because African-Americans were more willing to pay more for properties than whites were, simply because their housing supply was so restricted and they had so many fewer choices.

"So the rationale that the Federal Housing Administration used was never based on any kind of study.

"It was never based on any reality.."

Keep in mind these policies were put into effect nearly a century ago, long before the sort of urban decay you associate with African Americans with began to manifest itself.

Government policies created the decay we see today in Black ghettos.

 

[georgephillip]

You complained that banks were not loaning money to people who didn't qualify.

My side complained about banks refusing to loan money to qualified people because of where they lived, i.e., the color of their skin.

I'm not sure you understand to what degree blind racism drove public policy 50 to 60 years ago, so I would like to relate a childhood experience of one of my Black neighbors who grew up in Watts during the 1960s.

She had an older brother who worked for GM. He took advantage of his factory employee discount (and many hours of overtime) to buy a brand new Corvette.

In 1965 a black man driving such a car in Watts inspired LAPD to stop and frisk every time he left his house even after the cops knew exactly who owned the car.

Finally, he was told to his face by a White officer "you don't deserve a car like this.," an opinion based solely on the color of his skin and address not his ability to meet loan obligations.

After months of such harassment, he parked the car in his mom's driveway and went back to public transportation.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

As someone who lived in not a rich developed country we had hardly any homeless, families and communities took care of their own drug addict or mentally ill it is unacceptable to le them in the streets no matter what.
Many homeless if not most here in LA came from other states and cities because of the weather, food banks, shelters and in some cases housing opportunities and rehab. This stuff they couldn't get in their red states mainly, god fearing states where they always read the bible and go to church and follow Jesus steps.

Interestingly, I agree with nearly everything you said. AGREED! Yet even while we both agree on the fundamental facts... we completely disagree with the conclusion.

I agree with almost everything you said. Almost.

Red states simply do not reward bad behavior. And the result is, people who are bound and determined to engage in bad behavior, move to LA where they and live off the hard working tax payers, while destroying those tax payers property.

See you and me, we don't disagree on the facts. We disagree on the conclusion.

Conservatives want to give incentives to people to move out of their poverty and harmful life style.

Left-wing god-hating socialists, want to reward people for living in a way that destroys themselves.

The worst thing you can do, is allow someone to live on the street without forcing them to improve their life.

You talk about the mentally ill for example. Yet you want a 'living wage', and welfare, and food banks and on and on.

Influence of Unemployment on Mental Health of the Working Age Population

Bosnia and Herzegovina has one of the highest unemployment rates in the Balkan region (43.2%), so unemployment is one of the most serious public concerns in our country.To analyze the influence of unemployment on mental health of the working age population ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Mental illness has repeatedly been connected to being unemployed. Paying people to not work, is basically a method of creating mentally ill people.

Just like drug use, is linked to mental illness.

Is there a link between marijuana use and psychiatric disorders? | National Institute on Drug Abuse

Several studies have linked marijuana use to increased risk for psychiatric disorders, including psychosis (schizophrenia), depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders, but whether and to what extent it actually causes these conditions is not always easy to determine.

www.drugabuse.gov

Even pot use is linked to mental illness, repeatedly in fact.

Yet you have LA handing out free needles, so people can shoot up drugs more and more.

And Irony is, having states that do not reward bad behavior, you mock. And yet LA is a crap hole.

See the whole reason that G-d fearing people do not reward bad behavior is exactly because we understood what would happen if we did. If Ohio had all the same policies, people would travel all over the country to get to Ohio, and we would have homeless encampments across the cities, and rats everywhere, and poop in the streets, and diseases would be spreading. Ohio would be a crap hole, just like LA is now.

Your policies have never had a good result in all human history. Rewarding bad behavior results in more bad behavior.

 

[Andylusion]

How is that possible? If the US embargo is the cause of them not being able to build anything... how are they able to build this?

"Despite the existence of the embargo, Cuba can, and does, conduct international trade with many countries, including many US allies; however, US based companies which trade in Cuba do so at the risk of US sanctions.[6]

"Cuba has been a member of the World Trade Organization since 1995.[7]

"The European Union is Cuba's largest trading partner, and the United States is the fifth-largest exporter to Cuba (6.6% of Cuba's imports come from the US).[8]

"Cuba must, however, pay cash for all imports, as credit is not allowed.[9]"

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia

I don't see very many sanctions against Spain or France happening in the past, present, or future because they traded with Cuba. The fact is, Cuba is engaging with Trade everywhere.

Well of course Credit is not allowed. The same reason poor impoverished people in the US can't get a mortgage for a home.

They are not good for the money. Cuba is not good for the money. That has nothing to do with the US. It has to do with the fact Cuba destroyed their economy with socialism.

Regardless, you missed the point....

You said the reason Cubans were poor and had a critical housing shortage, was because of the embargo.

But I, and now you, have both proven that Cuba is trading all the time... and they are able to build resorts.

So the reason Cubans are impoverished and homeless, is not because of the embargo.

It's because the Cuban government makes money off of the resorts. They make money off of exports. They don't make money off cubans having a house to live in.

That's Socialism. Under Capitalism, where people could build their own homes, and not care what their government says, homes would be built.

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism was never concerned with providing living wages, and there were just as many low paying jobs in the 1950s. People just didn't work low paying jobs.

Nothing has changed with Capitalism ever.

What's changed in the US since the 1950s?

What happened in 1980 to spike income inequality?

Causes of income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

"Researchers have offered several potential rationales.[12][13] Various rationales conflict or overlap.[14] They include:

• "globalization – Lesser-skilled American workers have been losing ground in the face of competition from workers in Asia and other emerging economies.[15]
• skills – The rapid pace of progress in information technology has increased the relative demand for higher-skilled workers.[15]
• superstars – Compensation in many sectors turned into a tournament in which the winner is richly rewarded, while the runners-up get far less. This affects both workers and investors (in dominant firms).[15][16]
• immigration – Relatively high levels of immigration of less-skilled workers since 1965 may have reduced wages for American-born high school dropouts.[17]
• decline of unions – Unions helped increase wages, benefits and working conditions. Unionized workers declined from over 30% to around 12%.[18]
• social norms – Social norms constrained executive pay. CEO pay rose from around 40 times the average workers pay in the 1970s to over 350 times in the early 2000s.[19]"

Does not matter. None of what you posted matters. None.

Fact is, the poorest people in our country today, are doing far better than they were in the 1970s, by any economic measure, and far better than 99% of the world.