Sharing Youtube discussion about LA homeless camps

[Thinker101]

The reason McDonald's pays $16/hours is because that is the market rate for labor. If they pay less, people don't work there.

The "market" is a much different concept in a highly developed welfare state like Denmark, particularly when compared to the "free" market US model, so you're comparing apples to oranges when you attempt to claim that union influence on workers' rights is the same in both countries.

No it's not. In fact, the minister of Denmark had to tell everyone that (after Sanders lied about it), that Denmark is a capitalist market economy.



It's exactly the same concept. In fact, Denmark is MORE capitalist free-market than the US.

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

Country rankings based on economic freedom. World and global economy rankings from the Index of Economic Freedom are published by The Heritage Foundation.

www.heritage.org

View attachment 406216

Denmark is 8th on the freedom index. The measure of how free, how capitalist, and how open market you are.

The US is 17th.

So no, it's not Apples and Oranges at all. It's Capitalism vs more capitalism.

Almost a 60% income tax and a 25% sales tax...that encourages the average person to strive for success?

 

[georgephillip]

And similarly, I can promise you without any shred of doubt, that if every American working 40-hours a week, invested $100 a month into stocks, that entire complaint you have about how little the 40% own, would be flipped the other way in just a few years.

Putting aside the fact that many Americans working 40 hours a week or more are going into debt every month even if they borrowed that hundred dollars, the stock market would still be controlled by the richest ten percent of investors:

How does the stock market affect the economy? - Economics Help

 

[Andylusion]

Which caused a depression and recession.

Capitalism caused both.
Every four to seven years, on average, US capitalism fails and millions of people lose their jobs, homes, and life savings. At the same time a few well-connected parasites see their net worth skyrocket. Socialize cost. Privatize profit.

While it is generally true that there are in fact cycles, that's not a failure.

That's actually a benefit of the capitalist system, is that it weeds out unproductive uses of resources.

To best understand this, you have to look at some of the reasons why the Soviet Union failed. One example is the negative equity firms in the Soviet Union.

31 Soviet Firms Warned: Make Profit or Close

Enforcing new capitalist-style reforms, the government threatened to close 31 state-run enterprises or turn them over to private managers if they do not make a profit within six months, a Soviet newspaper said today.

www.latimes.com

What is very interesting about the Soviet Economy, is because the Soviet system was not a market based system, companies could actually engage in money losing activities for decades on end, and never close.

This is because the government, which ran the entire economy, would keep them open.

Now this is an important aspect to understand, because contrary to the Labor Theory of Value, that the Soviets believed in, the reality was, the customer determined the value of labor.

Put it another way. Let's say that you built a terrible car, like the Fiat 500L, rated worst car currently on sale. But you made it out of Titanium. So it's a terrible car, that used up thousand on thousands of dollars in expensive resources. The car is still only going to be worth a few thousand dollars, because it still sucks.

So what you have done, is taken materials of high value, and made them into a product of low value. You have actively made the entire country, poorer. The net value of the entire country has gone down, because you have taking high value materials, and made them into a low value product. Everyone is poorer. The nation is poorer.

So how do we prevent that from happening? How do we weed out firms that make the nation poorer?

Well in Socialism, you simply don't. The government keeps the firm running, which results in them continually making the nation worse off. This eventually will implode the nation, and destroy the country. Which is exactly what happened in the USSR.

In Capitalism, as the firms operate losing money, they eventually go bankrupt, and the firm closes. Thus the destruction of wealth stops, and other firms that create value, take their place.

So what is the trade off... in the SHORT TERM, the USSR didn't experience any economic recessions, and people didn't lose their jobs, and everyone kept working. But on the bad side, the USSR completely imploded, while people were starving in the streets.

In Capitalism, in the short term, people lose their jobs, and have a rough time. In the long term, the entire country is more wealthy as bad companies fail, and good companies take their place.

