Boston guy who works full time but can't afford rent kicked out of shelter in favor migrants

No. Capitalism used to embrace the idea that, "A rising tide floats all boats." The only times it turns its back on that is when bribing government proves more profitable. Then investors see the company with the psycho CEO paying bigger dividends, and hires a psycho of their own. Monopolies make these things happen; government makes monopolies possible.

Now the money printer go brrrr. Again, all this evil traces back to the Fed. Imagine Yakoff Smirnoff's voice: In capitalism companies bribe government. In fascism government bribes companies. When they're actively destroying the currency, the rich people are the ones who get to spend the freshly printed money first. It's not until then that this new money makes the existing money worth less.

I see all that but I don't think anyone has to be bribed for these entities to buy up housing stock. They make the highest offer and the deal is done. Money printer go brrrr comes in in that the buying is done with debt. There are no legal barriers, though. If they want to buy every single house for sale in Phoenix AZ, they can.
 
Javier Milei :D


milei.jpg

Is he the man or what?! I want a tee-shirt with him on it. I have been following the news and see there have been protests, of course, but I also heard or read he's approved some temporary welfare to get people through this transition period. Government is getting the machete treatment while individuals are getting the Dave Ramsey treatment - beans and rice until they're out of debt. I hope all of this works as he plans and that the turn around goes speedily. Great pic of him, too :-)
 
I see all that but I don't think anyone has to be bribed for these entities to buy up housing stock. They make the highest offer and the deal is done. Money printer go brrrr comes in in that the buying is done with debt. There are no legal barriers, though. If they want to buy every single house for sale in Phoenix AZ, they can.

The "free market" should have some moral constraints, but this is a tough one with no good solutions. Everyone needs housing. Turning it into a global commodity to be traded like any other exchange traded asset is problematic.

Yet, where would the limits be set? During the last housing bubble, some people, including foreign nationals, were buying as many homes as they could, with NINJA loans being the driving force. Obviously it was fraud, perpetrated with the help of fraudulent Wall St schemes. And then all of that fraud ended up on the backs of taxpayers and with more inflation.

Many families own housing via trusts, LLPs, etc. At what scale does it become an issue? There are small investment groups that may only own a few homes. Are they a problem? But residential REITs traded on the stock market seems like a bad idea.

Speaking of Phoenix, I stayed in a house near there many years ago. A brand new development. There were only a couple of houses occupied in the entire neighborhood. Everything was purchased as an investment, not as a place to live. I'd image that over time, they are probably all occupied now though.
 
The "free market" should have some moral constraints, but this is a tough one with no good solutions. Everyone needs housing. Turning it into a global commodity to be traded like any other exchange traded asset is problematic.

Yet, where would the limits be set? During the last housing bubble, some people, including foreign nationals, were buying as many homes as they could, with NINJA loans being the driving force. Obviously it was fraud, perpetrated with the help of fraudulent Wall St schemes. And then all of that fraud ended up on the backs of taxpayers and with more inflation.

Many families own housing via trusts, LLPs, etc. At what scale does it become an issue? There are small investment groups that may only own a few homes. Are they a problem? But residential REITs traded on the stock market seems like a bad idea.

Speaking of Phoenix, I stayed in a house near there many years ago. A brand new development. There were only a couple of houses occupied in the entire neighborhood. Everything was purchased as an investment, not as a place to live. I'd image that over time, they are probably all occupied now though.

Those houses probably all got bought by one of the big investor entities for rentals. Phoenix is a hot market for that, as well as Airbnb, which is very destructive for neighborhoods.
 


And then went on to say…

Milei later appeared to at least partly soften his outspoken comments, clarifying he’d deem it up to the private sector to decide whether to maintain commercial ties with China, and other countries with leaders that he dislikes.

“I don’t have to get involved, but I won’t promote ties with those who don’t respect freedom,” he said, adding that he’d respect deals already signed in Argentina by Chinese companies, which include a contract to build twin dams in Patagonia and an agreement to set up a nuclear plant.
 
Those houses probably all got bought by one of the big investor entities for rentals. Phoenix is a hot market for that, as well as Airbnb, which is very destructive for neighborhoods.

This was quite a few years ago, before the subprime mortgage crisis. Back then, most of the homes were purchased by individual investors mostly from California. They still buy there.

