Re: Re: money and health

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>For example, considers me

>unable to have a discussion about human nature in any depth until I've read

>_Blank_Slate_ and considers me unable to have a significant discussion of

>propaganda and influence and power until I read _Trust Us We're Experts_.

Not exactly. I've discussed both subjects with you. However, I do think

you're wrong about them (which is not the same as " incapable of discussing

them " ) and I suggested reading a couple sources I have a fair amount of

respect for. That's not quite the same as saying " you're an ignoramus " or

" you're naive " or what have you.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Look, I don't want to debate this. This list is about people coming

together and discussing nutrition and related subjects in a mature

fashion. I don't want debate about the rules to become a significant

consumer of bandwidth. To that end, I will create a very clearly defined

list of rules as soon as I can, but with my GF in the hospital and my mom

very sick, I don't have all the time in the world. I'm already spending

more time arguing with you than I can afford to. <g>

So for the time being, suffice it to say that it's not cool to make

sarcastic, pejorative comments to people. It's OK to say things like " I

think you're wrong " , " That's incorrect " , or even " That's absurd " , and it's

OK to say " I think you don't know much about the subject " or " I recommend

reading XYZ to learn about ABC " or " You're not considering these other

alternatives " . It's even cool to say things like " That assumption doesn't

hold up to logic/history/experiment " or " Your assumptions appear to be

faith-based " . It's not cool to say things like " You're heartless " , or

" You're so naive " , " You're an ignoramus " , even though there's obviously

some semantic overlap between various statement pairs which straddle the

line. Your comment came really, really close to the line, and I'd rather

people maintain a bit of distance. This list deserves it.

Is that clear and reasonable?

>I agree that I shouldn't have said what I said, and wish that I hadn't, at

>least not with the sarcasm with which I said it. But it was a defensive

>and not

>an offensive point.

-

[Guest guest]

How in the world is that statement an infraction? I AM beginning not to

care. This is ostensibly a group about nutrition, yet Chris' uniquely

illogical, arrogant political posts constitute an disproportionate

percentage of the posts here. Do what you need to do.

From: Idol <Idol@...>

Reply-

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:37:37 -0500

Subject: Re: Re: money and health

Gene-

>I really don't care if I'm banned from th is list at this point

Well, I do, and because they came at the same time I'll treat both

infractions as one, but I'm serious: this is your last warning. Think what

you will about and his politics, with one exception that I've

observed he has not made this debate personal.

>Let's try not

>responding to one another from now on.

I'm not going to make this an order, obviously, but surely you can do

better than just trying. You two have gotten under each other's skin

repeatedly, and not just in the last couple days either.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 1:49:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Not exactly. I've discussed both subjects with you. However, I do think

> you're wrong about them (which is not the same as " incapable of discussing

> them " ) and I suggested reading a couple sources I have a fair amount of

> respect for. That's not quite the same as saying " you're an ignoramus " or

> " you're naive " or what have you.

I agree. I also continued to discuss the issue with Gene, and called him

neither an ignoramus or naive. I suggested a course in macroecon or applied

calculus much in the way you suggested the two books.

>Is that clear and reasonable?

Absolutely.

I apologize for drawing the point out.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 10:05:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Dpdg@... writes:

> You've clearly never been to San Francisco.... Christie

I haven't, Christie. So, perhaps you could help me understand the situation

there.

Is there an excess of empty housing units over people looking for housing?

If not, and there are less empty housing units than people looking, there is

a housing shortage, and what people can afford is not the cause. If so, there

are definitely gov't interventionist policies at work.

If so, and this is a chronic state rather than a temporary state, what is

stopping landlords from lowering prices? If a landlord has rent at $1000/month

and has no tenant, she has to pay property taxes and receives no revenue. She

would be far better off charging $800/month and having a tenant, and making

money, than literally *paying* to keep an empty apartment.

I don't know what the typical rent in San Francisco is, but one person

working 60 hours a week at $6/hr would be making $1440 a month. If a one room

apartment goes for $1100 that leaves enough money for basic necessities if one

lives very frugally, and a diet based on lentils and cheap butter would afford

decent nutrition for minimal cost. A person working the same hours at the same

pay could split a two-room apartment that goes for $1600 and have $640/month

left over for other necessities.

