Progressive Ideology

[Peter Brown]

It's endlessly fascinating to see Americans (errr, Democrats, then to a lesser extent neverTrumpers) defend, almost lovingly embrace, socialism. That's not socialism, that's fascism... Amazing. I love it, for entertainment purposes of course. Never stop your enemy when he's making a mistake, so I won't do much other than to admit I am entertained by these posts.

(The best people to knock socialism, of course. are those who suffered through it. But not many of them play(ed) lacrosse.)

In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery (yes, Nazism, Communism, Nationalism, Statism, etc...). Like a pyramid scheme, socialism is ultimately unsustainable because it's based on faulty principles. Collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it's also a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it's inconsistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it's a system that ignores incentives.

But please, my good Democrat friends, keep entertaining us while you parse the definition of socialism!

Hmmm, you are ignoring that there are fiscal conservative, capitalist R's like me who are also saying you are conflating various forms of authoritarianism with "socialism".

Authoritarianism is the enemy.
Or at least has been throughout history. There have been no sustained "benevolent dictatorships".

We cannot pin you down on what you think "socialism" actually is. Why is that?
My sense is that because you think any element of socialism is equal to authoritarian versions.

When someone like Sanders, who actually describes himself as as a "socialist", meaning "democratic socialist", advocates for a policy he is not advocating for authoritarianism nor is he advocating for an absolutist, pure form of "socialism" that would require authoritarianism to enforce.

I do think we should challenge such policy prescriptions in terms of costs and benefits, how the policy impacts human behavior.
After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But we don't need to demonize either Capitalism (which obviously has very major flaws if unrestrained) or Socialism (which does not harness well people's natural desire to compete).

I thought I did. Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Straight from Dr. Google.

What it really means is no one is incentivized and no one owns the outcome. You know and I know that if our companies mess up, the ultimate owner of the mess is the owner, not line guys or secretaries or sales people. Socialism creeps in via a slow eradication of incentives; at the end of its predictable life, everyone seeks to avoid ownership of the mess the created. That opens the door for authoritariansim.

Socialism can best be seen via Section 8/public housing projects versus private home ownership. Look at the difference in the lawn, the paint, wood preservation, colors, safety, the sense of community...this should be easy to understand (and see), but there's always been a strong incentive (mostly among Democrats) to portray socialism as an ideal paradise, when it's anything but; Democrats (I was one) trust government, indeed worship government (longer theory, but government writ large is in essence simply the exchange of authority from you to another, where you do not have the confidence to manage your own affairs), when the last thing you should ever do is trust a partner where your partner never owns any outcome between the two of you.

1.2 million out of 128 million households are section 8. You may as well compare the outcome of a typical middle class family to the 1% and make an argument as to why the country is failing them or why we have the wrong approach. Of that 1.2, most received temporary assistance and then move off the roles. Some are generational but its a small percentage.

I do not agree with your takeaway, because my issue was about ownership (Section 8 does not own), your issue is about envy (he has a bigger house than me). The tiniest house owned by a homeowner will almost always (perhaps 99% of the time - some homeowners are slobs, let's be real) look better than the largest Section 8 house because the homeowner is incentivized to own the outcome.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It's endlessly fascinating to see Americans (errr, Democrats, then to a lesser extent neverTrumpers) defend, almost lovingly embrace, socialism. That's not socialism, that's fascism... Amazing. I love it, for entertainment purposes of course. Never stop your enemy when he's making a mistake, so I won't do much other than to admit I am entertained by these posts.

(The best people to knock socialism, of course. are those who suffered through it. But not many of them play(ed) lacrosse.)

In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery (yes, Nazism, Communism, Nationalism, Statism, etc...). Like a pyramid scheme, socialism is ultimately unsustainable because it's based on faulty principles. Collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it's also a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it's inconsistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it's a system that ignores incentives.

But please, my good Democrat friends, keep entertaining us while you parse the definition of socialism!

Hmmm, you are ignoring that there are fiscal conservative, capitalist R's like me who are also saying you are conflating various forms of authoritarianism with "socialism".

Authoritarianism is the enemy.
Or at least has been throughout history. There have been no sustained "benevolent dictatorships".

We cannot pin you down on what you think "socialism" actually is. Why is that?
My sense is that because you think any element of socialism is equal to authoritarian versions.

When someone like Sanders, who actually describes himself as as a "socialist", meaning "democratic socialist", advocates for a policy he is not advocating for authoritarianism nor is he advocating for an absolutist, pure form of "socialism" that would require authoritarianism to enforce.

