The rent is too damn high...in 2022 it's for real, too damn high

[Snowball]

Strangely the masses keep getting richer and richer. A middle class person today has a higher standard of living than the wealthiest people in the world a century ago.



Two-thirds of the budget is welfare spending. How much more free stuff should people be getting?

Total B.S. Why? Because more dollars doesn't equal more wealth. The masses are earning far less compared to the elites, real wages are stagnant for decades, and it doesn't matter if your house appreciates 1000% in value when everyone else's does also, that's called inflation. Inflation and Debt are NOT productivity. Human labor and invention produces value, not monopoly money. How do you think Russia can destroy this country in a half hour and spends less than 5% what we do on weapons? Because money is not the driver of real value, it's supposed to be a mere medium of exchange, and a static one at that.

An acre of land where I live was $25-50 when my great-grandfather was buying it. A house was $1500. An uneducated, non English-speaking day laborer could work 1 year, buy his own house and land debt-free. Debasement of the currency is not a meal, it's crystal meth. The drug-dealer makes all the money, and the population gets sick and wasted.

 

[acptulsa]

As the concentration of wealth becomes tighter and tighter, and the currency devalues into nothingness, there isn't going to be any sustainable solution to the collapse of top-down capitalism via promulgation of debt, but that's all they can keep doing, because they won't provide the simple fixes.

Simple fixes include housing that is owned by the government, not financiers paid by the government, and, like in energy, food, medicine, it's going to require price controls and profit caps, because the greed principle is bankrupting this country. So much for Adam Smith. He was wrong.

Total B.S. Why? Because more dollars doesn't equal more wealth. The masses are earning far less compared to the elites, real wages are stagnant for decades, and it doesn't matter if your house appreciates 1000% in value when everyone else's does also, that's called inflation. Inflation and Debt are NOT productivity. Human labor and invention produces value, not monopoly money. How do you think Russia can destroy this country in a half hour and spends less than 5% what we do on weapons? Because money is not the driver of real value, it's supposed to be a mere medium of exchange, and a static one at that.

An acre of land where I live was $25-50 when my great-grandfather was buying it. A house was $1500. An uneducated, non English-speaking day laborer could work 1 year, buy his own house and land debt-free. Debasement of the currency is not a meal, it's crystal meth. The drug-dealer makes all the money, and the population gets sick and wasted.

And you want the government to take everything over.

And just who do you think is devaluing the dollar? The owner of your local Habib store?

Because if concentration of wealth is the problem, clearly total concentration of wealth is the answer. Realism, you called it?

 

[Snowball]

I certainly do not want the government to take everything over. If you're going to misappropriate my words, use quotations.

Nixon used price controls. The Fed uses price controls underhandedly and manipulates our money to its own ends.
They have a price control on silver. Which is why it is barely holding 20/oz now.

The FF's put the power of money control in the law and in Congress' hands for the sole reason of keeping it out of the bankers realms.
I guess you might say they were statists for doing that? If the gov protects consumers by law, then there is LESS gov intervention.
What requires MORE gov intervention is when the situation gets out of hand, then fake solutions are provided that don't address the structural achilles heels.

 

[acptulsa]

Simple fixes include housing that is owned by the government, not financiers paid by the government...

I certainly do not want the government to take everything over. If you're going to misappropriate my words, use quotations.

No problem. Thought I did the first time.

 

[Matt4Liberty]

I've been renting for the last 4 years because I was expecting the market to crash sooner. With the benefit of hindsight I should have bought, but such is life.

My landlord decided to raise my rent $400 after raising it $300 last year. Last year, I obviously wasn't happy but when I checked rents in the area it was inline. This year, it's completely unrealistic. The market isn't supporting their price increase. Ultimately, I could cry on the internet about it, or sign a lease somewhere else. I did the second.

 

[Snowball]

No problem. Thought I did the first time.

Why did you include this quote of mine: "Simple fixes include housing that is owned by the government, not financiers paid by the government..."

Do you suppose that it's "better" or "less commie" for the government to pay banks, corporations and REITs billions of dollars to house the elderly, disabled, incapable, and homeless -- with a built-in profit expense of 50%++, or to directly house these people ? In the 1970's, states were de-institutionalizing. The process was complete by the 1990's... much like the non-profit requirements for hospitals and health insurance were lifted. You know what happened? Health care prices went through the roof, compounding and doubling in rapid paces. Why? Because all the unnecessary costs were just gravy cash paid to Wall Street. At our expense and the expense of our governments. Section 8 was vastly increased, as was cash payouts to these people... for every single need... rather than provide for their needs in a manageable manner that does not incentivize them, the banks, and the business sector to encourage dependency. Are you the type of "libertarian" who would rather pay twice and thrice as much for your oil and gas bill so Big Oil execs and Green execs and Utility execs and their Wall Street owners pocket 60-70% off the top? All because at least your community doesn't own its own power plant, or institute price controls on critical goods, because that would be "Marxist" ?