Is the problem that people aren't able to get enough hours? If so, that's

equivalent to an unemployment problem.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 12:12:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> I didn't bring up the Soviet Union because they were an example of

> socialism. I brought them up because said that state intervention into

> the housing market was the primary cause of homelessness.

Right... you never claimed they were socialist. That was ;-)

But it remains that the USSR *didn't* intervene in their housing market,

because they didn't have one.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 12:54:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> Yes you are hitting a can of worms blaming the government for the Great

> Depression. If anything, it was government's failure to do, not their doing.

> According to this history book and I think most, the depression was caused

> by:

> Unequal distribution of wealth

> High tariffs and war debts

> Overproduction in industry and agriculture

> Inconsistent monetary policy

> Stock market crash and financial panic

,

Tarrifs, war debts, and monetary policy are all the domain of the government.

Unequal distribution of wealth is obviously dubious, because we presently

have and have had and have always head an unequal distribution of wealth... but,

no depresion.

Financial panic is superfluous, because it was caused by the government's bad

monetary policy.

" Britain's departure from gold in 1931 and the Federal Reserve's reaction to

that event sharply intensified the bankng collapse, if indeed they did not nip

a potential revival in the bud ... The drastic decline in the stock of money

and the occurrence of a banking panic of unprecedented severity did not

reflect the absence of power on the part of the Reserve System to prevent them.

Throughout the contraction, the System had ample powers to cut short the tragic

process of monetary deflation and banking collapse. Had it used those powers

effectively in late 1930 or even in early or mid-1931, the sucecessive

liequidity crises that in retrospect are the distinctive feature of the

contraction

could almost certainly have been prevented and the stock of money kept from

declining or, indeed increased to any desired extent. " --Friedman and Shwartz,

Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960.

Their chart reveals the money stock was significantly *more* stable before

the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

Dean Best argues in " Pride, Prejudice and Politics: Roosevelt Versus

Recovery, 1933-1938 " that the anti-business approach of the US caused continued

depression, whereas more pro-business approaches of other countries pulled them

out much faster.

" Comparisons of the recovery of the US with that of other nations may be

found in the volumes of the League of Nations' World Economic Survey for the

depression years. A table shows comparisons of unemployment rates. From it can

be

seen that in 1929 the US had the lowest unemployment rate of the countries

listed; by 1932 the US was midway on the list, with 7 nations reporting higher

unemployment rates and seven reporting lower unemployment. By mid-1938,

however, after over five years of the New Deal, only three nations had higher

unemployment rates, while 12 had lower unemployment. The US, then had lost

gorund

in comparsison with other nations betwen '32 and '38. [...] Of the 22 other

nations listed, 19 showed a higher rate of recovery in industrial production

than

the US, while only 3 lagged behind. One of these, France, had folowed

policies similar to those of the New Deal in the USA. As the WES put it, both

the

Roosevelt administration and the Blum government in France had 'adopted far

-reaching social and economic policies which combined recovery measures with

measures of social reform.' It added: 'The consequent doubt regarding the

prospects of profit and the uneasy relations between business-men and the

Government

have in the opinion of many been an important factor in delaying recovery,' an

the two countries had, 'unlike the United Kingdom and Germany,' failed to

'regain the 1929 level of unemployment and production.' "

The US with its socialist policies and France took, iirc twice as long to

recover as Britain, pursuing a more business-friendly policy.

Best also points out that under Roosevelt suicides declined compared to

Hoover, but deaths due to " accidental falls " shot through the roof! Hmm...

someone cooking the books? :-)

I think this is too tangential. The money in health thread-- which is

*supposed* to be about how economics affects health and food, is a good thread,

and

might soon be steered back on topic when I get to 's latest query, but

this is probably better left.