I do think we should challenge such policy prescriptions in terms of costs and benefits, how the policy impacts human behavior.
After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But we don't need to demonize either Capitalism (which obviously has very major flaws if unrestrained) or Socialism (which does not harness well people's natural desire to compete).

I thought I did. Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Straight from Dr. Google.

What it really means is no one is incentivized and no one owns the outcome. You know and I know that if our companies mess up, the ultimate owner of the mess is the owner, not line guys or secretaries or sales people. Socialism creeps in via a slow eradication of incentives; at the end of its predictable life, everyone seeks to avoid ownership of the mess the created. That opens the door for authoritariansim.

Socialism can best be seen via Section 8/public housing projects versus private home ownership. Look at the difference in the lawn, the paint, wood preservation, colors, safety, the sense of community...this should be easy to understand (and see), but there's always been a strong incentive (mostly among Democrats) to portray socialism as an ideal paradise, when it's anything but; Democrats (I was one) trust government, indeed worship government (longer theory, but government writ large is in essence simply the exchange of authority from you to another, where you do not have the confidence to manage your own affairs), when the last thing you should ever do is trust a partner where your partner never owns any outcome between the two of you.

1.2 million out of 128 million households are section 8. You may as well compare the outcome of a typical middle class family to the 1% and make an argument as to why the country is failing them or why we have the wrong approach. Of that 1.2, most received temporary assistance and then move off the roles. Some are generational but its a small percentage.

I do not agree with your takeaway, because my issue was about ownership (Section 8 does not own), your issue is about envy (he has a bigger house than me). The tiniest house owned by a homeowner will almost always (perhaps 99% of the time - some homeowners are slobs, let's be real) look better than the largest Section 8 house because the homeowner is incentivized to own the outcome.

Having family that have owned section 8 rental properties for 30 years, I can tell you people do move up and out. Like anything, some are successful and some are not, like anything. Living in section 8 housing doesn’t take away a person incentive to move out. Have you met anyone that has move up and out? I know plenty. It’s not a perfect system but what is? I thought Clinton proved not everyone should be a “homeowner”.

[Peter Brown]

BTW, Pete....

Which government owned and operated football team are you rooting for tonight?

The Socialized Clemson Tigers, owned and operated by the State of South Carolina?

Or the Socialized LSU Tigers, owned and operated by...well, I forget which State owns LSU. This all gets so complicated.


And while we're at it: where are all the privately owned football teams in this year's Final Four for Football?

I thought the government couldn't do anything right? Guess not.

Interesting point, but you'll be disappointed to know some facts. First this: Any service provided to the public financed by the taxation of the population is not socialism.

The Clemson football program generated $53.9 million in revenue via ticket sales, tv, and donation during the 2017-18 academic year. Dabo Sweeney is paid $10,000,000 per year.

The LSU football team generated $86.6 million in revenue via ticket sales, tv, and donations revenue for the 2017-18 year. Ed is paid $4,000,000.

So, what I think you should really be asking is "has 'government' (the universities) created a system which ultimately will ruin college sports"? Is this an unsustainable business model that denies the players (students) their share of the money?

Socialism is the movement for the liberation of the working class from the oppression and exploitation of the capitalist regime. So ultimately the aim is for the workers — not the state — to take over the management (of all the industries, including public services, including football!). Socialism means worker power, not bureaucratic state power. Maybe you want to cheer for these teams while you can!

(I wanted Clemson)

[Peter Brown]

Having family that have owned section 8 rental properties for 30 years, I can tell you people do move up and out. Like anything, some are successful and some are not, like anything. Living in section 8 housing doesn’t take away a person incentive to move out. Have you met anyone that has move up and out? I know plenty. It’s not a perfect system but what is? I thought Clinton proved not everyone should be a “homeowner”.

This debate is not about 'moving out', but about how one takes care of things they do not own (or do own). Section 8 versus a private home is as stark a difference as I can think of this morning.

(anyhow, I need to get to work, so my last post for the morning!...wait til a fan wakes up and reads my posts...it's gonna be ugly )

[Typical Lax Dad]

Having family that have owned section 8 rental properties for 30 years, I can tell you people do move up and out. Like anything, some are successful and some are not, like anything. Living in section 8 housing doesn’t take away a person incentive to move out. Have you met anyone that has move up and out? I know plenty. It’s not a perfect system but what is? I thought Clinton proved not everyone should be a “homeowner”.

This debate is not about 'moving out', but about how one takes care of things they do not own (or do own). Section 8 versus a private home is as stark a difference as I can think of this morning.