So these cycles that happen in Capitalism are actually a massive benefit to the entire country. It weeds out bad firms that make the country poorer, and replaces them with good firms that make the country richer.

However, even then, most of the serious down turns in the economy, are not from 'capitalism'... but rather from government interference.

If government had not pushed banks to make bad loans, 2008 would never have happened. If government had not interfered in 1929, the Depression would never have happened. If government had not interfered in 2020, the 2020 recession would never have happened.

 

[Andylusion]

The reason McDonald's pays $16/hours is because that is the market rate for labor. If they pay less, people don't work there.

The "market" is a much different concept in a highly developed welfare state like Denmark, particularly when compared to the "free" market US model, so you're comparing apples to oranges when you attempt to claim that union influence on workers' rights is the same in both countries.

No it's not. In fact, the minister of Denmark had to tell everyone that (after Sanders lied about it), that Denmark is a capitalist market economy.



It's exactly the same concept. In fact, Denmark is MORE capitalist free-market than the US.

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

Country rankings based on economic freedom. World and global economy rankings from the Index of Economic Freedom are published by The Heritage Foundation.

www.heritage.org

View attachment 406216

Denmark is 8th on the freedom index. The measure of how free, how capitalist, and how open market you are.

The US is 17th.

So no, it's not Apples and Oranges at all. It's Capitalism vs more capitalism.

Almost a 60% income tax and a 25% sales tax...that encourages the average person to strive for success?

The point of the video, was that contrary to left-wing claims, Denmark is not a socialist economy.

Obviously having high taxes does result in people moving outside of Denmark to make money there. Which is why Denmark has been moving to the right for the past 10 to 15 years.

 

[Andylusion]

And similarly, I can promise you without any shred of doubt, that if every American working 40-hours a week, invested $100 a month into stocks, that entire complaint you have about how little the 40% own, would be flipped the other way in just a few years.

Putting aside the fact that many Americans working 40 hours a week or more are going into debt every month even if they borrowed that hundred dollars, the stock market would still be controlled by the richest ten percent of investors:

How does the stock market affect the economy? - Economics Help

Putting aside the fact that many Americans working 40 hours a week or more are going into debt every month

Then that is on them for acting irresponsibly. If you are working 40 hours a week, and you are going into debt every month... then you are either spending too much money... or you need to find another job.... or both.

Again, I am making over $15/hour. I have no degree. No education. No trade skills, or any skills. I have no decent abilities.

If there is anyone who should be under a bridge somewhere, it's me. But instead I make pretty good money for someone without a single redeeming skill or talent or education. Why? Because I show up every day on time, as I have for decades now. I work the entire time I am there, as I have for decades. I complete my job, do the best I can, and get along with everyone, as I have for decades.

It you are living on minimum wage, that's on you. You need to grow up, act like a responsible man, and get your butt to work.

And get married, and work together for a better future. Two people working McDonald's, is over $30,000 a year. That places you near or in the top 1% of wage earners in the world, and you can't save $100 a month?

Then you are spending too much. Stop blowing your money on crap. Be a responsible adult, and control your spending.

the stock market would still be controlled by the richest ten percent of investors:

First off, they don't have "control". If they had "control", then they would never lose money. Rich people lose value in the stock market all the time.

World’s wealthiest lose nearly US$1 trillion in stock market rout

The world’s 500 richest people collectively lost US$331 billion on Thursday, taking their losses for the year to US$950 billion.

www.scmp.com

If they had "control" they wouldn't lose $1 Trillion in value. You can say they own the majority of stocks, and that would be true. But they don't have "control" over the market or value of those stocks at all.

Now as if your claim that people investing $100 would not change the fact that the top 10% own most of the stocks..... False.

That is wrong based on math.

Let's do some quick math. There are roughly 150 Million workers in the US. Let's eliminate 10%, to represent the top 10% that own most of the stocks.

