Why can’t liberals understand basic economics?

They will destroy their shitboxes. And liberals will cry that not giving them heating and amenities is a violation of their human rights. It's never enough for these people, it's never going to be enough.

Attached: ccc.png (640x439, 356K)

What value will these homeless folks provide in exchange for the heating, water, electricity, yard upkeep, insurance and up-keeping investments in house facing, roofing, renovations....?

Attached: comfy.jpg (1280x960, 291K)

Better than having them freeze to death in the slide at the park.

This is the same logic behind the idea that giving blacks home loans they can't afford, destroying their credit and leaving them bankrupt is somehow helping them.

Black people already got section 8 and foodstamps. Most homeless people are white.

Homeless are that way for a reason, they're either insane or junkies. Or just prefer dumpster diving and can collecting to job having. And throwing money at them won't change that.

This. Zoning should be abolished. People should be allowed to build whatever they want wherever they want.

Unironically abolish human rights
fuck this "human right" argument, you don't "deserve" to live, you don't "deserve" to be fed nor clothed, nor housed, those RESPONSIBILITIES

Fuck off dude, come out to the west coast if you want to see the consequences of letting these lunatics pitch their makeshift shelters wherever they want. They aren’t building them in the woods they’re building them downtown

Attached: 144C341F-516F-4309-8034-F13FC16FBD8B.jpg (2000x1335, 2.26M)

That goes both ways you know, zoning laws keep corporations from building a pesticide factory next to your kid’s elementary school

Attached: E68E4C69-58A6-4CF9-BCC9-06AFD946E882.jpg (1200x800, 255K)

No. People shouldn’t just be able to build a house one someone else’s land without having to pay some kind of fee.

This is what I say when this shit comes up

Free housing

How would divide the houses up? What about the acreage? How do we deduce who gets the bigger house and why? If they have kids do each get a room or two to a room or three?

Now economic

Who will pay for this? Will we buy from the bank? How long do these people get to live rent free? How is the house up kept? Do we pay for repairs? and is so for how long? How long can it remain derelict before eviction?

These are just a few of the problems...so in short this women is a fucking retard

Attached: download.jpg (225x225, 9K)

what the fuck is a "human right"

If they freeze to death in the winter you don't have to worry about them come spring. But homeless only live in warm places for this very reason.

I have an idea: set up a homeless shelter that also acts as a job training site but require them to pass a drug test first. Oh wait this wouldn't work because 80% of the hopeless are burnt out hippies.

White middle class is already paying for nog section 8. Part of the reason rents have stayed so high for so long is because landlords know the poor aren’t the ones actually paying their own bills. Now lefties only ever beg for more money instead of asking “how can we get these out of control prices back down to a reasonable level?”

Homeless live all over the country, they just migrate to the warm regions during the winter months. Most of the homeless here in Seattle spend winter down in LA or Vegas

A spook.

Attached: CvnmaNrXgAAdNUH.jpg (480x480, 29K)

why?

>Max Stirner was literally the "fuck people, i do what i want" Philosopher
Absolutely Based

Attached: 1531808277489.png (411x454, 18K)

>Why can’t liberals understand basic economics?
Tell me more about why trade deficits matter

This is wrong though.
Why the fuck would you quit your job to cost on a free home when your quality of life will take a massive dip in every respect?
Honestly, it would be fine. It would devalue property all across the board, but property prices are currently way too high for middle class workers anyways.

The assumption that humans never do anything unless threatened with homelessness is false. True for a few lazy dickbags, but at least those lazy dickbags are now in a house where I can't see them instead of cursing me out for not giving them money on the street.

but electricity and other shit is a human right
now what retard

>why would you quit your job to get a free house
Do you realize how many people nowadays work full time and still live with their parents or five roommates? Why would anyone work for that when you could just get free shelter and have infinite free time?

>freeze to death
Ever notice how colder cities have lower homeless populations than warmer cities?

>gov were to start handing it out for free everyone would lose their shit
they already do hand it out for free to "refugees" and because everyone thinks they'r;e somehow "deserving" of that no one's doing shit about it

Why are you defending the fact that there are people working full time who cant afford a home? maybe the other 15 million homes should be given to them.

People wouldn't quit their job, they would just quit paying their mortgage/rent.

>(((basic economics)))

Homeless do build their own shanty towns.

I believe you are wrong, and that the majority of people would still prefer to have a career and a nice house instead of unlimited free time and a closet with your name on the door.
Plus the issue of food, entertainment, treats, clothing etc. etc. there are still many other things people would want and that they would work for.

Homeless people are homeless because they are either drug addicts or they choose to be (because freedom I guess?), generally lazy people that don't want to work don't end up homeless, they just end up doing some shit job they barely tolerate.

