5 ms·

Yep, great idea. "push down the prices". In other words, lowering compliance costs, regulatory costs, and in general any governmental barrier placed forth. Thi

by kefka 9y ago

Yep, great idea. "push down the prices". In other words, lowering compliance costs, regulatory costs, and in general any governmental barrier placed forth. This is called "Trickle Down Economics". This works for saving more of the elites money, but not for us. Frankly it just doesn't work, at all, when looked at with a lens of government. But boy, will they sell us this package that "It'll lower costs... We'll be able to hire more people.... We'll be able to...". In the end, they stockpile and shovel the money out of the US. If X costs $100 and by eliminating ALL governmental costs, goes to $80... and the average person only has $40, neither choice does a damn bit of good. They're both unaffordable. But now, one pays less to the burden of citizenship and public resource usage (aka Taxes). You want to stimulate the economy? Put money in the hands of the people! Yeah, you won't "save" that mythical $20 of compliance costs, but if the citizenry has $150, now they can afford your X. Course, the argument here is that X now goes up to $200. But Y over there is willing to play 'Supply and Demand' and undercut X... Just like how things do now in many markets. But, you know, something about socialist programs makes people get up and deny the very facts about supply and demand, and competition. For some reason, they all claim that everything will miraculously buffer up by Z% because socialist programs.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
What if X costs $100 only because price got extremely inflated over time? If you just give money to the people, then citizens have $150, $100 of which they'll spend on X, and the price of X is unlikely to go down - in fact, it'll likely go up! How about finding a way to reboot the X market, so that the price goes back down to a reasonable level (e.g. $35)?
- kefka 9y ago
  You're right in specific areas. Medical is fucked. Primarily, because of complete opaqueness in everything, and heavy regulatory control over many parts. We could either use a whole lot of socialism here, or a whole lot of capitalism here. Cause right now, we have the worst of each with none of the gains. Education is also fucked. Except this is good ol' protectionism straight up. We need look no further than the laws that forbid bankruptcy on school debt. Only one other area shares that distinction: criminal debt as a part of a punishment. Once these laws were enacted, school spending/loans/building/spending loop was going to spiral out of control. They have a captive audience, and they know it. And, a simple fix? Re-allow bankruptcy. It'd certainly be painful for the schools... but what's that phrase? "Market Correction"? I do still think you're wrong, overall. Cheap goods don't do a damn bit of good when people don't have money. And where we're going, AI applications and robotics are going to eat a lot of things quickly. I'm just waiting for the trucking industry to go "poof".. But you know, cheap goods.. With jobless, moneyless workers displaced who can't afford even cheap.
  - nostrebored 9y ago
    Kefka, allowing bankruptcy on school loans is unfortunately impractical when doctors have the ability to abscond with hundreds of thousands of dollars and a career which well net them millions. That is not a market correction either. In practice if we took away the student loans entirely, we would see a much more reasonable school pricing. Their audience is captive because they know that they can extract an extra $10k/yr from federal assistance alone.
    - kefka 9y ago
      Ah, the doctor excuse. If I remember correctly, lawyers were the other reason to consider bankruptcy as the way we do criminals. Those 2 areas where people were declaring bankruptcy are licensed professions. Simply put it would be easy to put a licensure check to say (If Bankruptcy is granted for bills related to school for license, it is rescinded until paid determined by judge.) But anyways, the rates of bankruptcy were minuscule for everyone. But no matter, fuck us all over. Where does the school have to have skin in the game, when they push substandard college or lie about graduation and placement? Removing bankruptcy protectionism would greatly help the market correct. Because that's all this law does. And we all see how it affexta scholastic higher ed spending.
atemerev 9y ago
Have you read "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt? It explains quite clearly where this $50 will come from, and what damage will be done in the process.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
closeparen 9y ago
What could be more pro-capitalist and anti-worker than advocating to keep the number of apartments below the number of workers so that landowners can charge exorbitant rents just because they own stuff? Landowners are coddled by protection from competition. We want to make their lives harder. There is no amount of money you can put in the hands of 100 people that results in them all having apartments, when there are only 50 apartments.
- kefka 9y ago
  We already have more than enough places to house everyone in the USA. The quantity is already there. For every homeless person, we have 5-7 houses empty (various stats around, depending on number of homeless). http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-we-cant-just-put-homeless-families-in-foreclosed-homes-2012-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-we-cant-just-put-ho... . We already have the supply. It's there. They are already built. Now.. Who do these houses belong to? Banks. Insurance firms. In reality, any company that needs illiquid money storage uses property. And they extract as much worth as they can from that. That's only logical from their standpoint. And maybe some office space, sure. But all those houses are simply rotting as people aren't living in them. I say, put them to good use. Eminent domain them, or tax them appropriately so that individuals and families can get them. I think you're mistaking me for some capitalist. If anything, I'm more communist for essentials, socialist for 'effective member of society', and capitalist for stuff on the edge.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    The obvious question is "Why are those houses empty?" Because they are in places that people have felt the need to leave en masse. People need to be near each other. Near family, support networks, schools, social services, and jobs. It's not enough to have surplus housing "in the US." We need it in the specific cities and neighborhoods with affordability crises. Your solution is for people to move thousands of miles to dead end towns with no economic opportunities or social support networks? I think you have mistaken yourself for their advocate. Here's a litmus test: when you win, who benefits? People trying to collect wages? Or people trying to collect rent checks? How does your communist solution decide who gets to live in California and who has to live in North Dakota?