That's 135 Million workers roughly. If every single worker invested just $100 into the stock market per month, that would be $13.5 Billion dollars invested in the stock market each month, which is $162 Billion invested per year.

In 55 years, that would be over $9 Trillion dollars invested into the market. In comparison, the total value of the all the companies in the entire DOW Jones Industrial average.... is $9 Trillion.

And by the way.... that assumes that all workers, from the poorest to the richest, are only putting in $100 a month. I am putting in far more than $100 a month.

And that assumes no one anywhere, is getting a company match, which would be more than $100 a month.

And that assumes that no one anywhere, is getting a dividend payment which is used to buy even more stock. Which I can promise you, I am getting a dividend payment, and using it to buy stock.

So if you include company matches, and dividend payments, and people buying more stock when they earn more money, and if you include things like company stock purchase programs, like Walmart's employee stock purchase program...

I can safely say without any doubt, that if everyone did this, in 30 years, the majority of stocks would be owned by the 90% rather than the 10%. No question about it. That's what the math shows.

 

[Andylusion]

Denmark doesn't have welfare. You didn't know that? There is no welfare in Denmark.

Denmark only has unemployment compensation. And that is 60% of your average wage, over the past 5 years.

Denmark is a Nordic welfare state in that its government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits. The modern welfare state emerged in reaction to capitalism's first major global financial failure, i.e., the Great Depression.

Nordic model - Wikipedia

"The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden).[1]

"This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining[2] based on the economic foundations of social corporatism,..."

Again, nothing you posted contradicted what I said.

They don't have welfare, and if you had watched the video from the prime minister of Denmark, he said very directly that they have unemployment compensation, but they do not have welfare.

Welfare is, paying people to stay home.

They don't do that.

They have unemployment compensation, which is exactly what the Prime Minister of Denmark said.

You get 60% of your average income over the past 5 year. If you earned $20,000, you'll get $12,000 in unemployment, and that will only last one single year. And then..... you get job... or you starve.

There is no cradle to grave welfare system. You have to work a job.

As for collective bargaining..... it is true that there is more Union participation in Denmark. True.

However, as with almost everywhere in Europe and the US, Union participation is falling. Contrary to the claims that somehow Republicans have destroyed Unions.... unless you want to claim that Republicans run every country in all of Europe, Unions have been declining throughout the first world, everywhere.

Trade Union Dataset

OECD.Stat enables users to search for and extract data from across OECD’s many databases.

stats.oecd.org

In 1998, 78% of Danish were members of Unions. Today, barely 66% are members of unions. Collective bargaining is on the decline. Again, as is nearly everywhere.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

A single minimum wage job in the 1970s paid enough to cover market rents with enough left over to maintain a car; that is no longer the case in this country. The US currently has about 4% of the world's population and controls around 25% of global wealth, so how does that amount to doing better than 99% of the world?

I don't believe you. I know people who worked minimum wage in the 1970s, and it most certainly did not cover a house and car. I just flat out do not believe you on this.

Prove it.

he US currently has about 4% of the world's population and controls around 25% of global wealth, so how does that amount to doing better than 99% of the world?

That question makes no sense.

How does that amount to doing better than 99% of the world? Because when you look at how people live here, and compare it to how people live elsewhere... clearly here is better, with more wealth, and a higher standard of living.

Which is exactly why 99% of the world, is trying to get into the US.

 

[Andylusion]

And yet today, Asian Americans have a higher standard of living, and income, than white Americans.

How are you defining standard of living?

"Blacks are more than twice as likely as whites to live in poverty. 11 In 2014, about a quarter (26%) of blacks were poor, compared with 10% of whites.

"The black-white poverty gap has narrowed somewhat since the mid-1970s, when 30% of blacks were living below the poverty line – a proportion nearly four times the share of whites living in poverty (8%)."

