Babyboomers become homeless

Uncensored2008 said:
Sorry, no. That is National Socialism.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be national, but it is socialism. What is described here is fascism, which is government manipulation of markets. A classic example is letting people own their own business, but government decides what you can sell, what you can buy, what price you must sell at, who you can hire, who you can fire, when you can operate, etc.

So all you get to own is government idiocy running your business and you get no or little say in the matter. Like all socialism, fascism is based on theft.
 
cawacko said:
It essentially keeps rates artificially low. Therefore people who have lived in their homes for a long time are not incentivized to move, even if they want to, because of the step up in their tax basis. (this is they desire purchasing another house - if they are going to rent then it doesn't come into play).

I admit it's a(n) (ideological) conundrum for me as I support lower taxes. But both Prop 13 and NIMBYism have been major drivers in the outrageous housing prices in California.
Click to expand...

Partly correct. You forget the factor of the cost of home building and sprawl, and the high costs of those new homes as a result.
 
America said:
Three examples? I'm too lazy. I'll do one. Socialist capitalism: A company will mass produce a life-saving drug cheaply and then sell it at a reasonable price determined by the government (with "reasonable price" being determined as one that allows a company to make profits while also being affordable to the public).
Click to expand...
You are locked in a contradiction.

You are describing a socialism that promotes a free market. That's stupid and cannot exist.

If the the socialist government that seizes control of the business is going to determine the price, then the government will have neither the manpower nor the inclination to have analysts in every business to determine how to apply its pricing formulae; the government will instead just fix the price per what will be popular with the people and the businesses can suck donkey dick. If the government instead allows the businesses to charge whatever they want, then free market competition will force the price realization to the best value for the people while allowing reasonable profits. In that case, there is nothing socialist about the government.

Anyone using a term that includes "socialist" or "democratic" will not allow free market anything (strangely, "democratic" not allowing the people to decide and "socialist" not allowing society to decide) and will seek to destroy the very basis for any semblance of an economy, resulting in greater poverty and misery.

... and don't forget the use of religion as a narcotic of the people, e.g. Global Warming, Climate Change, ... and the imposition of science illiteracy and mathematical incompetence in our children, so as to more easily control the people. Really, don't forget it. Look what your religion has done to you. It's a terrible shame.
 
Lightbringer said:
There's no such thing.
Click to expand...

It's where most of the US economy is now. The government is, by edict, requiring car manufacturers to switch to 100% EV's in the near future. They wouldn't do that on their own as they see EV's as financial losers and know most buyers really don't want one.
The government has pretty much outlawed manufacture of gas appliances. Same thing.

When government comes in and starts requiring licenses, permits, and other regulatory stuff--needed or not--they are dictating to the market how things will be done and what you can and cannot produce. All the while, the means of production remain in private hands.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's where most of the US economy is now. The government is, by edict, requiring car manufacturers to switch to 100% EV's in the near future. They wouldn't do that on their own as they see EV's as financial losers and know most buyers really don't want one.
The government has pretty much outlawed manufacture of gas appliances. Same thing.

When government comes in and starts requiring licenses, permits, and other regulatory stuff--needed or not--they are dictating to the market how things will be done and what you can and cannot produce. All the while, the means of production remain in private hands.
Click to expand...

Really? Is Facebook in private hands? Is GM or Ford in private hands? Is Black Rock in private hands?
 
Lightbringer said:
Really? Is Facebook in private hands? Is GM or Ford in private hands? Is Black Rock in private hands?
Click to expand...

They are, but when government in essence says, you will produce this or you will do that under threat of the company being fined or even shut down, then government is controlling what the company produces or does.

So, if the FBI goes to Facebook and says XYZ is a lie, remove any posts that talk about XYZ... and implies there will be negative consequences if Facebook doesn't, that is government controlling Facebook.

If Ford and GM are told they have to make EV's and producing ICE vehicles is now illegal, what to Ford and GM do?

If Black Rock is told by politicians in the government to invest a certain way and if they don't then the IRS, et al., are going to start investigating them, what does Black Rock do?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
They are, but when government in essence says, you will produce this or you will do that under threat of the company being fined or even shut down, then government is controlling what the company produces or does.

So, if the FBI goes to Facebook and says XYZ is a lie, remove any posts that talk about XYZ... and implies there will be negative consequences if Facebook doesn't, that is government controlling Facebook.

If Ford and GM are told they have to make EV's and producing ICE vehicles is now illegal, what to Ford and GM do?

If Black Rock is told by politicians in the government to invest a certain way and if they don't then the IRS, et al., are going to start investigating them, what does Black Rock do?
Click to expand...

No they aren't.

And your IRS thing is total bullshit. Why would the Feds send the IRS against Black Rock when they fucking own it?
 
cawacko said:
It essentially keeps rates artificially low. Therefore people who have lived in their homes for a long time are not incentivized to move, even if they want to, because of the step up in their tax basis. (this is they desire purchasing another house - if they are going to rent then it doesn't come into play).

I admit it's a(n) (ideological) conundrum for me as I support lower taxes. But both Prop 13 and NIMBYism have been major drivers in the outrageous housing prices in California.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make sense.

If a house is sold, Prop 13 has no impact. The new buyer will pay based on the appraised value. Prop 13 only protects owners of properties, not buyers. It is non-transferable.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Doesn't make sense.

If a house is sold, Prop 13 has no impact. The new buyer will pay based on the appraised value. Prop 13 only protects owners of properties, not buyers. It is non-transferable.
Click to expand...

Two people who live next door to each and have homes each worth (pick a number) say $3m. Depending on when they bought the homes there could be a 10X difference in the amount of property tax they each pay. The person with the low basis has far less incentive to move because any new purchase would likely have a huge property tax increase. That distorts the market and makes it less dynamic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top