cloudfifty

Ah, this magic shift by reactionaries to "it's over, no point" that just serves the same purpose of the previous deny and delay phases.

What this attitude says to me is that too many people have more solidarity with the ultra rich than their peers. Not to even mention those whose income is lower than their own. Hence, a tax on the ultra rich, is somehow very likely - in their mind - going to affect them as well. On the contrary however, a benefits cut, or perhaps a benefit grant, is just a waste of cash and will never benefit them somehow, even though things like paid vacation in Europe is universal.

I'm sorry but to me this attitude hasn't worked out all that well for the common man in the US (no vacation, parental leave, health care etc), but still you believe in the propaganda by default.

The deniers are largely a product of propaganda and shouldn't be overestimated. The ones spreading the propaganda however, are neither deniers nor disempowered, but they would rather go down with the ship than possibly let go of their current privileges. Their phases "It's not happening", "It's not human made", "Don't be too alarmist, it's not that bad", "Ah, well it's over now", all serve the purpose of doing absolutely nothing.

Alright. I'm just annoyed that such obviously reactionary stuff get the benefit of the doubt constantly, and to add insult do injury, call it freedom.

> Libertarianism isn't bad on spec

How is it not? It's deeply anti-democratic, basically handing over power to corporations and wealthy people. It's not like its biggest proponents are advocating "a great reset" where all people will start at zero property again or something, it's just a power grab for the already propertied.

Their use of the term freedom is manipulative. There's no freedom for the propertyless in a Propertarian - essentially neofeudal - society, and they know it. It's 100% propaganda.

This is simply not true. And to argue that some sort of minuscule trading is comparable to today's market economies would be ridiculous. There are a lot of stories in colonial history where the colonialists complain that they need to discipline (or euphemistically "civilize") the native population because they have no concept of labour and property - basically they are "lazy" subsistence farmers and need to be introduced to the market, a.k.a. wage labour through the creation of artificial scarcity (e.g. by the colonialists claiming to now own the land and demand a return, or by requiring a tax in the colonialist currency to cover for their "war costs").

A higher wage can also break bad cycles like always choosing the cheapest produce etc. I assume the general message is that it's possible for people to get a better life by other means than just ruthless, unsustainable, growth.

Why is it backward? Unions enable general strikes which enable wide-ranging policy changes.

> A very vocal front sees this as an opportunity to do all the things the socialists and central planners wanted anyway

What if they're right? Should we all go down with the ship just to maintain some sort of dogmatic pride in our preferred economic system?

> the unionized elite?

That's some really weird world view you got there.

> You're saying that a belief that has near total consensus among the experts is "simply false"

Yes, or at least aren't approaching the problem as others are, namely, what the actual effect of their theories would be in practice. We've seen multiple times how much higher rents get with market rents, and how the common man will be kicked out of their homes. Not sure why you keep denying it when the facts are there.

> Because economics is a difficult subject to understand

So yes, you really think people are too stupid to understand that they will actually benefit. Shameless.

> YES! They're renters.

That's putting profits over people and just plainly unethical and is precisely the kind of outcome that justifies rent controls.

> We also need to be giving investors the incentive to invest in new housing

No, we don't. The state can build housing according to need, like other infrastructure. That way, we don't need to kick out the poor folks from their homes. It's already been done in the past, and is being done in for example Wien, Austria.

> This is basic economics.

It's basic and shallow alright. The world isn't some sandbox for trying naive free market models. It's more complicated than that.

This is simply false. Maybe economists models of an optimal market somehow shows that. But on the ground facts refute it without a shadow of a doubt. One cause of this is usually that government involvement in the production of housing is assumed to be out of the question by those economists.

People are not stupid. Why do you think there's so much resistance in Europe towards market based rents if they think it will actually lower their rents? Should people be thrown out of their apartment they've lived in their whole life just because the property owner can find someone wealthier that's willing to pay more? How is that a desired outcome for the common man? People would rather want that the housing is created by the state than have that crazily class based stratification of our cities.

> Can you at least admit that the economics field at large opposes rent control?

It's pretty pointless to talk about rent control if one hasn't established what the desired outcome is. An "efficient" market? Affordable housing for the common man?

Rent control keeps on providing affordable housing in Europe. Abolishing it would cause the rents to rise (both economists and the people promoting it admits to that) and thus give billions to land lords and property owners. But I guess that's a feature, not a bug?

My intention was not to flame you individually, but to emphasize that the argument "well, the lines are shorter" is pretty shallow without some background information on what that means in practice.

And for most citizens of developed countries that selfishness translates to universal health care. No need to worry.

> On the private system, I can see a consultant in one month instead of six, or get a surgery in three months instead of three years. This is all for non-emergency care of course.

Have you considered that you are essentially jumping in line just because you have a larger wallet than other people?

But it is ethical to keep the lines shorter by excluding the poor?

I'm sorry, but that attitude is just pathological careerism to my ears.

This might be the most childishly shallow and one sided reply I've ever read. Pathetic.

What? "soft-socialist" by American standards would include pretty much all of western-Europe.

> I’m sure I would have had a better life as a hunter-gatherer[1]. [1] Not even joking, this is an actual reply.

No, you just seem to be unwilling accept that reply that argued that we worked less than today - which is true. So your suggestion that the "natural state of nature" is struggle and hardship fell flat.

as usual you're just using your market fundamentalist links to prove your market fundamentalist ideas despite overwhelming on-the-ground evidence that e.g. Scandinavia has been a remarkable success.

> My wife and I carefully manage her younger step siblings’ course schedules to maximize GPA. We schedule meetings with professors, counselors, schedule retakes and extra credit, etc.

That's like another planet for me. Should kids really need to focus on their career so early?

That lazy euphemism for systematically circumventing labour laws for profit kinda proves my point about confirmation bias.

It's a pejorative for someone undermining other people's struggle for a better life. Either way, it's a sad state of affairs when HN threads constantly get derailed by a dozen or two very prolific reactionaries like yourself. Always the same names.

> What skin in the game do you have?

The average HN user - usually in the upper middle class - are certainly on the beneficial side of this. They've received a cheap private chauffeur service, albeit decentralized, that they use to a greater extent than they would ever use taxi because of its affordability (ofc made possible by VC money and offloading costs to the drivers). The self-interested confirmation bias in HN threads about the gig/ride taxi industry must be seen in that light.

You're a scab if you are undermining the strike. No legal pedantry will suddenly wash that away. This is just common sense.

The contractors have all the incentives to extract as much government money as they possibly can during the entire process.

There are certainly countries in Europe that can match, and maybe even beat, US unemployment numbers on historical data while having much higher labour costs.