(anyhow, I need to get to work, so my last post for the morning!...wait til a fan wakes up and reads my posts...it's gonna be ugly )

I have run across properties in my town that are in a shamble and those folks aren’t “poor”. The bottom of society can’t take care of properties.....shocking. Take a ride upstate New York and in Mississippi. Hard to tell the difference and that ain’t section 8.

[MDlaxfan76]

It's endlessly fascinating to see Americans (errr, Democrats, then to a lesser extent neverTrumpers) defend, almost lovingly embrace, socialism. That's not socialism, that's fascism... Amazing. I love it, for entertainment purposes of course. Never stop your enemy when he's making a mistake, so I won't do much other than to admit I am entertained by these posts.

(The best people to knock socialism, of course. are those who suffered through it. But not many of them play(ed) lacrosse.)

In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery (yes, Nazism, Communism, Nationalism, Statism, etc...). Like a pyramid scheme, socialism is ultimately unsustainable because it's based on faulty principles. Collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it's also a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it's inconsistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it's a system that ignores incentives.

But please, my good Democrat friends, keep entertaining us while you parse the definition of socialism!

Hmmm, you are ignoring that there are fiscal conservative, capitalist R's like me who are also saying you are conflating various forms of authoritarianism with "socialism".

Authoritarianism is the enemy.
Or at least has been throughout history. There have been no sustained "benevolent dictatorships".

We cannot pin you down on what you think "socialism" actually is. Why is that?
My sense is that because you think any element of socialism is equal to authoritarian versions.

When someone like Sanders, who actually describes himself as as a "socialist", meaning "democratic socialist", advocates for a policy he is not advocating for authoritarianism nor is he advocating for an absolutist, pure form of "socialism" that would require authoritarianism to enforce.

I do think we should challenge such policy prescriptions in terms of costs and benefits, how the policy impacts human behavior.
After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But we don't need to demonize either Capitalism (which obviously has very major flaws if unrestrained) or Socialism (which does not harness well people's natural desire to compete).

I thought I did. Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Straight from Dr. Google.

What it really means is no one is incentivized and no one owns the outcome. You know and I know that if our companies mess up, the ultimate owner of the mess is the owner, not line guys or secretaries or sales people. Socialism creeps in via a slow eradication of incentives; at the end of its predictable life, everyone seeks to avoid ownership of the mess the created. That opens the door for authoritariansim.

Socialism can best be seen via Section 8/public housing projects versus private home ownership. Look at the difference in the lawn, the paint, wood preservation, colors, safety, the sense of community...this should be easy to understand (and see), but there's always been a strong incentive (mostly among Democrats) to portray socialism as an ideal paradise, when it's anything but; Democrats (I was one) trust government, indeed worship government (longer theory, but government writ large is in essence simply the exchange of authority from you to another, where you do not have the confidence to manage your own affairs), when the last thing you should ever do is trust a partner where your partner never owns any outcome between the two of you.

ok, I do understand the definition, but I'm not sure you actually do despite quoting it.

But let's assume for a moment that you do.

Yes, Section 8 housing is a form of social safety net policies. So is Medicare, so is Social Security, so is....are you, by contrast, advocating for the elimination of all social safety net policies?

But the definition you quoted is far broader than social safety net policies, indeed it includes: ..."or regulated by the community as a whole" in reference to "the means of production, distribution, and exchange".

Are you advocating for the elimination of all regulation of "the means of production, distribution, and exchange?"
Really?

But hey, back to Section 8 housing. Are you so sure that it's actually the ownership of the house that is correlated with "lawn, the paint, wood preservation, colors, safety, the sense of community" or is it really income level and other social dysfunction related to poverty? For instance, there are all sorts of beautifully maintained communities of affluent rental housing that clearly belie the notion that ownership is the causal factor for their care and upkeep.

I think we need to be careful in identifying the causal factors, rather than simply correlated, when we think about how best to achieve the outcomes we want.

Again, I'm a fiscally conservative R.
I think you've been drinking far too much from the right wing propaganda media hose about what Dems actually think. I see very little "worship government" much less seeing socialism as an "ideal paradise".

We do have throughout history various forms of utopianism that have their adherents, but I think you'd find very little of that in either party. Very fringy at most.

[Peter Brown]

But hey, back to Section 8 housing. Are you so sure that it's actually the ownership of the house that is correlated with "lawn, the paint, wood preservation, colors, safety, the sense of community" or is it really income level and other social dysfunction related to poverty? For instance, there are all sorts of beautifully maintained communities of affluent rental housing that clearly belie the notion that ownership is the causal factor for their care and upkeep.