 

[acptulsa]

... much like the non-profit requirements for hospitals and health insurance were lifted. You know what happened? Health care prices went through the roof, compounding and doubling in rapid paces. Why?

1. Medicare (a government-enforced government monopoly on health insurance for the elderly, obviously the major consumers of that particular service) began demanding reams of paperwork.

2. Providers raised their rates on Medicare patients to cover the cost of completing the additional reams of paperwork.

3. Government made it illegal for providers to charge anyone less than they charge Medicare for the same service, even cash customers who require no paperwork at all. Which is how they priced cash customers out of the market, and forced everyone into HMOs.

Federal law prohibits a supplier from charging Medicare or Medicaid substantially in excess of the company’s usual charges, unless there is good cause. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(b)(6)(A) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

The Secretary may exclude the following individuals and entities from participation in any Federal health care program (as defined in section 1320a–7b (f) of this title):

Any individual or entity that the Secretary determines—

A) has submitted or caused to be submitted bills or requests for payment. . . under subchapter XVIII of this chapter or a State health care program containing charges . . . for items or services furnished substantially in excess of such individual’s or entity’s usual charges . . . for such items or services, unless the Secretary finds there is good cause for such bills or requests containing such charges or costs[.]

The key terms “substantially in excess” and “usual charges” are not defined in the statute. The current regulations issued under the statute, codified at 42 C.F.R. § 1001.701, simply repeat the language of the statute, without providing any guidance about the meaning of “substantially in excess” or “usual charges.” The Office of Inspector General (the “OIG”) has provided guidance through OIG Advisory Opinions and a guidance letter regarding the meaning of these terms on several occasions, but that guidance has been inconsistent.

https://medtrade.com/news/billing-r...s-Less-Than-What-is-Billed-to-State-Medicaid/

Not a place you want to go to try to demonstrate that socialism is the answer to all our problems, or that Wall St. has any way to gouge us except to buy government interference in the market. At least, not with someone who was there and saw it happen long before they even created the particular propaganda you were fed in school.

Quick tip: If you want to convince libertarians free markets are evil, find an actual free market to use as an example--if you can still find one.

 

[Snowball]

acptulsa = black. snowball = red.

... much like the non-profit requirements for hospitals and health insurance were lifted. You know what happened? Health care prices went through the roof, compounding and doubling in rapid paces. Why?

1. Medicare (a government-enforced government monopoly on health insurance for the elderly, obviously the major consumers of that particular service) began demanding reams of paperwork.

The owner of a monopoly is not the buyer of said product. Those selling the product hold the monopoly. Ergo, for-profit corporations gouging the government's coffers is not a government monopoly.


3. Government made it illegal for providers to charge anyone less than they charge Medicare for the same service, even cash customers who require no paperwork at all. Which is how they priced cash customers out of the market, and forced everyone into HMOs.

Of course, except for the part where Medicare is decades older than for-profit healthcare is. Is it a mere coincidence that costs rose when corporations took over hospitals and HMO's began? I'm sure there's no connection? lol. ditto "paperwork", your 2.


Not a place you want to go to try to demonstrate that socialism is the answer to all our problems, or that Wall St. has any way to gouge us except to buy government interference in the market. At least, not with someone who was there and saw it happen long before they even created the particular propaganda you were fed in school.

Ok, let's revert again to questions I've asked such as was Nixon a "socialist" and were Anti-Trust Laws of the 1890's "socialist", because I'm not taking about the government spending money or increasing its programmes. I'm talking about saving money and providing for an economy that requires less programmes by utilizing constitutional protocols which is what the founders wanted to happen.

Quick tip: If you want to convince libertarians free markets are evil, find an actual free market to use as an example--if you can still find one.

Touché -- but that's always been the case, and in our case, whatever "most free" market remembered (or imagined) did still work to provide us with this situation we're in today.. ergo, free markets are almost always illusory, and always dangerous, due to the nature of capital.

 

[acptulsa]

Monopolists can't monopolize unless some power is used to stifle competition. Right?

For profit health care predates Hippocrates. So does paperwork. And Hippocrates predates Medicare. Right? Don't try to use history to make your case until you learn enough of it to keep it from biting your ass.

Policies of the 1890s led to Wilson, who was totally socialist. As for Nixon, he started Amtrak. Don't tell me that isn't socialist, and you're well advised to read this thread before trying to tell me it was necessary:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285290-Intercity-Passenger-Rail

Capital never destroyed a free market faster than when it was used to bribe a politician, and yet you keep saying we need to call in the politicians.

No.

 

[Snowball]

Monopolists can't monopolize unless some power is used to stifle competition. Right?

