This argument is always brought up when it comes to universal basic income or free housing. It was disproven every time it was tested, but people still believe that everyone else will just stop working if they weren’t punished for being alive anymore.
Do you recognize that these sorts of initiatives can have long term affects that are not accurately understood in a small sample sized study over a short period of time?
You said it was disproven, how can something be disproved if you only tested it during a really short time period? Maybe you meant to say “evidence suggests” but that’s much different than something being disproven
People work to improve their material conditions. Material conditions drive society, after all. Do you do household chores at all, or do you let everyone else do them for you?
Communal ownership of property is the only way to truly aim at fulfilling needs and desires, rather than the profit motive.
The problem with giving the homeless houses is that if you begin free houses to people you make the big banks and investors lose money. What makes it a problem? Well, where’s your money at?
If only we could get governments and communities to back credit unions over banks.
Houses should not be investments. They break down and should depreciate like any other physical asset. If you built your retirement solely on your house then that’s nobody’s fault but your own.
Your money is in the bank, and banks, which a re for-profit, make a lot of their money on real state and mortgages. Not sure where you get making houses investments from, but for banks, it works out excellently, and when it doesn’t, “Too big to fail” demands they (as in their CEO bonuses) get rescued anyway.
Cars are investments for banks too, but I’m specifically talking about buyers. Selling a house for more than you bought it is the most absurd thing I’ve ever seen, and that’s coming from someone buying a house as we speak. I should not be able to sell this thing for 2x its value in ten years.
Add comment