You know I'd call this claim out. Rental housing is a contract; contracts incur obligations. The renter pays money in exchange for a unit which presumably is equal to or above what he perceives the value is for that exchange. If the renter believes (and can demonstrate) that the unit is not 'up to snuff', he/she can bring a claim to court, or simply not pay. And off we go. Incentives make this type of exchange work far more often than not (landlords do everything they can, including making a place look beautiful, to keep good tenants). This is capitalism 101.

Now, Section 8. Oooof. Writ large, Section 8 is a freebie, Socialism 101. Both the tenant and the landlord have minimal obligations, but even those minimal obligations are mostly toothless. Skipping past the part where many Section 8 housing managers seemingly are arrested weekly extorting tenants for money and sex (bad as that is), the issue at hand is lack of incentives and ownership of outcomes. If a Section 8 tenant has the courage to bring a complaint against an apartment manager specializing in Section 8 housing (which is intimidating, since most Section 8 tenants don't exactly have the coin to pay for lawyers, while apartment management companies do), that tenant is as likely to be kicked out of the unit for 'disruptive tactics' as he is to have an actual hearing.

Without ownership, incentives wither. Without incentives, society crumbles. I used 'Section 8 housing' as a metaphor for the larger point.

Back to my socialist company.

[holmes435]

Having family that have owned section 8 rental properties for 30 years, I can tell you people do move up and out. Like anything, some are successful and some are not, like anything. Living in section 8 housing doesn’t take away a person incentive to move out. Have you met anyone that has move up and out? I know plenty. It’s not a perfect system but what is? I thought Clinton proved not everyone should be a “homeowner”.

This debate is not about 'moving out', but about how one takes care of things they do not own (or do own). Section 8 versus a private home is as stark a difference as I can think of this morning.

(anyhow, I need to get to work, so my last post for the morning!...wait til a fan wakes up and reads my posts...it's gonna be ugly )

What is your opinion about the government and especially private companies actively denying loans to qualified people of color for decades? What is your opinion about the government taking homes away from black neighborhoods and paying them next to nothing to build freeways, destroying communities?

What is your opinion of home prices rising faster than wages?

[Typical Lax Dad]

It's endlessly fascinating to see Americans (errr, Democrats, then to a lesser extent neverTrumpers) defend, almost lovingly embrace, socialism. That's not socialism, that's fascism... Amazing. I love it, for entertainment purposes of course. Never stop your enemy when he's making a mistake, so I won't do much other than to admit I am entertained by these posts.

(The best people to knock socialism, of course. are those who suffered through it. But not many of them play(ed) lacrosse.)

In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery (yes, Nazism, Communism, Nationalism, Statism, etc...). Like a pyramid scheme, socialism is ultimately unsustainable because it's based on faulty principles. Collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it's also a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it's inconsistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it's a system that ignores incentives.

But please, my good Democrat friends, keep entertaining us while you parse the definition of socialism!

Hmmm, you are ignoring that there are fiscal conservative, capitalist R's like me who are also saying you are conflating various forms of authoritarianism with "socialism".

Authoritarianism is the enemy.
Or at least has been throughout history. There have been no sustained "benevolent dictatorships".

We cannot pin you down on what you think "socialism" actually is. Why is that?
My sense is that because you think any element of socialism is equal to authoritarian versions.

When someone like Sanders, who actually describes himself as as a "socialist", meaning "democratic socialist", advocates for a policy he is not advocating for authoritarianism nor is he advocating for an absolutist, pure form of "socialism" that would require authoritarianism to enforce.

I do think we should challenge such policy prescriptions in terms of costs and benefits, how the policy impacts human behavior.
After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But we don't need to demonize either Capitalism (which obviously has very major flaws if unrestrained) or Socialism (which does not harness well people's natural desire to compete).

I thought I did. Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Straight from Dr. Google.

What it really means is no one is incentivized and no one owns the outcome. You know and I know that if our companies mess up, the ultimate owner of the mess is the owner, not line guys or secretaries or sales people. Socialism creeps in via a slow eradication of incentives; at the end of its predictable life, everyone seeks to avoid ownership of the mess the created. That opens the door for authoritariansim.

Socialism can best be seen via Section 8/public housing projects versus private home ownership. Look at the difference in the lawn, the paint, wood preservation, colors, safety, the sense of community...this should be easy to understand (and see), but there's always been a strong incentive (mostly among Democrats) to portray socialism as an ideal paradise, when it's anything but; Democrats (I was one) trust government, indeed worship government (longer theory, but government writ large is in essence simply the exchange of authority from you to another, where you do not have the confidence to manage your own affairs), when the last thing you should ever do is trust a partner where your partner never owns any outcome between the two of you.

ok, I do understand the definition, but I'm not sure you actually do despite quoting it.