Demographic trends and economic well-being

Asian women and men earned more than their White, Black, and Hispanic counterparts in 2017 : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Asian women and men earned more than their White, Black, and Hispanic counterparts in 2017. Among women, Whites ($795) earned 88 percent as much as Asians ($903); Blacks ($657) earned 73 percent; and Hispanics ($603) earned 67 percent. Among men, these earnings differences were even larger...

www.bls.gov

"Asian women and men earned more than their White, Black, and Hispanic counterparts in 2017"

 

[Andylusion]

Where does government get that money? From the people. So it's like saying you want me to give you $100, by reaching into your back pocket, and yanking out your billfold, removing $120, and giving you $100, and then you praise me for my benevolence.

Government creates money by spending.
Look at the trillions of dollars "spent" by the Federal Reserve over the last twelve months propping up major Wall Street banks if you're still ignorant about the universal characteristics of a sovereign currency.

MODERN MONEY: The way a sovereign currency “works”

You know, what is interesting about left-wing ideology, which is a form of todderlism... is the fact that when left-wingers do not want to believe something, it doesn't matter anymore who says it.

They will simply refuse to believe, what they don't want to believe, no matter who says anything to the contrary. Even if the source of the information is their own side.

While the statements you posted from the Fed, might be technically accurate, they are practically speaking false. How the world operates in theory, doesn't match up with how things work in reality.

On a technical level, yes they could just print out money, and pay all their debts. But obviously that is going to have ramifications in the economy. Supply and demand, determine value. If you dramatically increase the supply of something, without a direct corresponding increase in demand, the result is a lower value.

If the currency supply increases, which results in lower value, you end up needing more of them to pay for the same stuff.

This is why in Venezuela, where the government just started printing out money, to pay it's debts, the result was you needed 5 Million Bolivars to buy some tomatoes.

And I could post dozens of other examples.

Argentines are now allowed to know the real rate of inflation, thanks to their courts

Argentina’s courts, in a welcome moment of sanity, have overruled attempts (link in Spanish) by Argentina’s government to prevent anyone who isn’t the government from publishing a figure for inflation that isn’t what the government says it is.

qz.com

Argentina printed money, and now it costs $32 for chicken with cheese, and some fries.

Again, you people on the left, when you decide that you are going to shut off your brains, and simply refuse to believe something, it no longer even matters who says it.

Obama himself, could tell you this, and you wouldn't believe, not because of any facts or evidence to the contrary, but simply because like toddler with hands over your ears, you are just saying 'la la la I can't hear you'.

Barack Obama said Social Security and other federal checks may not go out on Aug. 3 if the debt ceiling is not increased

President Barack Obama and Congress are in intense discussions on raising the debt ceiling -- the legal limit on how muc

www.politifact.com

​

Obama: "Well, this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans' checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out each month."​

​

Pelley: "Can you guarantee, as president, that those checks will go out on August the 3rd?"​

​

Obama: "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."​

Now if you were even remotely right about anything you claimed in your post........

Why didn't Obama just say "Yeah we can print the money, and send it to those on government assistance!"

Why didn't he say that? Why did he say, that if we can't increase the borrowing limit, then there simply won't be money to pay these bills?

Because even a left-winger like Obama understood that you can't just print money. There are huge economic ramifications to just printing cash.

If there were not, then we should never have borrow so much as a dollar, since the time the country was formed.

But I know you. You are not going to believe the truth, even if Obama is the one saying it. You are going to believe this utter nonsense that the US can simply print their way out of debt. Utter ignorance.

 

[Andylusion]

Denmark is 8th on the freedom index. The measure of how free, how capitalist, and how open market you are.

Are you saying capitalism = freedom?
Singapore has more freedom than any other state in existence?
Thanks for confirming capitalism's penchant for authoritarian rule.

Yeah to some extent, I greatly admire the Singapore system. Any system where you can go to a city of 5 million people, and usually have less than 10 murders a year, is pretty impressive.

