5 ms·

>Because capitalism has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Your position is that the unavailability of housing to those suffering diseases tied directly to

>Because capitalism has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Your position is that the unavailability of housing to those suffering diseases tied directly to their being unable to pay market price for housing somehow has nothing to do with the prevailing economic arrangement that utterly defines the housing market these persons cannot participate in. They don't have and cannot borrow capital, but their suffering "has nothing to do with" the prevailing system that revolves around / is animated by nothing but...capital? Total nonsense. > Our governments have all the legal and revenue-generating tools they need to enact any policy they wish. Your position is that concentrations of wealth -- such wealth's tangible assets dominated by holdings of real estate -- do not overwhelmingly divert the attention, priorities, electoral outcomes and revenues of government to their own ends at the explicit costs of the safety net. You seem to believe government does not sell political results exclusively to persons who can pay for those results. Again: total nonsense. > Finally, I'm not sure what alternative you're advocating for I'm advocating for merely mentioning capitalism in the discussion! And that much is too much, apparently. I suggest you examine your own indoctrination in this economic arrangement if it is so sensitive that it cannot abide even its naming when discussing the intensification of suffering caused by lack of capital under the system that is exactly centered on capital.

macspoofing 7y ago
>Your position is that the unavailability of housing to those suffering diseases tied directly to their being unable to pay market price for housing somehow has nothing to do with the prevailing economic arrangement that utterly defines the housing market these persons cannot participate in. I'm not claiming that at all. In fact, I disagree with that. In this topic I've stated that chronic long-term homelessness is largely the result of mental illness and drug abuse. Those issues have different solutions than lack of income or capital or whatever you're trying push. >They don't have and cannot borrow capital We live in a democratic, regulated market economy with a social safety net. You're arguing a straw man when you imply we live in some sort of Randian/Libertarian free market capitalist system. We don't. Social welfare policies are tools already used by modern governments. >I'm advocating for merely mentioning capitalism in the discussion! To what end? If you have specific policy suggestions, then argue them. If you want to argue for a wholesale change to some other socio-economic system then at least argue for that. As it stands, I'm not sure what a straw-man lob at our current system accomplishes besides FUD.
- harrumph 7y ago
  > I'm not claiming that at all. You absolutely did. In fact, you plainly used the phrase "nothing to do with". I'm sorry, but words mean things. >In this topic I've stated that chronic long-term homelessness is largely the result of mental illness and drug abuse. Then I am here to tell you that you have it perfectly backwards. What I've learned from working with the persons who make up the growing tent settlements in my giant city is that the perfect reverse is true: overwhelmingly, lack of capital triggers evictions, which triggers homelessness, and homelessness triggers mental illness, criminality and drug abuse. Exceptions to this pattern exist, but nowhere nearly in sufficient numbers to derail the characterization. >You're arguing a straw man when you imply we live in some sort of Randian/Libertarian free market capitalist system. We don't. Social welfare policies are tools already used by modern governments. I repeat: Your position is that concentrations of wealth -- such wealth's tangible assets dominated by holdings of real estate -- do not overwhelmingly divert the attention, priorities, electoral outcomes and revenues of government to their own ends at the explicit costs of the safety net. You seem to believe government does not sell political results exclusively to persons who can pay for those results...with capital. Again: total nonsense. I've hung around with way too many homeless people who were working three to five years ago and were laid off as an effect of nothing but their employers' capital flight for me to fail to notice that capital allocation is the primary catalyst in this suffering. >lob at our current system accomplishes besides FUD. Don't worry about what I'm accomplishing; through your response, I've already demonstrated that the role of capitalism in human suffering is commonly and literally a taboo to discuss. Someone, maybe even you, although it need not be, will notice this when they hadn't before. That is a good thing.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >You absolutely did. In fact, you plainly used the phrase "nothing to do with". I'm sorry, but words mean things. Yes. Words mean things. You can't distort definitions to suit your argument. It doesn't work that way. But I'm fair minded. Let me qualify my statement to your satisfaction: "Your grossly dishonest distortion driven by some warped ideology is not useful in either diagnosing the homeless problem, nor coming up with a solution". That is what I wanted to convey to you. I hope that clears it up. >I repeat: Your position is that concentrations of wealth ... You can warp, distort and repeat as much as you want. That is not my position. >I've hung around with way too many homeless people who were working three to five years ago We both know you haven't. You wish you had, but you haven't. You come off like a disaffected college student who is really excited about Marx. >Don't worry about what I'm accomplishing The point is, I wish you were honest. If you're trying to argue for the replacement of the current soci-economic system, then argue it, instead of falling back on the eye-rolling "I'm just asking questions ... for a friend" cliche.