Who's on the nt-politics list? Maybe we can move it there?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 1:48:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I'm getting tired of the housing argument, but are you suggesting that any

> time there's some vacant housing and also some homeless the problem is

> automatically government intervention? What if developers simply made a

> mistake and constructed too much luxury housing and not enough inexpensive

> apartment buildings? Or is government the only party which can make a

> mistake and contribute to social ills?

No, I wasn't suggesting that. You're responding to a post which was a

*query* to Christie or anyone else who knows the situation in SF. I have no

idea

what the problem is. Gentrification contributes too... lots of rich people move

in so housing prices shoot up.

I don't think only government can be the problem. Ultimately, I think that

markets are the solution, and that a freer market means a bigger pie with

bigger pieces. But as to the speific cause of the SF situation, it's too

specific

and requires details I simply don't have. My list of gov't policies that can

affect the housing situation was meant as a lits of policies that *could*

contribute, not a specific analysis of SF's situation.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 1:51:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> No housing market, but no homelessness either as everyone was guaranteed

> housing, even if it was in Siberia.

That's not the point. Gene said he was offering the example as

counter-evidence that one can intervene in the housing market without causing

problems. In

fact, it doesn't support that at all. If you're suggesting that markets are

an inferior way to allocate housing resources, then my comments about famine

and oppression become perfectly relevant. If not, it just isn't relevant to

the issue we're discussing.

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: Christie << >> That's pretty absurd, because anyone who can afford