But let's assume for a moment that you do.

Yes, Section 8 housing is a form of social safety net policies. So is Medicare, so is Social Security, so is....are you, by contrast, advocating for the elimination of all social safety net policies?

But the definition you quoted is far broader than social safety net policies, indeed it includes: ..."or regulated by the community as a whole" in reference to "the means of production, distribution, and exchange".

Are you advocating for the elimination of all regulation of "the means of production, distribution, and exchange?"
Really?

But hey, back to Section 8 housing. Are you so sure that it's actually the ownership of the house that is correlated with "lawn, the paint, wood preservation, colors, safety, the sense of community" or is it really income level and other social dysfunction related to poverty? For instance, there are all sorts of beautifully maintained communities of affluent rental housing that clearly belie the notion that ownership is the causal factor for their care and upkeep.

I think we need to be careful in identifying the causal factors, rather than simply correlated, when we think about how best to achieve the outcomes we want.

Again, I'm a fiscally conservative R.
I think you've been drinking far too much from the right wing propaganda media hose about what Dems actually think. I see very little "worship government" much less seeing socialism as an "ideal paradise".

We do have throughout history various forms of utopianism that have their adherents, but I think you'd find very little of that in either party. Very fringy at most.

I was watching our town public access channel a few months ago and there was a presentation to the town building/planning commission from a developer that was nearing final lease up of a 12 unit condo complex. The town has instituted an affordable housing requirement for new development projects. The developer was seeking an exemption as he was required to provide 2 affordable units. Well he gave every reason that PB gave.... tenants wouldn’t be able to afford maintenance and upkeep..... the units were selling for $1.0MM + and the affordable units were $250k+. If you qualify to buy a $250k+ home in today’s underwriting environment, I believe you can maintain it. I believe in home ownership where it makes sense. Being a renter doesn’t mean you can’t maintain a property and living in section 8 housing doesn’t meant the place will be a mess. There are many two family and three family section 8 housing units. The landlord shares in the responsibility. Look at the Kushner’s roach and rat infested properties.

[holmes435]

You know I'd call this claim out. Rental housing is a contract; contracts incur obligations. The renter pays money in exchange for a unit which presumably is equal to or above what he perceives the value is for that exchange. If the renter believes (and can demonstrate) that the unit is not 'up to snuff', he/she can bring a claim to court, or simply not pay. And off we go. Incentives make this type of exchange work far more often than not (landlords do everything they can, including making a place look beautiful, to keep good tenants). This is capitalism 101.

Now, Section 8. Oooof. Writ large, Section 8 is a freebie, Socialism 101. Both the tenant and the landlord have minimal obligations, but even those minimal obligations are mostly toothless. Skipping past the part where many Section 8 housing managers seemingly are arrested weekly extorting tenants for money and sex (bad as that is), the issue at hand is lack of incentives and ownership of outcomes. If a Section 8 tenant has the courage to bring a complaint against an apartment manager specializing in Section 8 housing (which is intimidating, since most Section 8 tenants don't exactly have the coin to pay for lawyers, while apartment management companies do), that tenant is as likely to be kicked out of the unit for 'disruptive tactics' as he is to have an actual hearing.

Without ownership, incentives wither. Without incentives, society crumbles. I used 'Section 8 housing' as a metaphor for the larger point.

Back to my socialist company.

See, you believe socialism to be the standard definition, then you state that Section 8 housing is "socialism 101" while landlords are incentivized to get good renters as "capitalism 101". And neither is correct. Section 8 is a cash handout to private landlords to allow them to charge lower rent to the poor. This is supposed to help people get on their feet with low housing costs. Arguing the effectiveness of this policy with data and solutions you propose is a much better debate than "socialism bad, orange man syndrome bad".

If Section 8 housing was socialist, the housing would be owned or regulated by the entire community. Again the housing is private, and Section 8 landlords actually have more obligations than regular landlords, such as passing yearly inspections. Tenants have to abide by the lease agreement, the same as private lessees. So you're getting basic facts wrong. Then you throw in anecdotes about bad ownership with no data.