by kefka 9y ago

TeMPOraL 9y ago

What if X costs $100 only because price got extremely inflated over time? If you just give money to the people, then citizens have $150, $100 of which they'll spend on X, and the price of X is unlikely to go down - in fact, it'll likely go up! How about finding a way to reboot the X market, so that the price goes back down to a reasonable level (e.g. $35)?

kefka 9y ago
You're right in specific areas. Medical is fucked. Primarily, because of complete opaqueness in everything, and heavy regulatory control over many parts. We could either use a whole lot of socialism here, or a whole lot of capitalism here. Cause right now, we have the worst of each with none of the gains. Education is also fucked. Except this is good ol' protectionism straight up. We need look no further than the laws that forbid bankruptcy on school debt. Only one other area shares that distinction: criminal debt as a part of a punishment. Once these laws were enacted, school spending/loans/building/spending loop was going to spiral out of control. They have a captive audience, and they know it. And, a simple fix? Re-allow bankruptcy. It'd certainly be painful for the schools... but what's that phrase? "Market Correction"? I do still think you're wrong, overall. Cheap goods don't do a damn bit of good when people don't have money. And where we're going, AI applications and robotics are going to eat a lot of things quickly. I'm just waiting for the trucking industry to go "poof".. But you know, cheap goods.. With jobless, moneyless workers displaced who can't afford even cheap.
- nostrebored 9y ago
  Kefka, allowing bankruptcy on school loans is unfortunately impractical when doctors have the ability to abscond with hundreds of thousands of dollars and a career which well net them millions. That is not a market correction either. In practice if we took away the student loans entirely, we would see a much more reasonable school pricing. Their audience is captive because they know that they can extract an extra $10k/yr from federal assistance alone.
  - kefka 9y ago
    Ah, the doctor excuse. If I remember correctly, lawyers were the other reason to consider bankruptcy as the way we do criminals. Those 2 areas where people were declaring bankruptcy are licensed professions. Simply put it would be easy to put a licensure check to say (If Bankruptcy is granted for bills related to school for license, it is rescinded until paid determined by judge.) But anyways, the rates of bankruptcy were minuscule for everyone. But no matter, fuck us all over. Where does the school have to have skin in the game, when they push substandard college or lie about graduation and placement? Removing bankruptcy protectionism would greatly help the market correct. Because that's all this law does. And we all see how it affexta scholastic higher ed spending.

atemerev 9y ago

Have you read "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt? It explains quite clearly where this $50 will come from, and what damage will be done in the process.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

closeparen 9y ago

What could be more pro-capitalist and anti-worker than advocating to keep the number of apartments below the number of workers so that landowners can charge exorbitant rents just because they own stuff? Landowners are coddled by protection from competition. We want to make their lives harder. There is no amount of money you can put in the hands of 100 people that results in them all having apartments, when there are only 50 apartments.

kefka 9y ago
We already have more than enough places to house everyone in the USA. The quantity is already there. For every homeless person, we have 5-7 houses empty (various stats around, depending on number of homeless). http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-we-cant-just-put-homeless-families-in-foreclosed-homes-2012-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-we-cant-just-put-ho... . We already have the supply. It's there. They are already built. Now.. Who do these houses belong to? Banks. Insurance firms. In reality, any company that needs illiquid money storage uses property. And they extract as much worth as they can from that. That's only logical from their standpoint. And maybe some office space, sure. But all those houses are simply rotting as people aren't living in them. I say, put them to good use. Eminent domain them, or tax them appropriately so that individuals and families can get them. I think you're mistaking me for some capitalist. If anything, I'm more communist for essentials, socialist for 'effective member of society', and capitalist for stuff on the edge.
- closeparen 9y ago
  The obvious question is "Why are those houses empty?" Because they are in places that people have felt the need to leave en masse. People need to be near each other. Near family, support networks, schools, social services, and jobs. It's not enough to have surplus housing "in the US." We need it in the specific cities and neighborhoods with affordability crises. Your solution is for people to move thousands of miles to dead end towns with no economic opportunities or social support networks? I think you have mistaken yourself for their advocate. Here's a litmus test: when you win, who benefits? People trying to collect wages? Or people trying to collect rent checks? How does your communist solution decide who gets to live in California and who has to live in North Dakota?