Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necesary

[danielpalos]

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more market friendly. the more participation in markets the greater the potential for the accuracy of better products at potentially lower cost.

Why provide rent control instead of more market participation for more people to help pay for more housing?

Unemployment compensation for people who quit their jobs or just refuse to work is lunacy. It is rewarding laziness. Unemployment compensation is meant to hold people over until they get another job. It was never meant to be a career.

You don't believe in Capitalism? The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed. Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.

I believe in capitalism. I also believe in actually addressing what was said in the post I quote.

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with your plea for unemployment compensation to be doled out to those who voluntarily quit their job or refuse to work. Want money? Get a job.

Thank you for your support of the Left wing not Right wing policy, by having nothing but fallacy instead of a capitally fine and capitally wonderfully due to being valid, argument.

The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed. Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.

Please point out where I have said anything about minimum wage. I can wait. Oh yeah, I haven't.

Unemployment compensation is not for people who quit a job voluntarily or refuse to get a job. That will not change. You don't get to draw a check and sit on your ass in your parent's house.

The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed. Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions. That is a form of "free market", as compared and contrasted to "wage slavery".

 

[Oldstyle]

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more market friendly. the more participation in markets the greater the potential for the accuracy of better products at potentially lower cost.

Why provide rent control instead of more market participation for more people to help pay for more housing?

Unemployment compensation for people who quit their jobs or just refuse to work is lunacy. It is rewarding laziness. Unemployment compensation is meant to hold people over until they get another job. It was never meant to be a career.

You don't believe in Capitalism? The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed. Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.

I believe in capitalism. I also believe in actually addressing what was said in the post I quote.

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with your plea for unemployment compensation to be doled out to those who voluntarily quit their job or refuse to work. Want money? Get a job.

The first thing you have to understand about Daniel, WinterBorn...is that he has ZERO concept about economics and spends his time here spouting gibberish that he thinks makes people think he DOES! "Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions." What does that even mean? Self select what? Their own wage? What's he babbling about? Do you know...I sure as heck don't and I don't think he does either.

 

[danielpalos]

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more market friendly. the more participation in markets the greater the potential for the accuracy of better products at potentially lower cost.

Why provide rent control instead of more market participation for more people to help pay for more housing?

Unemployment compensation for people who quit their jobs or just refuse to work is lunacy. It is rewarding laziness. Unemployment compensation is meant to hold people over until they get another job. It was never meant to be a career.

You don't believe in Capitalism? The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed. Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.

I believe in capitalism. I also believe in actually addressing what was said in the post I quote.

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with your plea for unemployment compensation to be doled out to those who voluntarily quit their job or refuse to work. Want money? Get a job.

The first thing you have to understand about Daniel, WinterBorn...is that he has ZERO concept about economics and spends his time here spouting gibberish that he thinks makes people think he DOES! "Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions." What does that even mean? Self select what? Their own wage? What's he babbling about? Do you know...I sure as heck don't and I don't think he does either.

What landlord or real estate firm would be worse off, in that case?

 

[WinterBorn]

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more market friendly. the more participation in markets the greater the potential for the accuracy of better products at potentially lower cost.

Why provide rent control instead of more market participation for more people to help pay for more housing?

Unemployment compensation for people who quit their jobs or just refuse to work is lunacy. It is rewarding laziness. Unemployment compensation is meant to hold people over until they get another job. It was never meant to be a career.

You don't believe in Capitalism? The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed. Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.

I believe in capitalism. I also believe in actually addressing what was said in the post I quote.

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with your plea for unemployment compensation to be doled out to those who voluntarily quit their job or refuse to work. Want money? Get a job.

The first thing you have to understand about Daniel, WinterBorn...is that he has ZERO concept about economics and spends his time here spouting gibberish that he thinks makes people think he DOES! "Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions." What does that even mean? Self select what? Their own wage? What's he babbling about? Do you know...I sure as heck don't and I don't think he does either.

What landlord or real estate firm would be worse off, in that case?

In what case?

 

[WinterBorn]

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more market friendly. the more participation in markets the greater the potential for the accuracy of better products at potentially lower cost.

Why provide rent control instead of more market participation for more people to help pay for more housing?

Unemployment compensation for people who quit their jobs or just refuse to work is lunacy. It is rewarding laziness. Unemployment compensation is meant to hold people over until they get another job. It was never meant to be a career.

You don't believe in Capitalism? The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed. Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.

I believe in capitalism. I also believe in actually addressing what was said in the post I quote.

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with your plea for unemployment compensation to be doled out to those who voluntarily quit their job or refuse to work. Want money? Get a job.