If we're going that route, I've had plenty of terrible landlords when I rented as I moved around the country, from $600 single bedroom places to $2000 places in nice neighborhoods. They definitely didn't have incentives to make the place look nice - their incentive wasn't to find good tenants, but to make money by finding low-maintenance tenants. There is enough demand for housing out there that there is no competition to make places look nice for the majority of renters. In fact the renter is generally expected to keep the place looking nice, and the landlord only fixes essential items. Only when you get into the expensive rentals do you see that competition and more onus on the landlord (especially with things like vacation rentals), which speaks to MDlaxfan76's point about affluent rentals generally being better taken care of.

And bringing lawsuits are time consuming and expensive to private and section 8 renters and landlords alike aside from small claims issues (which are still time-consuming).

"Without ownership, incentives wither. Without incentives, society crumbles. "

That's quite the ironic statement, as in a socialist society the people own everything, so there are massive incentives in a socialist society. Looks like they may have converted you. In a free society, we should have the right to own or not to own if we don't want to. I owned a condo in Texas when I was younger and dumber, and it would have been cheaper in both the short and long term to rent it instead. And I would have saved more money than the condo was worth over the 30 year mortgage had I stayed, nullifying any equity I would have built. I certainly learned my lesson on that the hard way.

If you want to read an actual socialist's view of what their housing policy may look like, here's an article: https://newsocialist.org.uk/a-socialist-housing-policy/

[Typical Lax Dad]

You know I'd call this claim out. Rental housing is a contract; contracts incur obligations. The renter pays money in exchange for a unit which presumably is equal to or above what he perceives the value is for that exchange. If the renter believes (and can demonstrate) that the unit is not 'up to snuff', he/she can bring a claim to court, or simply not pay. And off we go. Incentives make this type of exchange work far more often than not (landlords do everything they can, including making a place look beautiful, to keep good tenants). This is capitalism 101.

Now, Section 8. Oooof. Writ large, Section 8 is a freebie, Socialism 101. Both the tenant and the landlord have minimal obligations, but even those minimal obligations are mostly toothless. Skipping past the part where many Section 8 housing managers seemingly are arrested weekly extorting tenants for money and sex (bad as that is), the issue at hand is lack of incentives and ownership of outcomes. If a Section 8 tenant has the courage to bring a complaint against an apartment manager specializing in Section 8 housing (which is intimidating, since most Section 8 tenants don't exactly have the coin to pay for lawyers, while apartment management companies do), that tenant is as likely to be kicked out of the unit for 'disruptive tactics' as he is to have an actual hearing.

Without ownership, incentives wither. Without incentives, society crumbles. I used 'Section 8 housing' as a metaphor for the larger point.

Back to my socialist company.

See, you believe socialism to be the standard definition, then you state that Section 8 housing is "socialism 101" while landlords are incentivized to get good renters as "capitalism 101". And neither is correct. Section 8 is a cash handout to private landlords to allow them to charge lower rent to the poor. This is supposed to help people get on their feet with low housing costs. Arguing the effectiveness of this policy with data and solutions you propose is a much better debate than "socialism bad, orange man syndrome bad".

If Section 8 housing was socialist, the housing would be owned or regulated by the entire community. Again the housing is private, and Section 8 landlords actually have more obligations than regular landlords, such as passing yearly inspections. Tenants have to abide by the lease agreement, the same as private lessees. So you're getting basic facts wrong. Then you throw in anecdotes about bad ownership with no data.

If we're going that route, I've had plenty of terrible landlords when I rented as I moved around the country, from $600 single bedroom places to $2000 places in nice neighborhoods. They definitely didn't have incentives to make the place look nice - their incentive wasn't to find good tenants, but to make money by finding low-maintenance tenants. There is enough demand for housing out there that there is no competition to make places look nice for the majority of renters. In fact the renter is generally expected to keep the place looking nice, and the landlord only fixes essential items. Only when you get into the expensive rentals do you see that competition and more onus on the landlord (especially with things like vacation rentals), which speaks to MDlaxfan76's point about affluent rentals generally being better taken care of.

And bringing lawsuits are time consuming and expensive to private and section 8 renters and landlords alike aside from small claims issues (which are still time-consuming).

"Without ownership, incentives wither. Without incentives, society crumbles. "

That's quite the ironic statement, as in a socialist society the people own everything, so there are massive incentives in a socialist society. Looks like they may have converted you. In a free society, we should have the right to own or not to own if we don't want to. I owned a condo in Texas when I was younger and dumber, and it would have been cheaper in both the short and long term to rent it instead. And I would have saved more money than the condo was worth over the 30 year mortgage had I stayed, nullifying any equity I would have built. I certainly learned my lesson on that the hard way.