Now the question may be, if it is "unfair" to local residents for people from California to buy homes as investments in Arizona, is it doubly unfair for people from China to purchase those homes? Or for a residential REIT run by Blackrock to buy up the homes, thus driving out local buyers?
 
This was quite a few years ago, before the subprime mortgage crisis. Back then, most of the homes were purchased by individual investors mostly from California. They still buy there.

Now the question may be, if it is "unfair" to local residents for people from California to buy homes as investments in Arizona, is it doubly unfair for people from China to purchase those homes? Or for a residential REIT run by Blackrock to buy up the homes, thus driving out local buyers?

Nothing is fair but I think it needs to be stopped. I know that doesn't fit with a libertarian, if you can buy it, it's fine, perspective, though.
 
Nothing is fair but I think it needs to be stopped. I know that doesn't fit with a libertarian, if you can buy it, it's fine, perspective, though.

It's the attitude "nothing is fair but I think it needs to be stopped" [in a democracy] that got us into the situation that we are currently in. Of course, it has been this way for thousands of years, so at that point, enjoy and embrace the conditions that sheople have made it. Just as government is not and never will be there to save you, there is no such thing as a perfect life.

7 billion people could easily fit in a Texas-sized city that is as dense as New York City. That's an awful lot of land in the rest of the world. Buy low, sell high and move on. Also, without government, eminent domain wouldn't be and issue, natural market conditions would most likely solve the problems.
 
"America is dangerously under populated."
-Apu from The Simpsons.
images
 
"America is dangerously under populated."
-Apu from The Simpsons.
images


David Stockman talks about that:


David Stockman on Why the US Needs a “Secure Border with a Wide Gate”

by David Stockman

Which part of the graph below do the GOP border warriors not understand? To wit, after growing by 1.9% per annum between 1972 and 2008, the growth rate of the prime-age US labor force (age 25-54) has decelerated to, well, 0.03% during the last 14 years.


Prime Age Civilian Labor Force, 1972 to 2022

1-7-600x808.png



At the same time, you do not need to be an economic historian to recognize that fully half of the GDP growth during modern times has been due to more workers and more labor hours supplied to the economy. So if labor supply growth has gone to zero on a long-term trend basis—and is actually shrinking as per below—where in the world is 4%, 3% or even 2% annual real GDP growth to come from?

Obviously, the only other source of economic growth in the great scheme of things is productivity gains. But during the 12-years since 2010 the productivity growth rate clocked in at just 1.13% per annum. So if that’s all there is and there ain’t no more when it comes to the core, two-part economic growth equation, what lies ahead is pretty miniscule gains in real GDP.

In turn, that begs the obvious big time societal question. There will be 100 million US retirees within a few decades, as the Baby Boom gets fully put out to pasture. So how in the world are they to be supported at anything near existing pay-as-you-go based Social Security, Medicare and other transfer benefit levels by an anemic GDP growth rate—one squeezed by a shrinking labor force on one side and the current, tepid levels of productivity growth, on the other?

The answer, of course, is no can do. But for avoidance of doubt, here is the growth of hours worked in the nonfarm economy versus real GDP for the period 1964 through 2007. Total hours worked grew from 112.6 billion to 236.0 billion during that 43-year period or by 1.74% per annum.

As it happened, real GDP rose by 3.27% annum during the same period. Accordingly, the input of labor hours accounted for 53% of total real GDP growth during the better part of America’s post-war prosperity.

Owing to the demographics already baked-into-the-cake, however, the black area of the chart below is slated to shrink progressively for several decades to come. Well, unless Washington finally wakes up to the demographic facts of life and the law of supply-and-demand, and follows a scheme that Robert Kennedy Jr. aptly describes as a “secure border with a wide gate”.

That is, a safe and orderly entry portal for willing workers wishing to participate in a large-scale Guest Worker program. And one that would allow them to eventually earn their citizenship by consistent contribution to the American economy over 5-10 years and faithful observance of US law in the interim.


Labor Hours Growth Versus Total Real GDP Growth, 1964 to 2007

2-5-600x614.png



Then again, perhaps the busy statesmen of Capitol Hill have lost track of where babies come from and how long it takes to make a prime age worker from the point of conception. The well-known fact, of course, is that lifetime fertility rates of native-born women have been falling for decades, but since 2008 alone the rate has dropped from 2.07 to only 1.69 in 2019. That’s far, far below the 2.1% replacement rate.