macspoofing 7y ago

>Your position is that the unavailability of housing to those suffering diseases tied directly to their being unable to pay market price for housing somehow has nothing to do with the prevailing economic arrangement that utterly defines the housing market these persons cannot participate in. I'm not claiming that at all. In fact, I disagree with that. In this topic I've stated that chronic long-term homelessness is largely the result of mental illness and drug abuse. Those issues have different solutions than lack of income or capital or whatever you're trying push. >They don't have and cannot borrow capital We live in a democratic, regulated market economy with a social safety net. You're arguing a straw man when you imply we live in some sort of Randian/Libertarian free market capitalist system. We don't. Social welfare policies are tools already used by modern governments. >I'm advocating for merely mentioning capitalism in the discussion! To what end? If you have specific policy suggestions, then argue them. If you want to argue for a wholesale change to some other socio-economic system then at least argue for that. As it stands, I'm not sure what a straw-man lob at our current system accomplishes besides FUD.

harrumph 7y ago
> I'm not claiming that at all. You absolutely did. In fact, you plainly used the phrase "nothing to do with". I'm sorry, but words mean things. >In this topic I've stated that chronic long-term homelessness is largely the result of mental illness and drug abuse. Then I am here to tell you that you have it perfectly backwards. What I've learned from working with the persons who make up the growing tent settlements in my giant city is that the perfect reverse is true: overwhelmingly, lack of capital triggers evictions, which triggers homelessness, and homelessness triggers mental illness, criminality and drug abuse. Exceptions to this pattern exist, but nowhere nearly in sufficient numbers to derail the characterization. >You're arguing a straw man when you imply we live in some sort of Randian/Libertarian free market capitalist system. We don't. Social welfare policies are tools already used by modern governments. I repeat: Your position is that concentrations of wealth -- such wealth's tangible assets dominated by holdings of real estate -- do not overwhelmingly divert the attention, priorities, electoral outcomes and revenues of government to their own ends at the explicit costs of the safety net. You seem to believe government does not sell political results exclusively to persons who can pay for those results...with capital. Again: total nonsense. I've hung around with way too many homeless people who were working three to five years ago and were laid off as an effect of nothing but their employers' capital flight for me to fail to notice that capital allocation is the primary catalyst in this suffering. >lob at our current system accomplishes besides FUD. Don't worry about what I'm accomplishing; through your response, I've already demonstrated that the role of capitalism in human suffering is commonly and literally a taboo to discuss. Someone, maybe even you, although it need not be, will notice this when they hadn't before. That is a good thing.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >You absolutely did. In fact, you plainly used the phrase "nothing to do with". I'm sorry, but words mean things. Yes. Words mean things. You can't distort definitions to suit your argument. It doesn't work that way. But I'm fair minded. Let me qualify my statement to your satisfaction: "Your grossly dishonest distortion driven by some warped ideology is not useful in either diagnosing the homeless problem, nor coming up with a solution". That is what I wanted to convey to you. I hope that clears it up. >I repeat: Your position is that concentrations of wealth ... You can warp, distort and repeat as much as you want. That is not my position. >I've hung around with way too many homeless people who were working three to five years ago We both know you haven't. You wish you had, but you haven't. You come off like a disaffected college student who is really excited about Marx. >Don't worry about what I'm accomplishing The point is, I wish you were honest. If you're trying to argue for the replacement of the current soci-economic system, then argue it, instead of falling back on the eye-rolling "I'm just asking questions ... for a friend" cliche.