The first thing you have to understand about Daniel, WinterBorn...is that he has ZERO concept about economics and spends his time here spouting gibberish that he thinks makes people think he DOES! "Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions." What does that even mean? Self select what? Their own wage? What's he babbling about? Do you know...I sure as heck don't and I don't think he does either.

Yes, he babbles on and on without saying anything. He also refuses to answer questions to clarify what he says. His profile says he is 57. I don't believe he is over 19.

 

[Oldstyle]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

 

[WinterBorn]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person. Even if they quit their job. Even if they refuse to work. He just wants a check for doing nothing. And he wants people who work to have to pay him.

 

[Oldstyle]

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more market friendly. the more participation in markets the greater the potential for the accuracy of better products at potentially lower cost.

Why provide rent control instead of more market participation for more people to help pay for more housing?

Unemployment compensation for people who quit their jobs or just refuse to work is lunacy. It is rewarding laziness. Unemployment compensation is meant to hold people over until they get another job. It was never meant to be a career.

You don't believe in Capitalism? The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed. Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.

I believe in capitalism. I also believe in actually addressing what was said in the post I quote.

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with your plea for unemployment compensation to be doled out to those who voluntarily quit their job or refuse to work. Want money? Get a job.

The first thing you have to understand about Daniel, WinterBorn...is that he has ZERO concept about economics and spends his time here spouting gibberish that he thinks makes people think he DOES! "Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions." What does that even mean? Self select what? Their own wage? What's he babbling about? Do you know...I sure as heck don't and I don't think he does either.

What landlord or real estate firm would be worse off, in that case?

Explain what you mean by Market participants should "self-select" based on Market conditions, Daniel.

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation for people who quit their jobs or just refuse to work is lunacy. It is rewarding laziness. Unemployment compensation is meant to hold people over until they get another job. It was never meant to be a career.

You don't believe in Capitalism? The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed. Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.

I believe in capitalism. I also believe in actually addressing what was said in the post I quote.

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with your plea for unemployment compensation to be doled out to those who voluntarily quit their job or refuse to work. Want money? Get a job.

The first thing you have to understand about Daniel, WinterBorn...is that he has ZERO concept about economics and spends his time here spouting gibberish that he thinks makes people think he DOES! "Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions." What does that even mean? Self select what? Their own wage? What's he babbling about? Do you know...I sure as heck don't and I don't think he does either.

What landlord or real estate firm would be worse off, in that case?

In what case?

the Case where every adult market participant has recourse to an income regardless of employment status in our more developed not less developed economy.

 

[danielpalos]

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more market friendly. the more participation in markets the greater the potential for the accuracy of better products at potentially lower cost.

Why provide rent control instead of more market participation for more people to help pay for more housing?

Unemployment compensation for people who quit their jobs or just refuse to work is lunacy. It is rewarding laziness. Unemployment compensation is meant to hold people over until they get another job. It was never meant to be a career.

You don't believe in Capitalism? The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed. Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.

I believe in capitalism. I also believe in actually addressing what was said in the post I quote.

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with your plea for unemployment compensation to be doled out to those who voluntarily quit their job or refuse to work. Want money? Get a job.

The first thing you have to understand about Daniel, WinterBorn...is that he has ZERO concept about economics and spends his time here spouting gibberish that he thinks makes people think he DOES! "Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions." What does that even mean? Self select what? Their own wage? What's he babbling about? Do you know...I sure as heck don't and I don't think he does either.

Yes, he babbles on and on without saying anything. He also refuses to answer questions to clarify what he says. His profile says he is 57. I don't believe he is over 19.

employment is at will in our at-will employment States not for-cause.

 

[danielpalos]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

Requiring a work ethic from the Age of Iron is socialism and a form of Control of the People.

 

[danielpalos]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person. Even if they quit their job. Even if they refuse to work. He just wants a check for doing nothing. And he wants people who work to have to pay him.

cheaper than welfare as we currently know it. why do you Care how the Poor get their money; or, should we have to Care how the Rich get their money?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person. Even if they quit their job. Even if they refuse to work. He just wants a check for doing nothing. And he wants people who work to have to pay him.

He spews the same crap over and over again constantly trying to change the conversation. That's why I put him on ignore so I don't have to see the repetitive BS.

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation for people who quit their jobs or just refuse to work is lunacy. It is rewarding laziness. Unemployment compensation is meant to hold people over until they get another job. It was never meant to be a career.

You don't believe in Capitalism? The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed. Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.

I believe in capitalism. I also believe in actually addressing what was said in the post I quote.

