The Real timschochet

A more recent example than 1945: Prop 13 in California stabilized property taxes in this state ever since and created a huge demand in new homes here because it “artificially” allowed new buyers to afford houses by keeping the taxes low. Virtually every Republican supported it and still do; liberals hated it (and most still do.) The result of the new demand in homes was many more homes, stability, prosperity, and an economic dominance here that has lasted nearly 50 years. But that was a government investment that conservatives like, so words like “Marxism” never came up.

Did the GI Bill after 1945 create inflation? There wasn’t nearly enough houses at the time to satisfy the demand that was created. Then along came a guy named Levitt. Are you familiar with him? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levitt Let me offer an idea: increasing demand in home ownership is GOOD for society. It creates prosperity and stability. This is what we want.

In a vacuum when demand increases the price goes up. That’s not necessarily inflation BTW. But in this instance the demand for these houses is already there. And the government and outside factors are already heavily involved. So I’m not convinced that this will necessarily cause housing prices or any other prices to automatically rise. And I still need you to tell me what any of this has to do with Marxism? I read Das Kapital in college. Awful, boring book with terrible ideas which inevitably lead to horrible dictatorships. But I can’t recall anything in there about government helping people to buy homes in a capitalist society. Seems like an idea like that goes against the entire plan, no?

Republicans are in favor of continuing subsidies for oil companies. Why doesn’t this create inflation? Republicans are in favor of building up our military by giving billions to aerospace. Why doesn’t this create inflation? Republicans are in favor of building Trump’s wall by giving billions to private manufacturers to finish it. Why doesn’t this create inflation? This is why guys like @Strike and the rest are such hypocrites. They only make these arguments when they oppose what the spending is for. Then it becomes inflation and Marxist. If they like the spending, they’re silent about all this stuff.

FTR, the reason I am speculating that this won’t affect inflation is because nobody is handing people cash. The government would be giving the money directly to the lender to lower the asking price by the amount. It doesn’t go directly into circulation which is how inflation is usually created. Now again I could be wrong about that. But even if I am, since our current inflation is a global phenomenon, this shouldn’t have a huge affect on it one way or another. Those are my two theories of the case. They’re not original to me and there’s plenty of disagreement. But they have NOTHING to do with Marxism, and @Strike and @RLLD don’t seem to be able to figure basic economics out enough to make that distinction.

So laughable, you and @Strike. But I will play along. Please explain what specific Marxist ideology I have been taught and believe?

Well your second question is evidence of a conspiratorial mind, no offense. The truth is in some ways far scarier: there is no plan, no scheme, no design. Most of what happens, for good or ill, is the result of chaos, screwups, and blind luck. And those who benefit do so because they just happen to be lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.

I wasn’t trying to explain it to you. I figured you knew already. But there is a huge contradiction here. It’s not like the tariffs should be mentioned in addition to the price controls; it’s that the tariffs are so catastrophic to anyone who cares about the free market (and thus libertarianism and American prosperity) that it makes the issue of price controls so minor as to not be worth considering (especially when you factor in the truth: that this is a political proposal designed to win votes, that even if Kamala wins she will never have the power to enact this, thus it’s all theoretical anyhow. Meanwhile if Trump wins he WILL have the power to enforce his tariff plans.)

Also sorry but this part is just conspiratorial hogwash.

Everything you wrote here is wrong, IMO. Kamala Harris is a liberal. She is far removed from a Marxist. Her popularity is not manufactured at all. We are not heading for socialism. Kamala is in the tradition of liberals like FDR and LBJ- they mean to protect capitalism by enlarging its safety net. There is no intent to replace capitalism.

This is the libertarian POV (the institute is named after the great libertarian Ludwig Von Mises) and its legitimate in a vacuum. But it’s disingenuous in this instance, because any consistent libertarian would add at the end of the article: Despite all this I am voting for Kamala Harris anyhow because Trump’s tariff plans are so awful, such a catastrophic attack on free market capitalism, that all of Harris’ price control proposals pale by comparison. By not including that ending, by pretending that somehow Donald Trump is a reasonable alternative, the writer is being dishonest and spitting on Von Moses’ memory and reputation.

To call that rambling mess a “policy speech” is Orwellian. To call it “best” implying that it’s somehow good is beyond comprehension to me.

We will see. Your principles are correct theoretically but we don’t live in a theoretical world. There are so many other factors at play, so much government involvement already, that I don’t think inflation is affected that much. In any case as I keep pointing out our inflationary problems are global so there is very little we can do to affect them for good or ill.

I don’t think.so.

OMG. OK whatever you say buddy. I don’t want to interfere with your fantasy world.

WTF are you talking about? I know tons of people who have good enough credit and good enough jobs to buy a home but can’t come up with the down payment money. Do you have any experience in the mortgage industry at all? What a frjggin idiot you are.

Hillary was ahead and by more than this. But the difference is she never garnered the excitement that Kamala is right now and she never unified the party behind her.

I am. But I don’t think being concerned about the debt is a sign of being on the right or left.

You have to qualify for this program too.

Why will every liberal proposal for the last 80 years crash the economy? Obamacare was supposed to crash the economy too. It gets tiresome after a while. You know what WILL crash the economy? Trump’s tariffs.

“They just guarantee the loan”. As if that’s no big thing. It’s a far bigger thing than this would be.

In another thread today you wrote that the boom in this country after 1945 was the greatest in human history. You were, for once, largely correct. Do you think that boom came about without government involvement in the housing market?

They wouldn’t qualify. To qualify for the program you have to have two years of rent payments without missing one in your own name. But that in itself doesn’t qualify you to buy a new house. Your fears are misguided.

OK regarding the price controls: some of you guys need to wake up. Kamala is playing politics here, just like she and Trump are playing politics with removing the tax on tips. None of this is going to happen. Neither Trump nor Kamala have the necessary people in Congress to make this happen- certainly not the price controls. In emergency that can be done by executive order (see WWII) but it’s temporary and extremely unlikely because it leads to shortages. It won’t happen. You guys need to stop wasting time on this and discuss the proposals that actually could happen. For example if Trump is elected he really could do his disastrous tariff thing because a lot of that is based on executive authority and he doesn’t need Congress. If Kamala is elected she can do the housing proposal, maybe, because I can see a bipartisan majority going for it. That’s why this stuff is worth discussing. IMO, price controls and removing tip taxes aren’t.

The interest rates are still going to have to come down. And they will.