Even when you add-in the current 2.02 fertility rate for immigrant women the total US rate in 2019 was just 1.76.

So the math is unequivocal: Without new, substantial immigration, the US working age population will be shrinking as far as the eye can see.

For instance, the birth rate of the entire US population–native born and immigrant alike—has fallen by 17% just since 2007. So what would have been 4.6 million new births (black line) at the 2007 birth rate had plunged to just 3.8 million (red line) actual births by 2018. Thirty-years hence, therefore, the prime age workers cohort aged 30-41 years will be 5.7 million smaller than would have been the case at the 2007 birth rates. And self-evidently, the gap will continue to widen ever more rapidly with the passage of time.


Impact of Tepid US Birth Rates

3-4-600x443.png



Accordingly, the GOP’s border closure policies are dead wrong. What America actually needs during the years ahead is a dramatic step-up in the level of working-age immigrants, not their arrest and deportation.


Working Age Population 25-64 Years, 1965 to 2035

4-768x432.jpg



Moreover, the falling dotted line after 2015 in the above chart would have been even worse absent prior decades of immigration. Accordingly, just 128 million (74%) of the 173 million prime-age worker cohort shown above for 2015 were born here since 1965 to American-born parents. And that figure would drop to just 120 million or to 66% of the 183 million persons projected for this cohort by 2035.

That is to say, based on the non-immigrant population as of 1965 the prime age US workforce would shrink by 6.5% through the middle of the next decade alone.

In short, two generations of immigrants, past and projected, account for the difference between a 2035 US workforce of 183 million per the graph above versus the 120 million that would have resulted from just American-born workers born to American-born parents. That 63 million difference accounted for by recent past and projected immigrants amounts to fully one-third of the estimated 2035 labor force.

Editor’s Note: The truth is, we’re on the cusp of an economic crisis that could eclipse anything we’ve seen before. And most people won’t be prepared for what’s coming.


https://internationalman.com/articl...he-us-needs-a-secure-border-with-a-wide-gate/
 
Because it doesn't fit your narrative? Or because you are that lazy to learn some facts?

You regularly display your utter disdain for my neighbors and countrymen while speaking lovingly about criminal invaders. I can see you want everything to collapse and hate the foundations of " 'mericah".

And you expect me to consider a long post where you are pretending that you want my neighbors to succeed. Yeah, lol, sure. .
 
Because it doesn't fit your narrative? Or because you are that lazy to learn some facts?

You regularly display your utter disdain for my neighbors and countrymen while speaking lovingly about criminal invaders. I can see you want everything to collapse and hate the foundations of " 'mericah".

And you expect me to consider a long post where you are pretending that you want my neighbors to succeed. Yeah, lol, sure. .

I should have added the third option: Both of the above, I see.

Typical Common Core Left-Right indoctrination, which is why this country steadily declined. And will continue to do so. Got it :up:
 
Which part of the graph below do the GOP border warriors not understand?

I understand allowing millions of half wits to invade us from nations that have an average IQ of below 80 is not going to solve what Stockman thinks is a problem.
 
I understand allowing millions of half wits to invade us from nations that have an average IQ of below 80 is not going to solve what Stockman thinks is a problem.

I pretty much stopped caring so much, I am pretty well set. It does no good trying to get across to the masses, so whatever you guys want, unfortunately you will get. Don't blame me, I at least tried.

May you and others march on to the drum beat.......

No offense, AF, other than politics, you're still ok ;-)
 
I should have added the third option: Both of the above, I see.

Typical Common Core Left-Right indoctrination, which is why this country steadily declined. And will continue to do so. Got it :up:

Lol. That's why I don't take you seriously. ^^^ That is the most left right, neocon, fascist, commie, (whatever other condescending terms that you throw around) scripted narrative that I have ever seen on this forum. You are far more guilty of everything that you accuse others on this forum.

Seriously, your original handle was something like "patriotic American first" or omething silly. Were you being sarcastic or were you trying to blend in like a zippyjuan 3.0 and realized you had to change tactics.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top