- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 48,676
- Reaction score
- 15,422
Thank god we live in a mixed economy paired with democracy.
.....for now.
Thank god we live in a mixed economy paired with democracy.
The owner of that channel is from London and has family there. His contention has always been that London is worse than Amsterdam, but that doesn't mean its not better than the US. In that video he was saying why he doesnt see lots of kids around when he visits the lart of London where his family live. He used that as part of the broader contention that sparse suburbs deteriorate childhood independence.
I mean, I can’t think of a better option than what we have outside of more limitation on who gets to vote......for now.
Im aware of who he is and his comical takes (traffic lights being my fav). But, again, a small video clip doesn't really show much. Pick a neighborhood in that city and you will see the vast majority of it is accessible to needs by food.
Cool, but that doesnt negate his contention. Something may be perfectly sufficient in your eyes, but that doesnt mean its optimized.
I mean, I can’t think of a better option than what we have outside of more limitation on who gets to vote.
Thats true; but optimization is a subjective scale and he never really goes into the cost, planning and public support for his "optimization".
Liked for pretty faceI never mentioned a tire shop and yet you're calling me disingenuous? Can you step back and try to be honest here? What exactly is wrong with having a grocer or a cafe in a suburb?
"Everyone in my life agrees with me so you must be wrong"
Man, I’d deny so many people…Unfortunately most of the "democracy doesnt work" people cannot be denied the right to vote.
Uh, yeah he has touched on all those things in other videos, and recommended channels that do it even better.
.....for now.
I don't think there is any real danger of monopolies in housing. Excessive pricing power in the regional RV park market seems possible, and I would support looking into it where it happens. A point I've made here a lot is that markets work, but they need gov't support (regs preventing pollution, property enforcement, etc.). Rightist "libertarians" (a contradiction in terms) aren't just cruel; they don't understand why or how markets work. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The logic of markets is inescapable, and if they are allowed to work and properly regulated, markets are the best engine of progress ever devised.While of course what you say is true, you have to keep in mind that when supply is limited enough, the land owners pretty much do set the prices they want to rent or sell their properties, and it makes it worse when said land owner owns 50% of the available trailer parks in San Diego. So you invest in a park model mobile home, and get priced out of rent at one park, only to have your options severely limited because that same owner is doing the same thing with rents at most all the other parks in town. Further, the other parks now know they can charge more because they see the corporate owners getting away with charging insane rents, making seniors go broke, and then taking the title to their homes as payment.
I mean, I'm sure you are aware how monopolies destroy the market, and I think that's what people are fearful of. Huge, multinational corporations slowly buying up all the housing supply so they are eventually in a position to charge whatever they want, as so famously demonstrated by Andrew Carnegie and his monopolization of the steel industry. I think people are worried that the same thing is slowly happening with housing.
Sure, but the issue isn't "should people have a place to live or not?"; it's "how do we best ensure that people can get places to live?" I think the number one, obvious step is to stop making it illegal to build enough housing to meet demand in high-value areas (especially booming cities).I just honestly believe that basic housing should be a human right, like clean air or water. Not everything attached to a profit motive is beneficial to society. I don't think that's more true than with healthcare and housing.
i think the issue is more discreet, when we might have the appearance of democracy (elections, candidates) but those are strictly controlled, with the candidates coming from a pre-approved lot that do nothing to harm the workings that put them there. the entire power structures would shift to non elected groups of interest that preserve the outward appearance of democracy, with different layers of control (institutions, academia, media, etc).
it's basically zombie democracy.
He really doesnt beyond a cursory level; at least from the videos ive seen; but we are just going in circles now.
In what sense does the media or academia control anyone?i think the issue is more discreet, when we might have the appearance of democracy (elections, candidates) but those are strictly controlled, with the candidates coming from a pre-approved lot that do nothing to harm the workings that put them there. the entire power structures would shift to non elected groups of interest that preserve the outward appearance of democracy, with different layers of control (institutions, academia, media, etc).
it's basically zombie democracy.
by promoting dishonest discourse that keeps the issues threatening democracy away from public debate - concentration of wealth, interests groups openly bribing and calling it lobby, etc.In what sense does the media or academia control anyone?
That's a silly definition of "control" if we're being honest. Not to mention that the idea that the media and academia don't want to talk about those things is clearly false. I mean, I think it's dumb when people talk about the MSM and academia having a left-wing bias, but I don't think that left-wing views are completely invisible among them.by promoting dishonest discourse that keeps the issues threatening democracy away from public debate - concentration of wealth, interests groups openly bribing and calling it lobby, etc.
nah, it's a pretty good definition of control, if we're being honest.That's a silly definition of "control" if we're being honest. Not to mention that the idea that the media and academia don't want to talk about those things is clearly false. I mean, I think it's dumb when people talk about the MSM and academia having a left-wing bias, but I don't think that left-wing views are completely invisible among them.