Archangel1313 @ Archangel1313 @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

418

Joined

1 mo. ago

Of course you can. Just look at how the MAGA movement has taken over the Republican party. It started during Obama's term, with the Tea Party movement. One-by-one, they primaried the old-school moderate Republicans, and eventually held majority control over their party's policy decisions. Once they had that, the remaining moderates either chose to fall in line, or were forced to retire.

That's how democracy works. Revolution is just an excuse to kill people for their political beliefs, when you're too lazy to convince them to change their minds.

That's a very fair point.

Then their losses are on them...not the voters.

Correction: He believes that the economy should be a zero-sum game. It doesn't have to have "winners and losers"...it CAN work for everyone. The economy is not a force of nature. It is a tool that we have created, and it can be used however we choose.

Except that white folks aren't "excluded" from anything. You would have to be an idiot to think that white people aren't already receiving the full benefit of everything that society has to offer. This doesn't need to be "advertised". it's simply a fact.

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. It won't matter how many houses you build, if the price is dictated by whatever the last house in that area sold for. This is then reinforced by local property assessment and taxation systems, that effectively "lock-in" the new property values at the increased rate.

Those prices are never coming down on their own. They will only continue to rise. The only way to "out-supply" that trend, would be to build so many houses that demand drops to zero for an extended period of time. And that is never going to happen, for what should be obvious reasons.

This is far beyond "basic economics". It's way more complicated than that, and is only marginally dictated by supply and demand. Those "basics" would have to overcome some nearly impossible conditions, in order to have any effect on affordability.

"I will succeed, where they could not."

Regardless, if Carney doesn’t break this unambiguous election promise, that’s not a cause for celebration or congratulations. He could’ve passed a bill to protect supply management - was asked directly to do so - and he intentionally didn’t do it.

Then what's this.

The housing crisis is a supply and demand problem.

No. It isn't. Not in any practical sense of the concept, anyway.

The only way real estate would be subject to the rules of supply and demand, is if you could find a way to build so many new properties, that demand was overshot to the point that you literally could not sell your property for any asking prices. Only then would people be forced to lower that price. That is an impossible goal.

Real estate will only get cheaper by regulating the price. It needs to be treated as a regulated commodity, and sold for an agreed upon asking price. Allowing the market to dictate that price, will always lead to a lack of affordability, regardless of supply.

I love these "nearly half" declarations of support the media likes to gin up.

So..."less than half", then?

So...unregulated Capitalism to the rescue, then? You know that's not actually going to solve the affordability problem...right? You're just going to have a lot more, really expensive housing, that only the wealthy can afford...and a fucked up environmental mess to clean up, on top of that.

We're fucking doomed, if this is the only solution we could come up with.

It's not the voters fault. If you split the Democratic vote, you will only get a permanent Republican government. And that doesn't help anyone.

Politicians like Mamdani are the only way forward. We need more people like him to run for local government like this, and move their way up from there...making way for more like them to take their places, as they go. You can't change things at the top, without laying the foundation for that change, first.

No leopards ate this man's face. I guarantee you, he will suffer no negative consequences for screwing his constituents over. In fact, he will most likely be rewarded for it.

If AI can replace so many people that there aren't jobs for them all, wouldn't that also mean AI is producing enough to sustain those people, jobs or not?

Unfortunately, that isn't what's happening. AI isn't "producing" anything that people need to survive. It's just replacing people. We aren't seeing any net gains to society that would be able to support so many people no longer being needed in the workforce.

If they were training AI to produce food, build housing or anything that people actually need more of right now, I would say you are absolutely correct to assume that people would be just fine with this transition. But that's not what they're using AI for.

Optimistically, AI could and definitely should be used for those things...and the logical conclusion would be to implement a form of UBI so that we can all benefit from this. But do you honestly see that happening?

I don't. And I think that's what OP is also seeing. We aren't ready, as a species, to make that transition yet. There isn't even the slightest intention on behalf of our current leadership, of providing for an entire population of jobless people. They will ultimately be left to fend for themselves. And as it stands right now, society isn't equipped to function with that kind of excess population.

I have a very hard time believing that all of a sudden, this clown gives a shit about "debt slaves". There is no way he's complaining about us peons having to pay for all this spending.

He sure as fuck didn't care how his funding cuts were going to affect the peasant class when he was gleefully setting fire to all our social safety nets...so what the hell is he even talking about?

It's not necessary about their "value" to society. People need to eat in order to survive. That means having a way of supporting themselves. Having no way of supporting themselves means a lot of people are going to die.

I'd say that's a net negative to society.

And the problem runs deeper than "retraining" or "upskilling". With the emergence of technologies that replace human workers...there will simply be a massive excess of unemployed workers hitting the market. Period. Skills or not. Where are they going to work, when there are now ten people applying for every available job?

And this is why right-wingers want teaching this shit banned in schools.

This asshole really needs to resign, if this is how he feels about doing his fucking job. If you want to spend time with your family at the beach so badly...by all means, get the fuck out of office and make room for someone who actually gives a shit.

Which is exactly why things like DEI need to be taught in schools.

If parents are racist...they teach their kids to be racist. And that comes out when they go to school and encounter other kids that their parents have taught them to hate. There is no better place to push back on that, than in the place where they encounter those other kids.

Teachers should not be forced to turn a blind eye to that hate. They should be required to teach kids a better way of interacting with each other, because it solves two major problems at once...

A)...it provides every kid in that school with a safer learning environment.

And B)...it might actually prevent some of those kids from growing up to also teach their kids to be racist, and end the generational learning curve that perpetuates racism in the 1st place.