My Genius Professor's Answer To our Mess!

[jclay2]

BULLDOZE THE EXCESS HOUSES!

Yep, I am not kidding. This guy honestly wants to have the government buy up excess houses and bulldoze them. What a freaking idiot. Even crazier was that the sentence before that, he said he hates government intervention! I almost wanted to tell him how stupid he his by reminding him what we did in the great depression with burning of the excess food. How are all these "smart" people so stupid?

 

[Conza88]

My economics professor's prediction.... the aus govt intervened at the right time. And the crisis is pretty much over...

->

Mises.org = learn more, in literally one day. Than they know in 6 years to get phd, and all their years of spreading bullshit propaganda..

It's really rather sad.

 

[acptulsa]

As fine a theoretical solution to the problem as you could ask for.

If you want to put something into practice, on the other hand...

 

[FindLiberty]

Hey, it's just the "shopkeeper's broken window" story taken to the next level... Think of all those new jobs it will create! Who cares about the greedy, capitalist shopkeeper anyhow?

Why, imagine the lighning speed and efficiency of nuking a whole city (if the broken window plan is a sound economic solution).

Then, best yet, blame it all on an enemy we wish to destroy... It's win-win, pure gravey! A plan worthy of the deathstar (pentagon).

What a maroon.

 

[theoakman]

tell your professor, that's the one sure way you will make people homeless. Those homes have value, and they will sell, at the right price.

Ask your professor if he thought it was a good idea to bulldoze all America's crops to keep prices stable while half the country starved? That's what they did in the 30s. It was REALLY REALLY stupid. You wouldn't know that by reading an American history book. They claim it was great.

 

[Acala]

And so

Destroy the surplus! Sounds like a plan. And so, by extension of the argument, we should shoot the unemployed.

 

[jclay2]

Destroy the surplus! Sounds like a plan. And so, by extension of the argument, we should shoot the unemployed.

That is hilarious. I don't know why my professor doesn't want affordable housing. Housing will stabilize, but at a much lower price.

 

[tmosley]

Actually, it's worked quite well before, when done on the municipal scale. Youngstown, Ohio is a good example. http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/08/real_estate/radical_city_plan/index.htm?cnn=yes

They got rid of blighted buildings and tore up unneeded roads. If you grow to accommodate increasing population and a growing economy, it makes sense that you should shrink to accommodate decreasing population and a shrinking economy.

Of course, they shouldn't really be spending taxpayer dollars on buying houses like that. It would probably be better to just demolish those seized for unpaid taxes, etc.

This is not analogous to the shopkeeper's broken window, because these excess homes aren't doing anything. They are just sitting there encouraging crime and dragging down property values (both through the fact that they are unoccupied and the fact that they are generally in disrepair). Of course, a better option would be to decrease the cost of those homes enough so that someone could pay cash for them, free market style, but the concept is not a particularly horrendous one.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

That is hilarious. I don't know why my professor doesn't want affordable housing. Housing will stabilize, but at a much lower price.

Dude, can we email your professor???

he needs an education. The last thing he should be doing is TEACHING

This guy a college professor?

 

[FindLiberty]

Destroy the surplus! Sounds like a plan. And so, by extension of the argument, we should shoot the unemployed.

No, go after the employers 'cause it has more impact, and creates more opportunity for advancement.

Mad Magazine had a strip about a Communist doctor removing a guy's intestines "to free the oppressed appendix". Insightful.

 

[acptulsa]

Of course, a better option would be to decrease the cost of those homes enough so that someone could pay cash for them, free market style, but the concept is not a particularly horrendous one.

Not a particularly horrendous concept, though a stupid one. Nothing like creating value then destroying it.

What is horrendous is the thought of the federal government executing this "plan".

 

[Dr.3D]

That's why he is teaching rather than doing something else.
Those who are too dumb to make money honestly, teach.

Now I'm not saying all teachers are dumb or dishonest... but just look at our schools and the stupidity they preach. When I was in school, I could ask a question and the stoopid (incorrect spelling on purpose) teacher couldn't come up with the correct answer even if I had provided it in advance.

 

[jclay2]

That's why he is teaching rather than doing something else.
Those who are too dumb to make money honestly, teach.

Now I'm not saying all teachers are dumb or dishonest... but just look at our schools and the stupidity they preach. When I was in school, I could ask a question and the stoopid (incorrect spelling on purpose) teacher couldn't come up with the correct answer even if I had provided it in advance.

This guy actually does a good deal of active management and trading. I am not defending him by any means, I just can't believe the stupidity of some people.

 

[Dr.3D]

This guy actually does a good deal of active management and trading. I am not defending him by any means, I just can't believe the stupidity of some people.

Ever hear of the Peter Principle?

 

[travisAlbert]

I am somewhat fortunate. I have a Keynesian Economics Prof. who is very much against the bailouts.

 

[jon_perez]

Sigh... I've always wondered why wealth (tangible goods and services) has to be destroyed in order to jump start the economy (like during WW2).

There is really something perverted going on here... some malevolent worm that has burrowed itself in our theories of economics.

 

[acptulsa]

Sigh... I've always wondered why wealth (tangible goods and services) has to be destroyed in order to jump start the economy (like during WW2).

There is really something perverted going on here... some malevolent worm that has burrowed itself in our theories of economics.

Interesting observation. Is it something systemic and endemic? The wasteful culture of a nation that once had a superabundance of wealth, or an integral flaw with the whole concept of basing money on debt? Or a little of both?

 

[Conza88]

Sigh... I've always wondered why wealth (tangible goods and services) has to be destroyed in order to jump start the economy (like during WW2).

There is really something perverted going on here... some malevolent worm that has burrowed itself in our theories of economics.

Yep you're right, the concept is completely retarded and fallacious. The state loves it & in fact needs it.

It's in every school of economics practically, except the Austrian School.

Mises.org media section... take a poke around... that fallacy gets pwned to death, lol...

 

[theoakman]

Actually, it's worked quite well before, when done on the municipal scale. Youngstown, Ohio is a good example. http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/08/real_estate/radical_city_plan/index.htm?cnn=yes

They got rid of blighted buildings and tore up unneeded roads. If you grow to accommodate increasing population and a growing economy, it makes sense that you should shrink to accommodate decreasing population and a shrinking economy.

Of course, they shouldn't really be spending taxpayer dollars on buying houses like that. It would probably be better to just demolish those seized for unpaid taxes, etc.

This is not analogous to the shopkeeper's broken window, because these excess homes aren't doing anything. They are just sitting there encouraging crime and dragging down property values (both through the fact that they are unoccupied and the fact that they are generally in disrepair). Of course, a better option would be to decrease the cost of those homes enough so that someone could pay cash for them, free market style, but the concept is not a particularly horrendous one.

wtf, these house are not blighted. They are brand new. Those houses have real value. If you bulldoze them, you lose that value.

 

[theoakman]

This guy actually does a good deal of active management and trading. I am not defending him by any means, I just can't believe the stupidity of some people.

active managers usually get paid commissions while they lose their clients money.