The idea that homeless are just lazy is very wrong, they are generally seriously mentally troubled.

SJW DETECTED

And how many of those vacant homes are in very enriched areas? Honestly I'd rather be homeless in a semi-good area, than live in Detroit or Rosengård.

Fpbp. This is so true. I cant even put up a tent in the woods without permission from the governement

If you are working full time and can't afford a house why should society bail you out?

People need to take responsible for their actions or they will never learn. If people dont learn society collapses. That's why i don't support big government programs in a free society because it doesn't work. You have to pick one.

Freedom or security

So if you want to live secure leave America where a government will care for you at the expense of your rights.

the government fucking stinks!

ITT: "Human Right" and "Human Need" get flipped.
A gun is a right, a sandwich is not.

Speak for yourself

>If you are working full time and can't afford a house why should society bail you out?
I love how dummies like you always say this and then just straight up ignore the fact that those very people are already using welfare options that the government provides them. They're not making bad decisions, their employees are taking advantage of social safety nets and you're subsidizing them. See: Jeff Bezos and Amazon. This type of shit is why I hate "conservatives". They always talk about how they hate "big gubermint" and the "welfare state" but love getting bent over and fucked by corporations.

It is weird that america seems to value the rights over the needs though.

You don’t have to take economics classes for a liberal arts degree

Because they don't understand incentives and how they matter.

Idiot

What? Your argument makes no sense as welfare recipients dont work full time.

Companies abusing government policies? Obviously the answer is to give government more power!

*crack* *sips*

Is it? Our country was founded on telling the gov. to go fuck themselves, that we, the people are free and don't need some government official telling us what to eat, live, think, ect.

Humans have all rights to a shelter but those rights do not extend to homes as homes were built and had work and effort expended on them.

No, its to give companies less power so they cant use their accumulated wealth to influence politics.

You do this by making it impossible to exploit the labor of others, if nobody is able to profit from more than their own personal labor nobody can accumulate enough power to be disproportionately influential. You can not have equal representation in government if some people control more wealth than others.

The country was founded on the lack of fair representation in government.

We were founded on the premise of liberty and the founders wrote at great lengths on the dangers of letting the federal govt get too big and federalize gets at all in the first place.

Federalizing* not federalize gets

You cannot do anything to help the homeless on a large scale until you allow drug screening. If you think all drugs should be legal, that's fine but the fact is that until you can prove that homeless people aren't going to use whatever resources you give them just to acquire more drugs/booze, you can't help them.

America is a republic not a democracy so you are right. Again there are many other countries one can go to where the people are allowed to vote away their rights.

Stop trying to subvert this nation commie. The Russians failed over 70 years ago so its laughable to think whining neo socialists will change anything.

Attached: 5ba176acfc7e9334368b456e.jpg (900x506, 107K)

America is a capitalist nation. We exploit each other for personal gain.

The soviet union was also not a straight democracy but a representative one, this is in fact what soviet means, a soviet is a title for an elected official who goes to represent their constituents in a counsel.

part of the problems with the current US system is that it has changed how it functions.
1. Instead of electing electors there is now a presidential popularity contest
2. Instead of state legislatures appointing senators, its now voted on.

These are two problems, the effect of massive supercorporations on government was not yet fully appreciated at the time, since apart from the east india company nothing like what we have today, with that much focused wealth and power, existed at the time, that was not itself a monarchical state. It is now common place however, citizens try to coexist with these superpowers who are not foreign countries, both vying for say in their government.

A study was done, the bottom lower 90% of americans have zero input on the laws passed. Only the top 10% have their needs complied to. The founders would easily approve revolution at this point.

>shouldn’t have to pay for a human right bruh

The soviet union was a dictatorship with a state controlled command economy. The presidential election may be a popularity contest but the electoral college keeps the popular candidate from winning as seen by Hillary topping Trump with over 3 million votes.

I agree with you on states rights a problem Trump was elected by the states to fix. The last of your post is just nonsensical whining about how large corporations are these days. Trump is moving with anti trust against these corporations like a Teddy Roosevelt to quell their unconstitutional influence on government so you are wrong about revolution there.

Attached: 1537412305087.jpg (828x633, 495K)

Attached: 1537650791793.jpg (700x350, 78K)

Because they're idiots

Attached: 2016-votes-by-income.png (372x517, 53K)

>Teddy Roosevelt to quell their unconstitutional influence on government so you are wrong about revolution there.
Meaningful change does not happen with out violence, not in the history of humanity.

