59
What the fuck does the stock market's performance have to do with homelessness? Like number goes up and magically poor people are suddenly not poor?
The point is that society as a whole is more wealthy than ever but we supposedly “can’t afford” to house the poor. Pointing out that such claims are disingenuous.
Other way around. The money line goes up because people are poor.
You'll find out if you bother reading other replies in this very thread.
I could be wrong, but I imagine people struggling to keep a roof over thier head and living on the street don't spend time giving a rats ass about the stock market.
Stock market is going up as a result of increased worker exploitation which is what's leading people not being able to make ends meet. Other things that make the market go up, such as shares buybacks while doing mass layoffs, are also feeding into the problem.
Do you guys ever think that governemnt policy is responsible for things like this happening?
Do you ever think that the government represents the interests of the ruling capital owning class and passes policy accordingly?
But what you probably advocate for would centralize more power in the government that is controlled by the powerful.
Talking about centralization of power with the government shows profound misunderstanding of the underlying problem which is who controls the government and which class interests the government represents. Centralization of the government has absolutely nothing to do with that. What you're describing is literally the way current US system functions.
You are just going to trade one master for another. Its like the one ring, it cant be properly controlled, it has to be destroyed.
That's an ignorant statement because we have existing socialist states and we can see that they function very differently from capitalist ones. Meanwhile, nobody has shown a functioning alternative to having a state. Anarchists keep rejecting practical and tangible improvements to everyone's lives while chasing dreams they have no means of realizing.
What are the states you are referring to? North Korea? Cuba?
The improvements you are talking about usually just make things worse.
as well as China, Vietnam, and Laos
I dont get it, are you wanting to have a country like the ones listed? I would argue that all of those countries are not desireable to live in.
Yes, I do want to have a country like the ones listed because it would be a vast improvement for majority of the people. If you had any empathy for others you'd want to live in a socialist country too.
You would want to live in North Korea or Cuba?
Causation vs correlation.
Once they're free from being choked by the deplorable US empire, absolutely. I grew up in USSR, and I had a great life there until communism was abandoned and I lived through some of the most horrific years under transition to capitalism. The problems Cuba and DPRK have are entirely caused by US trying to destroy them. If you want to see what socialism looks like in a country that US can't fuck with then look no further than China.
The fact that you pick on Cuba and DPRK as a form of argument against socialism shows that you're a deeply unserious person.
So then how do you explain what happened to Venezuela because they were not sanctioned until after they started seizing property?
Also you should watch the following short video showing how nonsensical planned economies are by vox of all news outlets ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-mUZRP-fpo
LMFAO I was waiting for you to start bleating about Vuvuzela. Maybe read a book for once in your life instead of guzzling propaganda videos. Here's one you can start with https://ia803008.us.archive.org/32/items/KillingHope/Killing%20Hope.pdf
So no answer, you are going with "BUT AMERICA!!"? And if you really want a shitty economy like cuba, watch the video and see why I know a guy that literally floated here on an inner tube.
I gave you an answer, and the fact that you don't understand the role US plays in destroying socialism around the world clearly shows that there's no point trying to have a discussion with you. Maybe spend some time educating yourself instead of trolling on public forums. Bye.
And you still have not responded to the video done by a left wing company. You ideas dont work even in theory.
LMAO imagine claiming central planning doesn't work when China exists. Also, I did respond to you, go read the book to see what was done to Venezuela and countries around it. Obviously we both know you're not going to read it, so keep on believing whatever nonsense you want. Not my job to educate you.
China is not central planned, it is central controlled... I agree with the idea that the US has screwed around all around the world and has harmed hundreds of countries, but to blame the failure of every shitty country due to a place thousands of miles away is silly. Literally Venuela is he example where they failed and THEN after they seized property they were embargoed. Linking to a book isnt some kind of proof of anything.
China has massive amounts of central planning. They literally release 5 year plans for the country. Meanwhile, there is nothing silly about blaming a country that chokes off other countries economies, invades them, meddles in their politics, runs coups, and political assassinations. US is aggressively hostile to every socialist country on the planet.
