And you can just say that you are not listening because you believe your position is the most moral one.
This guy’s point is that it doesn’t matter what government is running things. There will always be some desirable areas where demand is larger than supply. You haven’t proposed any details besides “a socialist government would solve it”.
500 people need houses in an area. Ignore what the market thinks should be done. Build houses or densify housing in that area.
Do you think there are any real world examples where you would need to “float them in the air?”
It’s a stupid argument that’s not on good faith and completely lacks any imagination…
How are houses built now? People speculatively buy land and build on them. Instead of market speculation telling people where to build, people tell people where to build.
Planned economies aren’t a novel or theoretical concept.
Do you think there are any real world examples where you would need to “float them in the air?”
Yes, in cities. We were talking about downtown areas. Not anywhere that has land available. So any housing project will be more complicated than “build houses”.
You obviously think you are more moral than everyone else, but you’ve provided no interesting solutions. so there’s no use talking to you.
This is not “house then where they are”. This is the sane argument of put housing and move the people, not “There’s no housing so I cast SOciALisM!” And poof it’s solved.
Editing to be less rude because I think there’s actually a real misunderstanding here.
Build houses in places (cities, not literal square meters) where unhoused people need to be housed. They, like anyone else that lives in a city, can use their feet and bikes and public transit to go from where their house is to another place in that city where maybe they shop and work like any other citizen. The suggestion is simply to give them houses.
I also disagree with suburban sprawl and NIMBYism, hence my comments about densification
We are on the same page. Where I see homelessness there is not space for housing, but there are places that could accommodate without a cross-country trek.
And you can just say that you are not listening because you believe your position is the most moral one.
This guy’s point is that it doesn’t matter what government is running things. There will always be some desirable areas where demand is larger than supply. You haven’t proposed any details besides “a socialist government would solve it”.
Post your specific proposals or stop posturing.
You might want to sit down, it’s complicated.
500 people need houses in an area. Ignore what the market thinks should be done. Build houses or densify housing in that area.
Do you think there are any real world examples where you would need to “float them in the air?”
It’s a stupid argument that’s not on good faith and completely lacks any imagination…
How are houses built now? People speculatively buy land and build on them. Instead of market speculation telling people where to build, people tell people where to build.
Planned economies aren’t a novel or theoretical concept.
TL;DR use your brain
Yes, in cities. We were talking about downtown areas. Not anywhere that has land available. So any housing project will be more complicated than “build houses”.
You obviously think you are more moral than everyone else, but you’ve provided no interesting solutions. so there’s no use talking to you.
On a more serious note i wonder why you think people that are currently unhoused couldn’t take public transit?
Do you ever have any ideas? What’s it like not being able to reason?
Watch out! Goal posts are moving boys!
This is not “house then where they are”. This is the sane argument of put housing and move the people, not “There’s no housing so I cast SOciALisM!” And poof it’s solved.
local man disproves leftist theory on technicality by taking online argument extremely literally!
We don’t need to move people around, build houses where people need houses!
No not like that. Obviously build them somewhere else and bus people to the houses!
Internet idea man is oblivious to cognitive dissonance.
Editing to be less rude because I think there’s actually a real misunderstanding here.
Build houses in places (cities, not literal square meters) where unhoused people need to be housed. They, like anyone else that lives in a city, can use their feet and bikes and public transit to go from where their house is to another place in that city where maybe they shop and work like any other citizen. The suggestion is simply to give them houses.
I also disagree with suburban sprawl and NIMBYism, hence my comments about densification
We are on the same page. Where I see homelessness there is not space for housing, but there are places that could accommodate without a cross-country trek.
deleted by creator
“planned economies”
My dude you can just say you have no idea about economics and leave it at that
ah yes true capitalism is equivalent to economics I’ve forgotten