Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mises]

[ontheway]

Funny about Yata's comments.

Yata is so stuck in the 19th century, that he never gets beyond the Dems vs. the Repubs.

Sure, Obama is better than Bush. He's a bit brighter and more politically astute. He will make fewer enemies abroad. He will say fewer stupid things.


But, hey're both socialists, they're both terrible for the economy:

Bush is a communistic socialist - adovocating the "common values" portion of communism that was much more important than the economic differences. Communists have always been the leading proponents of controlling drug use, controlling the reproductive choices of women, controlling the common morality. Communists want to create the "good communist man" and promote common values as do the Republicans these days - they call it "family values" and the "moral majority."

Obama is a fascist-socialist, relying on large national programs to save the nation. Fascists tend to work for big government to protect the country, save the nation etc. They favor national service - the draft for the military plus other stuff, national energy programs, national infrastructure programs and national control of anything possible.



There is another group of traditional socialists that only wanted to have groups helping in a voluntary way to make a better world. Socialism without coercion by the state. It is not properly included in the socialist model as now constructed. This ideal is what most people are thinking of when they think they like socialism. They would favor dismantling the state and allowing people the free choice to participate in social, people centered institutions within a free society.

This is actually a libertarian form of "socialism" which is perfectly compatable with a free market. It exists independent of the government. It secures its own funding and is self-sufficient. It receives no subsidies and pays no taxes. But, it cannot coexist with either the Republican or Democratic party forms of big government control. The fascist Democrats and communist Republicans have destroyed the possibility of a free market economy, including free market social institutions that would take care of all the needy.

[ontheway]

[mises]

Yup.

[ontheway]

Rent control:

Why rent control? It's because it was at one time the darling of the left, regulation to protect the masses and make their lives better. Only guess what happened. People actually studied it. The left and the right. And all economists concluded that it had to be abolished.

For the existing housing stock:

Rent control caused the income from a building to remain fixed. The problem was that this caused a real decline in the market value of the building, since the building's value is just a sum of the income stream produced by the building.

The only possible result was that the owner had to let the building decay. He could not earn enough from rents to maintain the building and earn the required return from his investment.

So property declines under rent control until it becomes uninhabitable.

For future construction:

Obviously, no one would build housing in a rent controlled market. It would just mean that they would have to watch the value decline and the building decay.


So, economists, all of them, told the world to abandon rent control.

[Fox]

[Fox]

[quote="bacasper"]

[Kuros]

[Fox]

[Fox]