If you want to read an actual socialist's view of what their housing policy may look like, here's an article: https://newsocialist.org.uk/a-socialist-housing-policy/

The model for section 8 is similar to charter schools. Tax dollars basically diverted to private for profit entities/individuals.

[foreverlax]

Bernie is gonnna win this Dem contest; when Warren drops out, Bernie will coast.

And to know what Dems then are going to need to advocate for, read Bernie's Corporate Accountability and Democracy Act:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/corpor ... democracy/

Bernie's plan would force companies to give workers 20% of the shares in their companies and 45% of board seats. Ummm, anyone sniff socialism here? Forced equity give-ups, Board seats...I hope a fan and MD and foreverlax and TLD understand what they are about to embrace b/c remember: a piece of wood over Trump.

Bernie's declaring war on unfettered capitalism...so will you.

The chances of Bernie getting this through are the same as Trump paying off the debt or getting Mexico to pay for his wall.

[Peter Brown]

Bernie is gonnna win this Dem contest; when Warren drops out, Bernie will coast.

And to know what Dems then are going to need to advocate for, read Bernie's Corporate Accountability and Democracy Act:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/corpor ... democracy/

Bernie's plan would force companies to give workers 20% of the shares in their companies and 45% of board seats. Ummm, anyone sniff socialism here? Forced equity give-ups, Board seats...I hope a fan and MD and foreverlax and TLD understand what they are about to embrace b/c remember: a piece of wood over Trump.

Bernie's declaring war on unfettered capitalism...so will you.

The chances of Bernie getting this through are the same as Trump paying off the debt or getting Mexico to pay for his wall.

I am already long a 2 dozen steamed crab feast bet on the Loyola/UVA tilt early Feb, and I'd just as happily take your jumbo crustaceans on this bet above. I can not eat more crabs, so let's call it a friendly wager. Bern will win the Dem nomination. You can have the rest of the field.

[Peter Brown]

I was watching our town public access channel a few months ago and there was a presentation to the town building/planning commission from a developer that was nearing final lease up of a 12 unit condo complex. The town has instituted an affordable housing requirement for new development projects. The developer was seeking an exemption as he was required to provide 2 affordable units. Well he gave every reason that PB gave.... tenants wouldn’t be able to afford maintenance and upkeep..... the units were selling for $1.0MM + and the affordable units were $250k+. If you qualify to buy a $250k+ home in today’s underwriting environment, I believe you can maintain it. I believe in home ownership where it makes sense. Being a renter doesn’t mean you can’t maintain a property and living in section 8 housing doesn’t meant the place will be a mess. There are many two family and three family section 8 housing units. The landlord shares in the responsibility. Look at the Kushner’s roach and rat infested properties.

I am very much AGAINST affordable housing rules and laws. They produce diametrically opposite results than intended. Let the market sort out where people live. The market always works in the end, regardless of near term bumps.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I was watching our town public access channel a few months ago and there was a presentation to the town building/planning commission from a developer that was nearing final lease up of a 12 unit condo complex. The town has instituted an affordable housing requirement for new development projects. The developer was seeking an exemption as he was required to provide 2 affordable units. Well he gave every reason that PB gave.... tenants wouldn’t be able to afford maintenance and upkeep..... the units were selling for $1.0MM + and the affordable units were $250k+. If you qualify to buy a $250k+ home in today’s underwriting environment, I believe you can maintain it. I believe in home ownership where it makes sense. Being a renter doesn’t mean you can’t maintain a property and living in section 8 housing doesn’t meant the place will be a mess. There are many two family and three family section 8 housing units. The landlord shares in the responsibility. Look at the Kushner’s roach and rat infested properties.

I am very much AGAINST affordable housing rules and laws. They produce diametrically opposite results than intended. Let the market sort out where people live. The market always works in the end, regardless of near term bumps.

I didn’t ask you all that. The market didn’t work for a lot of folks. See the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs FRED TRUMP AND DONALD J. TRUMP

[Peter Brown]

...I've had plenty of terrible landlords when I rented as I moved around the country, from $600 single bedroom places to $2000 places in nice neighborhoods. They definitely didn't have incentives to make the place look nice - their incentive wasn't to find good tenants, but to make money by finding low-maintenance tenants. There is enough demand for housing out there that there is no competition to make places look nice for the majority of renters. In fact the renter is generally expected to keep the place looking nice, and the landlord only fixes essential items.

Yours was along post so I am sorry I can not reply to everything, but the above part of it strikes me as an example whereby you do not believe in the free market, nor understand it.