For profit health care predates Hippocrates. So does paperwork. And Hippocrates predates Medicare. Right? Don't try to use history to make your case until you learn enough of it to keep it from biting your ass.

Policies of the 1890s led to Wilson, who was totally socialist. As for Nixon, he started Amtrak. Don't tell me that isn't socialist, and you're well advised to read this thread before trying to tell me it was necessary:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285290-Intercity-Passenger-Rail

Capital never destroyed a free market faster than when it was used to bribe a politician, and yet you keep saying we need to call in the politicians.

No.

So.. back to the subject of this thread which is one of the many similar examples I've been discussing here. You admit zero, no role for the legislatures or the executive in market "interference", but at the same time you have to admit that the market interference is extreme. For example, economic so-called laws cannot happen any longer, as price discovery is gone the way of the dinosaur, when, for example, EBT cards buy the foodstuffs of close to half the population. These people do not pay for food, so if they do not pay for food, and have so many other supplementary ways of getting free food on top of the EBT cards, then how does freely-occurring inflation-deflation dynamics take place any longer? It does not. There is no adjustment to the consumer's ability to pay. The consumer's wallet becomes irrelevant because the consumer is the government that just borrows more phony money, and prices do not go down anymore -- because there is no retraction based on consumer's ability or willingness to pay.

Rent - same deal. Government pays Section 8. Rents go up because huge firms are financed by banks and encouraged by municipalities to inflate. Higher taxes, higher debts, higher rents, and more government cost for Section 8 and all the other housing programs that are currently being extended to more of the population.

It was the politicians who did all these things, but you're totally obtruse to supporting a political retraction of those deeds? How can it be so? Are you familiar with the law? The law in this country gives the power of reversing political decisions only to politicians or the U.S. Supreme Court. That's what I call limited options for retraction.

 

[acptulsa]

It was the politicians who did all these things, but you're totally obtruse to supporting a political retraction of those deeds? How can it be so? Are you familiar with the law? The law in this country gives the power of reversing political decisions only to politicians or the U.S. Supreme Court. That's what I call limited options for retraction.

Look. You're just like the Trump freaks. They hired Trump to Make America Great Again and they made excuses for him when he decided to further destroy the currency instead. Thus further justifying welfare for working people, which is purely and simply corporate welfare for corporations like McDonald's which refuse to pay a living wage.

Politicians have never, ever made America great. Ever. Only Americans have ever made America great, and Americans have always had the easiest time making America great when they had the greatest freedom to do so. So why do you think only politicians can fix this? Politicians create problems, they don't fix them.

If the federal government and the entire federal code disappeared tomorrow, nobody would accept federal reserve notes, not even Pfizer and other entities that get them for nothing, because without legal tender laws, they'd just be worthless junk bonds. No one would get food and rent to supplement their incomes, so corporations that refuse to pay a living wage wouldn't have any employees producing things for them to sell. People wouldn't be forced to make charitable contributions to an entity that skims 60-80% off the top, so that money would go to the needy. And nobody would be paying farmers to destroy their produce, nor driving oil drillers out of the country.

And in six months, we'd be handily outperforming the 1920s, when Harding and Coolidge did the same thing. They stood back and let Americans make America great, and if we could get this current crop of troublemakers out of the way, Americans could make America great again.

This isn't being "totally obtruse to supporting a political retraction". Or, at least I assume it isn't; it's hard to be sure when you made the word "obtruse" up. Obtruse isn't in my dictionary, abtruse makes no sense, and obtuse is, I assume, the insult you intend, but you're so obtuse you can't spell it, so I don't know. In any case, repealing mass numbers of stupid, obtrusive laws is a political retraction I support in the most wholehearted manner humanly possible.

Why do you insist that only the imposition of top-down policies--in other words, the very source of all our problems--can solve our problems? If hitting yourself on the left side of your head with a hammer gives you a headache, do you generally switch to hitting yourself on the right side? Does it help?

No doubt you'll tell me that my solution isn't "realistic". I have news for you, kid. People have just about had enough. That solution is becoming more realistic every day.

 

[acptulsa]

..

 

[Snowball]

acptulsa wants to repeal all the financial laws... Cui Bono ?
acptulsa says "Hell No" to commie price caps and profit restrictions... any sane management of critical needs.
acptulsa cannot see how this increases the government he claims to want to obliterate.
acptulsa is obtuse AND obstrusive, thereby he is "obstruse".
acptulsa thinks Nixon was a commie because he did price controls and started the EPA.
ok.

but still, we're in more agreement than disagreement. End the Fed for one.

let's move on and argue again sometime. Bye.

 

[acptulsa]

let's move on and argue again sometime. Bye.

Next time you feel like being just wrong, I'll let you know.

 

[Snowball]

Next time you feel like being just wrong, I'll let you know.

When Caesar had his debt jubilees was that acceptable to you, or an overreach of state power?

 

[acptulsa]