And as far as being free, you can go to Singapore and do just about anything you want. You can open a business. You can do almost anything. Why do you think Americans go to Singapore all the time to live there? People move their families to Singapore to live there, from all over the world.

Explain in real terms, how it is authoritarian, in practical reality? How? What oppressive laws do you think is going to bother you in real life?

There is only one. You can't call out insults against government officials, and honestly... to some extent... I think we should do that here.

I have never insulted Obama, the way I've seen people insult Trump. So that rule wouldn't even bother me. It might bother people on the left-wing, but that's because the left-wing is full of terrible evil disgusting people.

I even remember some guy shouted insults at Obama, and conservatives opposed that. You should show respect for the president, even if you disagree with him.

But left-wingers are terrible evil people, and they never respect anyone... while ironically demanding respect for themselves.

However, back to your first statement... Capitalism equals freedom? Yes. Of course it does.

That should be self evidence.

If you are not allowed by government to open a company... just by definition... you have less freedom.

If you can't investment money for your own benefit..... just by definition.... you have less freedom.

On what basis could you ever argue otherwise? In pre-78 China, you were born on a farm commune, you worked on the farm commune, and you died on the farm commune, and you never had any freedom to do anything else.

*shrug* How is that more freedom, than Capitalism, where you can open a company, or start your own business, or work for your own profit?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I was in LA last year,I have never seen a homeless crisis like that one I saw in any other city ever.

 

[Andylusion]

I was in LA last year,I have never seen a homeless crisis like that one I saw in any other city ever.

And it's a created crisis. When you pay people to act badly, more people are going to act badly.

Can you imagine what would happen if shop lifting was made legal tomorrow? Can you imagine the chaos in the stores across the country?

Well they legalized camping on the streets, taking over entire sections of the city, legalized drug use and public intoxication, legalized simply taking over any area you can get into......

Well..... what did they think was going to happen?

So dumb.

 

[georgephillip]

Then that is on them for acting irresponsibly. If you are working 40 hours a week, and you are going into debt every month... then you are either spending too much money... or you need to find another job.... or both.

Again, I am making over $15/hour. I have no degree. No education. No trade skills, or any skills. I have no decent abilities

If what you are telling us about your work history is accurate, you have either been an exceptionally responsible worker or a very loyal serf (wage slave). Your life experiences have been very different from millions of others who are unable to meet their basic living expenses every month without going into debt. Their situation is nothing new; it has been the case for thousands of years that creditors will find ways to enslave debtors, one more Evil that capitalism has accelerated.

 

[georgephillip]

Almost a 60% income tax and a 25% sales tax...that encourages the average person to strive for success?

Wouldn't that depend on how much the average person is saving on health care and higher education?

The End of the Road for Eds and Meds - Aaron M. Renn

 

[georgephillip]

I was in LA last year,I have never seen a homeless crisis like that one I saw in any other city ever.

I've lived in LA off and on since 1967, and I've never seen homelessness as prevalent as it is today. The "good" news is today's houseless population is still primarily composed of individuals, mostly male but with a significant number of females. Many, if not most of these individuals, have had years of experience surviving without shelter.

That could change drastically if we don't see some serious stimulus coming from congress after November 3rd. If evictions spike the way some a predicting there will be thousands of families who have never experienced life on the streets before surviving without shelter during winter.

 

[Thinker101]

Almost a 60% income tax and a 25% sales tax...that encourages the average person to strive for success?

Wouldn't that depend on how much the average person is saving on health care and higher education?

The End of the Road for Eds and Meds - Aaron M. Renn

Well, if you're in college for 50 years I may see your point, but then again 20.64% is a lot less than 85%.

 

[Thinker101]

I was in LA last year,I have never seen a homeless crisis like that one I saw in any other city ever.

I've lived in LA off and on since 1967, and I've never seen homelessness as prevalent as it is today. The "good" news is today's houseless population is still primarily composed of individuals, mostly male but with a significant number of females. Many, if not most of these individuals, have had years of experience surviving without shelter.