to work a full-time job can afford to rent. <<

You've clearly never been to San Francisco.... Christie

~~~ or tried to rent in London, England.

Dedy

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 2:13:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> It supports it absolutely. An example where there is no 'housing market'

> because of complete government intervention would be the limit example. But,

> sorry, I guess I need a fresher course in " applied calculus " , LOL.

Gene,

You seem to be implying-- correct me if I'm wrong-- that a non-market economy

can be taken as maximum government intervention, and therefore can be used as

a model with which we can make extrapolations about the effects of different

degrees of government intervention. Is that correct?

If that is your view, I disagree. The effect of government intervention--

say, for example price caps-- on supply and demand is a result of it's

interaction with market forces. If prices are determined by supply and demand,

and

resources are allocated according to prices, then government intervention to

change prices affects the allocation of resources and divorces it from supply

and

demand.

It's impossible for government intervention to have that affect in a

non-market economy, because resources are not allocated by prices, and prices

are not

dependent on supply and demand. It represents a fundamentally different

dynamic.

Your point that you mentioned to about the shortage causing increased

prices IS a good point. But that reflects the shortage-- it'd be a temporary

circumstance that would lead to increased supply and prices would go back down.

It also begs the question, how did we end up with a shortage in the first

place?

Homeless people should be cared for and a compassionate society does not

leave people to rot with no help. But more intervention in the rental market is

not the answer, IMO. If you have a shortage, the last thing you want is price

caps, because you'll aggravate the shortage.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 3:30:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> Monetary policy is the government. But you have to bear in mind our

> system was developing, expertise in how to manage it was all new. We

> actually had only recently transitioned from an agricultural economy to an

> industrial. What you have posted is all hindsight now after lessons

> learned, much subsequent experience gained. It doesn't demonstate there

> should be no government involvement. Rather that government should do more

> intelligent actions supportive of the markets. And since that depression

> and ever increasing government involvment, there has not been one to equal

> the Great Depression.

,

Our government innovated a new monetary policy that has destabalized, not

stabalized, the monetary supply.

I don't call bad monetary policy " doing nothing. "

Tarriffs are immoral and do not protect anyone. I think demonstrated

that before the Great Depression. Hasn't comparative advantage been

understood since the 19th century?

Granted, FDIC has had stabilizing effects. But that's a governmet band aid

for government-induced problems.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene wrote:

> > Against my better judgement, here I go, responding again. Can't help

> > myself,

> > I guess....So, in your opinion it is " interferences in the market " that

> > exacerbates homelessness. Ok - as I understand it, homelessness was not

a

> > big problem in the former Soviet Union. Or am I missing something?

>

wrote:

> Your missing a lot of things. Like millions of people dying of famine.

If this is in reference to the Soviet Union, they were not socialist, tv

special I saw went into their vaults under the Kremlin where enough jewels

and precious metals were kept by the government to more than take care of

the people.

MA. unemployment, minimum wage, homelessness unsure how that figures in with

MA being one of the 4 New England states in the top10 states last year that

had the highest numbers falling into poverty level.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>>>>I'm not sure, but if you are going to find an answer, you can probably

find

it at www.anti-state.com. But an-cap, to my understanding, includes legal

systems, so presumably enforcement of contracts occurs without " building

insurance. " But, I'm not expert on it, and, admittedly, it seems

considerably less

practical than libertarian " minarchism " .

----->but there would be no *gov't* legal system - *everything* would be

privately owned. i'm wondering how low income folks would fare in such a

system...will do some reading - thanks for the URL.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>

> From: " Wanita Sears " <wanitawa@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:42:40 -0500

> < >

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> Gene wrote:

>>> Against my better judgement, here I go, responding again. Can't help

>>> myself,

>>> I guess....So, in your opinion it is " interferences in the market " that

>>> exacerbates homelessness. Ok - as I understand it, homelessness was not

> a

>>> big problem in the former Soviet Union. Or am I missing something?

>>

> wrote:

>> Your missing a lot of things. Like millions of people dying of famine.

>

> If this is in reference to the Soviet Union, they were not socialist, tv

> special I saw went into their vaults under the Kremlin where enough jewels

> and precious metals were kept by the government to more than take care of

> the people.

>

I didn't bring up the Soviet Union because they were an example of

socialism. I brought them up because said that state intervention into

the housing market was the primary cause of homelessness.

[Guest guest]

>>>>The government. Between , , and I, I think we've explained

a

total of thirty or forty times that libertarianism has a government that

enforces contracts and protects property.

>>>>>Then it is *enforced* just as contracts are enforced now. Do you

understand

that in libertarianism a government exists?

----->not in all brands of libertarianism, but in yours, david's and

brandon's, perhaps. i know you know that, but i just thought that statement

should be qualified.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

I just to happen to have a history book right beside my computer. According

to it, the Social Security Act was part of Roosevelt's Second New Deal,

passed in 1935 which provided aid to disabled, unemployed, and elderly.