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with your plea for unemployment compensation to be doled out to those who voluntarily quit their job or refuse to work. Want money? Get a job.

The first thing you have to understand about Daniel, WinterBorn...is that he has ZERO concept about economics and spends his time here spouting gibberish that he thinks makes people think he DOES! "Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions." What does that even mean? Self select what? Their own wage? What's he babbling about? Do you know...I sure as heck don't and I don't think he does either.

What landlord or real estate firm would be worse off, in that case?

Explain what you mean by Market participants should "self-select" based on Market conditions, Daniel.

we subscribe to capitalism and an alleged, "free market".

 

[WinterBorn]

You don't believe in Capitalism? The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed. Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.

I believe in capitalism. I also believe in actually addressing what was said in the post I quote.

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with your plea for unemployment compensation to be doled out to those who voluntarily quit their job or refuse to work. Want money? Get a job.

The first thing you have to understand about Daniel, WinterBorn...is that he has ZERO concept about economics and spends his time here spouting gibberish that he thinks makes people think he DOES! "Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions." What does that even mean? Self select what? Their own wage? What's he babbling about? Do you know...I sure as heck don't and I don't think he does either.

What landlord or real estate firm would be worse off, in that case?

In what case?

the Case where every adult market participant has recourse to an income regardless of employment status in our more developed not less developed economy.

So you are asking what landlord or real estate firm would be worse off if working people had to pay people a salary despite the fact that they quit their job or refused to work? Every single one of them. The rest of the people (those who work) would have less money. So they would have a tougher time paying rent or buying a home. The people who only want to take from the system, while contributing nothing, would make lousy tenants because they expect everything to be given to them without their having to do anything. And the costs of maintaining the rental units would go up.

 

[danielpalos]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person. Even if they quit their job. Even if they refuse to work. He just wants a check for doing nothing. And he wants people who work to have to pay him.

He spews the same crap over and over again constantly trying to change the conversation. That's why I put him on ignore so I don't have to see the repetitive BS.

i don't mind reading up on the concepts. the right wing usually only argues in a vacuum of special pleading.

 

[Oldstyle]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person. Even if they quit their job. Even if they refuse to work. He just wants a check for doing nothing. And he wants people who work to have to pay him.

LOL...well he needs to have some way to help all the people without job skills that he's going to make jobless with his fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, Winter! He's going to create a massive pool of people who never will get a job and will become permanent members of the "unemployed caste"!

What's amusing is that he thinks the people who DO work are going to be fine with higher taxes on THEIR wages to help pay for the new entitlement program for those who never will work!

 

[danielpalos]

I believe in capitalism. I also believe in actually addressing what was said in the post I quote.

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with your plea for unemployment compensation to be doled out to those who voluntarily quit their job or refuse to work. Want money? Get a job.

The first thing you have to understand about Daniel, WinterBorn...is that he has ZERO concept about economics and spends his time here spouting gibberish that he thinks makes people think he DOES! "Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions." What does that even mean? Self select what? Their own wage? What's he babbling about? Do you know...I sure as heck don't and I don't think he does either.

What landlord or real estate firm would be worse off, in that case?

In what case?

the Case where every adult market participant has recourse to an income regardless of employment status in our more developed not less developed economy.

So you are asking what landlord or real estate firm would be worse off if working people had to pay people a salary despite the fact that they quit their job or refused to work? Every single one of them. The rest of the people (those who work) would have less money. So they would have a tougher time paying rent or buying a home. The people who only want to take from the system, while contributing nothing, would make lousy tenants because they expect everything to be given to them without their having to do anything. And the costs of maintaining the rental units would go up.

why do you believe that? only true socialists don't believe in capitalism.

 

[WinterBorn]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person. Even if they quit their job. Even if they refuse to work. He just wants a check for doing nothing. And he wants people who work to have to pay him.

cheaper than welfare as we currently know it. why do you Care how the Poor get their money; or, should we have to Care how the Rich get their money?

No, not cheaper than welfare. A young, healthy male cannot get welfare simply because he doesn't want to work.

I don't care how the poor get their money, until it is taken from me, by force (taxation).

 

[danielpalos]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person. Even if they quit their job. Even if they refuse to work. He just wants a check for doing nothing. And he wants people who work to have to pay him.

LOL...well he needs to have some way to help all the people without job skills that he's going to make jobless with his fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, Winter! He's going to create a massive pool of people who never will get a job and will become permanent members of the "unemployed caste"!

What's amusing is that he thinks the people who DO work are going to be fine with higher taxes on THEIR wages to help pay for the new entitlement program for those who never will work!

Capitalism will find a way, if we let it!