I am not in the business of financial advice, but I do own a stock by the acronym AVB (Avalon Bay Communities). Take a look at their apartment 'products'. Their facilities are clean, safe, and well run. They reinvest in their facilities, from landscaping to bathrooms to kitchens to roofs to gyms. I suspect management would be able to debate you on your thesis above.

https://www.avaloncommunities.com/about-us

[Peter Brown]

I was watching our town public access channel a few months ago and there was a presentation to the town building/planning commission from a developer that was nearing final lease up of a 12 unit condo complex. The town has instituted an affordable housing requirement for new development projects. The developer was seeking an exemption as he was required to provide 2 affordable units. Well he gave every reason that PB gave.... tenants wouldn’t be able to afford maintenance and upkeep..... the units were selling for $1.0MM + and the affordable units were $250k+. If you qualify to buy a $250k+ home in today’s underwriting environment, I believe you can maintain it. I believe in home ownership where it makes sense. Being a renter doesn’t mean you can’t maintain a property and living in section 8 housing doesn’t meant the place will be a mess. There are many two family and three family section 8 housing units. The landlord shares in the responsibility. Look at the Kushner’s roach and rat infested properties.

I am very much AGAINST affordable housing rules and laws. They produce diametrically opposite results than intended. Let the market sort out where people live. The market always works in the end, regardless of near term bumps.

I didn’t ask you all that. The market didn’t work for a lot of folks. See the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs FRED TRUMP AND DONALD J. TRUMP

I realize you didn't. You didn't ask anything, actually. I was simply telling you I am fundamentally opposed to all 'affordable housing' laws and incentives.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I was watching our town public access channel a few months ago and there was a presentation to the town building/planning commission from a developer that was nearing final lease up of a 12 unit condo complex. The town has instituted an affordable housing requirement for new development projects. The developer was seeking an exemption as he was required to provide 2 affordable units. Well he gave every reason that PB gave.... tenants wouldn’t be able to afford maintenance and upkeep..... the units were selling for $1.0MM + and the affordable units were $250k+. If you qualify to buy a $250k+ home in today’s underwriting environment, I believe you can maintain it. I believe in home ownership where it makes sense. Being a renter doesn’t mean you can’t maintain a property and living in section 8 housing doesn’t meant the place will be a mess. There are many two family and three family section 8 housing units. The landlord shares in the responsibility. Look at the Kushner’s roach and rat infested properties.

I am very much AGAINST affordable housing rules and laws. They produce diametrically opposite results than intended. Let the market sort out where people live. The market always works in the end, regardless of near term bumps.

I didn’t ask you all that. The market didn’t work for a lot of folks. See the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs FRED TRUMP AND DONALD J. TRUMP

I realize you didn't. You didn't ask anything, actually. I was simply telling you I am fundamentally opposed to all 'affordable housing' laws and incentives.

I am not.

[Peter Brown]

I was watching our town public access channel a few months ago and there was a presentation to the town building/planning commission from a developer that was nearing final lease up of a 12 unit condo complex. The town has instituted an affordable housing requirement for new development projects. The developer was seeking an exemption as he was required to provide 2 affordable units. Well he gave every reason that PB gave.... tenants wouldn’t be able to afford maintenance and upkeep..... the units were selling for $1.0MM + and the affordable units were $250k+. If you qualify to buy a $250k+ home in today’s underwriting environment, I believe you can maintain it. I believe in home ownership where it makes sense. Being a renter doesn’t mean you can’t maintain a property and living in section 8 housing doesn’t meant the place will be a mess. There are many two family and three family section 8 housing units. The landlord shares in the responsibility. Look at the Kushner’s roach and rat infested properties.

I am very much AGAINST affordable housing rules and laws. They produce diametrically opposite results than intended. Let the market sort out where people live. The market always works in the end, regardless of near term bumps.

I didn’t ask you all that. The market didn’t work for a lot of folks. See the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs FRED TRUMP AND DONALD J. TRUMP

I realize you didn't. You didn't ask anything, actually. I was simply telling you I am fundamentally opposed to all 'affordable housing' laws and incentives.

I am not.

I don't doubt that. We have very different views on matters of property, the Bill of Rights, and politics. And that's okay. Everyone is not required to agree on every issue. We argue in the town square, then ask people to vote on the issue. Whoever gets the most votes, wins. Unless it's the electoral college.

[a fan]

I realize you didn't. You didn't ask anything, actually. I was simply telling you I am fundamentally opposed to all 'affordable housing' laws and incentives.

Frankly, I don't believe you.

Quick question: what percentage of home loans made in the US are supported by some type of .gov program?

Do you know?