What can trump do when both political parties are in bed with corporations? You know about party dues and buying committee positions funded by campaign donations and such. How to get congresspeople to pass laws against their own self interest?

nothing is a human right

That totally violates building code.
its not a fucking right.

Because utopian fallacy.

By holding them accountable. Americans have been absent from politics way too long until recently calling out the globalists and traitors in these parties.

Why are people calling themselves liberals when they don't understand economics. Free markets is an important part of liberalism and you can't be one with out supporting it.

But States should build cheaper houses for the poor if they wish to actually solve the homelessness problem. Its much easier for them to put their lives back together if they have a roof on top of their heads. And it doesn't have to be a luxury apartment, just a room with a bed and heating during winters. Here we pretty much have to provide them with some kind of lodgings because otherwise we would have a lot of frozen corpses each winter.

They liberally give other people's money to protected classes.

It's highly undesirable for many banks for housing prices to go down.

The problem with your idea is that most homeless live in areas with insanely high housing prices and limited land. It's bullshit to give away free housing in areas with $2000+ rent that working people have a hard time paying for but liberals will throw a shit fit if you transport the homeless a few hundred miles away where it's cheap enough to build lots of shelter for the homeless because it's a human right to live anywhere you want regardless of your financial situation.

>poster is awakening to the anarchy pill

Because they created the victim culture where white homeless people are more privileged than black and Hispanic homeless. White people do not want black and hispanic bums moving into their neighborhoods for free. It would be political suicide for any politician

Not my idea, idea of state of Utah, where it has been successful.

Forgot to mention, cheaper housing also solves the burger minimum wage problem. Cost of living is too high in your country, standard finnish paycheck is actually 2 dollars less than your minimum wage rating, we pay way higher taxes and we still have a better quality of life all around. Why is this? Cheaper cost of living and particularly cheaper housing.

What works for Utah probably won't work for LA and San Francisco and NYC and vice versa. I'm not trying to be a dick but a lot of yuros on here have a hard time understanding just how large the US is and how different each state is when compared to another state. You can't really apply "one size fits all" solutions to America the way you can for a country with 10 million people.

don't forget that 20gb/s internet is a human right as well, and they'll certainly use their obamaphones to get jobs, how can they get one without a smartphone?

they can upkeep the yard, fix the roof, stop squatters and looters

I think they fundamentally don't understand that you can imagine things that can't possibly exist. To them wanting something bad enough should be enough to make it happen. In their minds the only reason why we don't have universal peace, harmony and prosperity is because people don't want it badly enough.

Shelter isn't a right. You might say that you have a right to build a shelter yourself, but you don't have a right to demand that someone else build it for you.

I doubt she's thought it through that far.

This. The US is massive compared to any European country. Conversations around specific states generally are more comparable.

Fascination with trade deficits isn't really a conservative issue -- it's more like a bipartisan issue among people who can't think beyond what is immediately seen. Bastiat debunked trade deficits nearly 200 years ago.

women shouldn't be allowed to speak in public

Attached: 1520609823787.jpg (960x637, 109K)

*Businesses* should build cheaper houses. Not the government. The government should maybe, MAYBE, incentivize those businesses. But putting that responsibility and that power in the hands of the government is always disastrous.

Which is why Americans should support state rights so people can choose how to live state to state.

i thought that was a dick on her face.

The only way this works is if you essentially create a slave class out of the homeless in the same way Communists created a slave class

So if the bitch wants homeless in homes than she better start learning how to crack her slave whip because that's the only way this shit has a chance of working

Attached: 5e2a7dba9be7a5e5936a8450ed2f46a6979bb8176744a21151e54a962fe1423e.jpg (1280x720, 98K)

Attached: this 1.jpg (628x314, 28K)

Make goo homer EAT the homless

Attached: Homer_as_the_Blob.jpg (400x300, 73K)

>What works for Utah probably won't work for LA and San Francisco and NYC and vice versa.
The obvious solution to homelessness problem is providing more housing. How individual States do this may differ but the obvious solution remains the obvious solution. Finland has its own housing bubble in the capital area where cost of living is much higher than rest of Finland and the main problem there is rents are too high and theres not enough apartment complexes to meet the demand.

Implying thats not what the elite have been pushing for all along enslaving the working class to provide for the welfare class.

>Obamacare
>Section 8
>Free trade

>The government should maybe, MAYBE, incentivize those businesses.
Thats what I meant. Government commissions (or gives the states funds to commission) these apartment complexes and the project is bid for the local construction companies in the area to promote local employment and growth. Finnish system is much like a smaller scale US system where our government gives different regions money and demands what kind of services they have to provide with that money, regions themselves can then decide how to put that money to use and how to tax people living in their region.