Truman's Fair Deal included an increase in the number of people who could

benefit from social security. Eisenhower extended benefits during his term.

In 1960, still 40% of elderly people where living below the poverty line.

extended benefits and got Medicare passed in 1965 which provided

medical insurance for those over 65.

Yes you are hitting a can of worms blaming the government for the Great

Depression. If anything, it was government's failure to do, not their doing.

According to this history book and I think most, the depression was caused

by:

Unequal distribution of wealth

High tariffs and war debts

Overproduction in industry and agriculture

Inconsistent monetary policy

Stock market crash and financial panic

The government had been more lasseiz faire prior to the depression.

Hoover was in office at the time the fall started. He was greatly opposed to

the socialistic ideas that took hold in Europe at that time to deal with

their own economic crisis going on. He believed in " the American system of

rugged individualism " and that " the individual initiative and enterprise

through which our people have grown to unparalleled greatness " would solve

the problems that were occurring. He believed private charity would feed the

starving. They however went broke trying. Hoover believed the depression

would purge the rot out of the system and the American people should just

ride it out. So he took little action to improve the situation. It got

worse and worse. Hoover became extremely unpopular and was replaced by

Roosevelt who took the opposite position in that the government needed to do

something. Thus the New Deal started. Impact of the New Deal:

Extensive (and permanent) involvement of the power of the federal

government in banking, industry, and agriculture

Extension of the power of the President

Deficit spending

federal social programs - the welfare state

greater concern for workers

conservation gains

renewal of faith in democracy

The depression ended with World War II which got factories producing

weapons, farmers producing food for Europe, and unemployed workers into the

army, so many actually that women left their kitchens and took over many

factory jobs that had been male.

It is incorrect also to say the market responded to SSI problems by

providing better retirement programs. Rather the opposite. Retirement

programs by corporations have been declining (many have been eliminated)

just as SSI has been becoming more insolvent and less capable of supporting

retirement.

Another point of disagreement. The effect of taxation is redistribution of

wealth.

You are also incorrect on the railroads. Government funding built them.

The company's in fact, where given free land, much of which they did not use

and sold. There were big dollars given away and with it, a tremendous amount

of graft and corruption. Because of their monopoly position and deals they

made with large company farms, the small farmer was at mercy in competing,

many being squeezed out. This all ultimately led to severe regulation of

railroads. I think they are one of the first examples of the need for

government regulation in a capitalistic society because of the human nature

for greed.

I would also disagree that all semi-private turnpikes are superior. There

are many states such as my own whose major roads are free and they are just

as excellent (many better) as the turnpikes in other states.

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>How in the world is that statement an infraction?

It wasn't, and I didn't mean to suggest it was. I was just urging you to

follow your own advice -- but not by way of an order or a threat or anything.

>This is ostensibly a group about nutrition,

Every now and then political discussions flare up, and to a large degree I

don't think that's at all bad, at least not in and of itself. Part of the

trouble we face in getting hold of good, nutritious food is political, so I

think politics is fair game. Political discussions are fairly infrequent,

though, and they ought to (and no doubt will) stay that

way. Unfortunately, passions tend to flare, and some people wind up

feeling insulted when they haven't been and others find themselves sorely

tempted to be insulting. But it's the exception, not the rule.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

I'm getting tired of the housing argument, but are you suggesting that any

time there's some vacant housing and also some homeless the problem is

automatically government intervention? What if developers simply made a

mistake and constructed too much luxury housing and not enough inexpensive

apartment buildings? Or is government the only party which can make a

mistake and contribute to social ills?

>If not, and there are less empty housing units than people looking, there is

>a housing shortage, and what people can afford is not the cause. If so,

>there

>are definitely gov't interventionist policies at work.

-

[Guest guest]

> But it remains that the USSR *didn't* intervene in their housing market,

because they didn't have one.

No housing market, but no homelessness either as everyone was guaranteed

housing, even if it was in Siberia.

Re: Re: money and health

In a message dated 1/18/04 12:12:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

I didn't bring up the Soviet Union because they were an example of

> socialism. I brought them up because said that state intervention

into

> the housing market was the primary cause of homelessness.

Right... you never claimed they were socialist. That was ;-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>You are also claiming that rent control, e.g. attempts to keep some units

>below market rate so that people can afford them, helps CAUSE homelessness?!

Rent control may or may not cause any homelessness, but if you think about

it, it certainly can exacerbate market problems -- if you have a housing

shortage combined with enormous numbers of apartments stuck at far below

market rate, it's going to tend to drive up the cost of uncontrolled rental

apartments. That doesn't mean we should give up on the idea of stabilizing

rents, because without taking some measures, unscrupulous landlords can

just evict people practically at will, but rent control (at least as it's

practiced here in NYC) is not an ideal solution.

>since people who can't

>afford a place to live generally will be more likely to be able to rent a