That could change drastically if we don't see some serious stimulus coming from congress after November 3rd. If evictions spike the way some a predicting there will be thousands of families who have never experienced life on the streets before surviving without shelter during winter.

Yep, and democrats call that progress.

 

[jc456]

Prior to the 1970s urban homelessness was largely confined to skid row neighborhoods. The residents were mainly young white males who were mostly migratory workers who followed crops or moved in and out of lumber camps. That all changed when gentrification leveled entire city districts, and the single occupancy hotels that the migratory workers lived in became boutique hotels or upscale housing.

Capitalism commodifies everything.

Since investment capital circulates primarily through the built environment, public space itself has become a basic urban commodity.

Privatize profits.
Socialize cost.
Pretend you're surprised.

What Causes Homelessness? Start With Capitalism.

So then how do you explain the mass homelessness of Venezuela which has no Capitalism? Or Cuba which up till recently had no Capitalism? Or China? Or North Korea?

Why is it the most socialized cities in America, that spend the most on social programs, even for the homeless, have the highest rates of homeless?

I don't believe anything you posted.

drug attics was already mentioned in the thread. you should read.

 

[georgephillip]

While it is generally true that there are in fact cycles, that's not a failure.

That's actually a benefit of the capitalist system, is that it weeds out unproductive uses of resources.

Capitalist enterprises are organized around the conflicted and adversarial relationship between employer and employee and the competitive, zero-sum exchange of markets. Every four to seven years these structural defects of capitalism result in an economic downturn that can result in millions of productive workers losing their homes, incomes, and pensions.

Why are these downturns guaranteed?

Because the religion of capitalism worships profits.

Captains of industry (finance) make sure their shareholders receive a steady stream of dividends in spite of the fact shareholders do absolutely nothing to earn their income.

Independent capitalists - being in a competitive situation with each other - can not and will not coordinate since that would invoke the dreaded "planned" economy.

Hence the way capitalism forces the coordination NOT undertaken in advance is by means of crisis:

Why is the US Economy so Prone to Crashes?

"In other words, crisis is not introduced into this system from the outside.

"It’s the way the system itself self-corrects for the mistakes built into how the system makes decisions about investment.

"The only way to deal with that is to come up with a way that coordinates what each investor does.

"Capitalists resist giving this power to the only conceivable agency that could do it, which is the state. "

 

[Andylusion]

Then that is on them for acting irresponsibly. If you are working 40 hours a week, and you are going into debt every month... then you are either spending too much money... or you need to find another job.... or both.

Again, I am making over $15/hour. I have no degree. No education. No trade skills, or any skills. I have no decent abilities

If what you are telling us about your work history is accurate, you have either been an exceptionally responsible worker or a very loyal serf (wage slave). Your life experiences have been very different from millions of others who are unable to meet their basic living expenses every month without going into debt. Their situation is nothing new; it has been the case for thousands of years that creditors will find ways to enslave debtors, one more Evil that capitalism has accelerated.

I'm always amazed at what people make up, to justify their unsupportable position.

Again, two people working McDonald's, places them in the top 1% of income earners in the world.

A wage slave? Have you been to Venezuela? At least they are not wage slaves.... might be dead from starvation, but at least they are not wage slaves.

I wouldn't say I'm a loyal serf. If you don't pay me enough money, I leave the job. Which I have done multiple times.

Your life experiences have been very different from millions of others who are unable to meet their basic living expenses every month without going into debt.

Bull. Not true. I know this for a fact, because I routinely meet people who earn more money than me, and are in debt.

One year, (long story) I had a taxable income of $10,000 for the year. Even during that year, I didn't go into debt. It's simply living on less than you make, and yes anyone can do it.

Anyone. Period. If you see someone who is going into debt, either they are not working 40-hours, or they are spending too much.

All you do, is if you don't have the money... you don't buy the product. It's that simple.