Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Someone tell warpus he still has me on ignore for saying that the government should reduce institutional racism instead of policing interpersonal racism. He can't see my quote and thinks you're responding to him.
It destroys demand for dollars, that's for sure. I guess you could do it if they were backed by something hard but transient that people actually valued.
The idea of directly destroying registered currency is interesting to me, since it tests the modern ability of the State to actually control a currency and not just control it due to momentum from a previous era.
Ok play it off like you were, then. Warpus literally thought you were telling him you thought it was his idea...It destroys demand for dollars, that's for sure. I guess you could do it if they were backed by something hard but transient that people actually valued.
The idea of directly destroying registered currency is interesting to me, since it tests the modern ability of the State to actually control a currency and not just control it due to momentum from a previous era.
Ok play it off like you were, then. Warpus literally thought you were telling him you thought it was his idea...
Dollars have value to those who do not owe money. In the end of the day they are backed by the state monopoly on violence, and its willingness to use it against you if you do not get dollars and give them to the state.I know other people disagree with my emphasis, but right now dollars are backed by debt. So, they're valued more highly than whatever you lose if you default on the loan.
For me the core goal is ensuring everyone has food, shelter, medical care and education.What is the goal of all these suggested changes? What are the outcomes you all want?
Dollars have value to those who do not owe money. In the end of the day they are backed by the state monopoly on violence, and its willingness to use it against you if you do not get dollars and give them to the state.
Dollars have value to those who do not owe money. In the end of the day they are backed by the state monopoly on violence, and its willingness to use it against you if you do not get dollars and give them to the state.
For me the core goal is ensuring everyone has food, shelter, medical care and education.
Certainly food (or its surrogate, money) can be easily provided. Medical care in the west is part of the culture and only needs to made accessible, very doable. The US Medicare system works pretty well. Housing is a problem. Once built, it needs ongoing upkeep that is expensive and variable by structure and location. At the two extremes you have various housing "Projects" that become terrible ghettos and the Surfside collapse in Florida. You cannot solve housing problems until you resolve the ongoing maintenance issue. Nobody wants to tackle that so they build them and walk away....For me the core goal is ensuring everyone has food, shelter, medical care and education.
In the UK we managed for a generation to have council housing available to those who needed it.Certainly food (or its surrogate, money) can be easily provided. Medical care in the west is part of the culture and only needs to made accessible, very doable. The US Medicare system works pretty well. Housing is a problem. Once built, it needs ongoing upkeep that is expensive and variable by structure and location. At the two extremes you have various housing "Projects" that become terrible ghettos and the Surfside collapse in Florida. You cannot solve housing problems until you resolve the ongoing maintenance issue. Nobody wants to tackle that so they build them and walk away.
With council houses the occupants rented from the local government (council) at a controlled rate. The maintenance was handled by them as by a private landlord. If you were unemployed or very low paid you got benefits to cover the rent (probably paid direct to the council, but I never experienced it).@Samson How are the ongoing maintenance issues handled? Who pays?
Who is the "them"?...The maintenance was handled by them as by a private landlord....
The the local government, called the council here. They were significant employers, now most such services have been contracted out.Who is the "them"?
Fundamentally, this is an ownership plus capability problem. People who own can always borrow to value-add (or maintain) to their property, and if they don't need to borrow it creates a place to invest their savings. The 'problem' with just giving the homes is that we live in a world where enough people are willing to depreciate an asset to fund present consumption. It's a pickle.You cannot solve housing problems until you resolve the ongoing maintenance issue.
most of us don't scramble for dollars at tax-time, if anything we get refunds
Yes, and if the ownership does not sit with the occupant, the tendency is to only minimally maintain a property. Surfside shows us that collective ownership is not much better.Fundamentally, this is an ownership plus capability problem. People who own can always borrow to value-add (or maintain) to their property, and if they don't need to borrow it creates a place to invest their savings. The 'problem' with just giving the homes is that we live in a world where enough people are willing to depreciate an asset to fund present consumption. It's a pickle.