>place that is below market rate.

Perhaps it works differently elsewhere, but in NYC, rent control on an

apartment expires when the person (or family? I'm not sure) which is living

in the rent-controlled apartment stops renting it. I'm not actually sure

offhand whether or how new apartments are added to the rosters of the

rent-controlled, but that expiration is why we have a bit of rent fraud

here, with rent-controlled lease holders subletting illegally and

pretending to live where they don't in order to hold onto their precious

rent-controlled apartments. You can't just go in and start renting an

apartment at way-below-market. If you're very poor you can try to get

subsidized housing and/or rent assistance (and rent assistance comes to

just about nothing).

Maybe it works differently elsewhere?

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: " kristenchavez " <kristenchavez@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:25:28 -0000

>

> Subject: Re: money and health

>

>

>

>> Understanding when something is a joke would help, though, wouldn't it?

> How

>> could you possibly construe that as a serious request?

>

> ------I sincerely hope I'm not crossing the line into " psyoanalyzing " or

> making a

> personal attack... but there are friendly jokes done in the spirit of fun and

> good

> will, and then there are barbs presented as jokes, and these kind are passive

> aggressive and inappropriate. Your hostility towards is apparent to

> those

> of us reading your messages, and thus your " jokes " aren't really, since the

> underlining ill will is clear, despite the " but it was just a joke " defense.

>

> I probably should have waited to see what is going to say, since the job

> of

> moderator is his, and not mine. If I've overstepped my bounds, , please

> let

> me know.

>

>

>

While I do think that it crosses 's line, I personally don't agree with

's lines, so I don't mind.

But I do disagree. Obviously, regardless of how I feel about Chris' posts,

we all recognize that there have been hostile exchanges between us, and

is trying to establish and enforce rules that will minimize this kind of

rancor. Given the group recognition of these factors, I thought that it was

quite silly to recommend as a solution that I be allowed to insult Chris

once a month. Thus it was an attempt to make light of the situation, not to

add to it.

So, " passive aggressive " - no, not at all.

[Guest guest]

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:28:28 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

> In a message dated 1/18/04 1:49:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> Idol@... writes:

>

>> Not exactly. I've discussed both subjects with you. However, I do think

>> you're wrong about them (which is not the same as " incapable of discussing

>> them " ) and I suggested reading a couple sources I have a fair amount of

>> respect for. That's not quite the same as saying " you're an ignoramus " or

>> " you're naive " or what have you.

>

> I agree. I also continued to discuss the issue with Gene, and called him

> neither an ignoramus or naive. I suggested a course in macroecon or applied

> calculus much in the way you suggested the two books.

>

Please. You might as well have called me an " ignoramus or naive " , since that

was really the intent. Obviously the intent was NOT to try to help me (LOL!)

If I suggested that you take a course in basic logic or a good course in

philosophy, that would have been similarly patronizing. Personally, at that

point I think it's more honest to just go for the personal attacks. You

wanted to, but simply insulted me in a way that would get past the censors.

[Guest guest]

LOL!

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:38:47 EST

Subject: Re: Re: money and health

In a message dated 1/18/04 12:12:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> I didn't bring up the Soviet Union because they were an example of

> socialism. I brought them up because said that state intervention into

> the housing market was the primary cause of homelessness.

Right... you never claimed they were socialist. That was ;-)

But it remains that the USSR *didn't* intervene in their housing market,

because they didn't have one.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>I just can't see how rent control, applied in a

>way to actually increase the available affordable housing, could possibly

>lead to increased homelessness.

Well, by your definition -- " applied in a way to actually increase the

available affordable housing " -- it can't. The problem is that you're

defining it by an end result, and the end result isn't always easy to

accomplish.

But like a lot of these political arguments lately, disagreement is in part

caused by semantics. One person means one thing by " socialism " , I mean,

" rent control " , and another means another thing. Here in NYC, for example,

" rent control " has a very specific, limited meaning, and " rent

stabilization " has another very specific, limited meaning. Laissez-faire

types, however, might cover _any_ government intervention in the housing

market, either direct or indirect, with the term, and I gather you're using

a similarly broader meaning.

>Well, ok, but then the answer is more intervention, not less.

If there's not enough housing to go around among all economic tiers and

there are sufficient rent-controlled apartments to drive up the price of

uncontrolled apartments, what kind of additional control would you

suggest? The government constructing more housing? Extending control to

cover all apartments?

>Well, that sounds like a policy implemented by forces that are anti-rent

>control. It will die out eventually,

Assuming my description was correct, yes, but you have to understand that

here in NYC, " rent control " means " indefinite rent freeze not adjusted for

inflation " . So if someone's been living in a rent-controlled apartment for

a very long time, they could be paying a small fraction of market rate --

like a quarter, or even a lot less.

We also have rent stabilization here, which is a system which allows rents

to go up and new tenants to move in but which regulates that amount rent

can increase. Some kind of housing board meets every year to debate and

establish the maximum allowable increase. That protects people from

suddenly being evicted at the whim of their landlords, but I'm not sure

that it does much to ensure a full market of affordable housing.

-