Meanwhile, even if we accepted your premise that Venezuela failed because of central planning, that doesn't prove what you seem to think it proves. Plenty of capitalist countries fail all the time. Using your galaxy brain logic, that proves that decentralized planning doesn't work. Why haven't you moved to Argentina for example? Based on your argument it should be a libertarian paradise.
Finally, dismissing a book that directly addresses your questions without reading it is precisely in line with the level of intellect you've demonstrated in this discussion.
They do, and they also have an economy that many people are afraid will collapse due to its debt level. Again, for the third time, Venezuela was doing terribly BEFORE they had sanctions. Can you please point to a country that was relatively capatilistic and failed due to the economy? Let me point to the horrible country that you lived in, the USSR, as the biggest example for the socialist/communist side.
Nobody except western people with exceptionally smooth brains is afraid that the economy in China will collapse. Venezuela was fucked with by US long before the sanctions. The book I linked you details this fuckery. Read it instead of making a clown of yourself here.
Meanwhile, one has to be an utter ignoramus to not be able to think of countries that failed under capitalism. I know it's a trope that Americans are historically illiterate, but holy shit. Go read up on what happened to Germany in the 30s.
The fact that you think you know more about USSR than somebody lived there really sums it up though. 😂
You're like the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Gotcha all you are going to do is repeat propaganda. And yes, if you think what was happening in the USSR was good, then I do know more than you, and I know that the US beat the shit out of them on every level. Failed people, failed state.
Under socialism overall the total amount of wealth is less. Do you disagree?
Under socialism overall the total amount of wealth is less.
Are you serious?
I think “what we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy.” https://redsails.org/anticommunism-and-wonderland/
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
One simple statement followed by a question; I worked hard for over a decade, sacrificed and learned so I could retire in my 30s, under socialism or communism, why would I work that hard if I would have not gotten rewarded for my sacrifice of time and labor?
You’ve really convinced yourself of this just world fallacy that it was your hard work and sacrifice rather than privilege and dumb luck, huh? Nobody but white boomers still believe in the American dream.
I also made enough to retire in my 30s, by being in the right place at the right time: a software developer in the ’90s San Francisco dot-com boom. But I’m not kidding myself that it was my hard work that “rewarded” me with stock options whose value went through the roof when the company went public. And honestly I didn’t even work all that hard.
Cool, well I was in small town Oregon, and it was done by hour after hour of work, not being in the right place at the right time. So that brings me back to my question; under socialism or communism, why would I work that hard if I would have not gotten rewarded for my sacrifice of time and labor?
Despite? How about: “because”
I'm sure we all understand the idea of directly proportional.
Right...it's because of the stock market reaching all-time highs that Americans are increasingly finding life unsustainable.
It's literally a case of cause and effect. The more the capital owning class is able to exploit the working class the higher their profits are.
"'Despite' Stocket Market Reaching All-Time Highs," methinks these are two related events especially considering that residential holding companies like Blackrock, Prologis, American Tower Company, and who knows how many other's are a large part of "the stock market." Also consider that Berkshire Hathaway is a major owner of Trailer Park homes like Clayton.
It's absolutely criminal that the concept of homeless and "the stock market" are portrayed as competing forces.
Indeed, it's pretty obvious that stock markets going up is a direct result of increased exploitation of the working class.
There are ~10k homeless people in Daytona Beach, Florida. The city built a shelter but it's about 8 miles from where the homeless are "existing," but to get there, they have to walk past the Speedway, which gets them either arrested or taken back to where they were. And on top of that, the shelter only has 45 rooms.
Who would walk 8 miles, risking an arrest record (which only makes it harder to rent even if they could afford rent there) just to find out that there was no room for them when they got there?
There's nothing around the shelter except the county jail and a few bail bonds places. There's no incentive to help these people and the county has done a piss poor job of addressing the skyrocketing cost of living that is the impetus of homelessness to begin with.
They could use the money from bike week to fund a shelter or, at very least, a soup kitchen, but instead, they just give that money to the city commissioner that oversees the area around the Speedway which is, coincidentally, the district of the Mayor's sister.
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
59 points (89.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7210 readers
268 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS