How much money has been spent on the war in Ukraine?

California has wasted $7b of taxpayers money on the homeless so far. Liberals have made themselves very, very rich thanks to the middle class in California

And now you’re making a strawman.

No, not really.

Do you think money spent on interventionist military strategies might be better spent within the country?

Could the financial aid sent overseas help if spent within the country?

Does that make the study any more viable? Is the money going to Ukraine magical or somehow spend differently than money going someplace else?

There are vast amounts of studies that show the source of the money has an impact on how it is spent, but it is still coming from the government, which means it doesn't make a difference. It still fits into the same category of spending.

Okay.

One criticism of this study put forth was that it didn't include a lot of people or go on for several years.

Doing either or both of those things would require additional funding.

Couldn't money sent as aid to other countries be used to try this combination approach within the country?

Is it preferable for tax payers' money to leave the country rather than spent within their borders?

This. This is the problem with the "study". The screened for drug use, alcohol use, and mental health.Only 30% passed their criteria.

Why is screening for clear confounders a problem in a controlled trial?

How much more ney have you given to the homeless? Oh wait, you're a socialist, you'd rather use someone else's money.....

And now we're deflecting......

You are?

How about we just keep our own money and are not taxed it?

America has already attempted many social experiments that are almost exactly the same and they almost all failed. Why should we support yet another that we know has a very high chance of not only failing, but creating unintended and opposite outcomes?

in the words of Hayek “You have to know what can go right before you can know what can go wrong”. In other words, you want to do a social experiment that contradicts what we know works, and have a pretty good idea of what can go wrong.

That's a view some hold. I think maintaining a cohesive society would be challenging under that system.

Anarchy and communism are more similar than they are different, imo.

Both would require evolution in human nature to be tenable, imo.

Fair enough.

You are not alone in feeling your tax dollars are better spent on social programs and/or military support in other nations than at home.

This again? Why do you keep making strawmans and projecting? Do you get paid to troll?

I responded to your rejection of the idea of prioritizing within-nation spending over foreign support

I don't see much direct ROI of foreign aid for middle class citizens.

You suggested you know what works for homelessness, but haven't yet shared the solution.

...

This is a total lie, where did he say that he rejects this on the grounds of wanting money spent on foreign support?

You're so biased you have no idea where you went wrong in the argument. You literally created an argument out of thin air.

Stratifying a controlled trial over the various categories of addiction and mental illness would require many more participants, which would be challenging due to attrition and cost, or it would be very difficult to achieve sufficient power.

Experimental design is tricky, but has advantages over observational or quasi-experimental designs.

Okay.

Are you willing to share the homelessness solution to which you referred?

You're trying to use Ukraine as an example? Despite the fact that so many of us are against the aid being sent there?

How would an individual stand out under communism? Where would be the passion to do better under communism? What would be the reward? Since everyone is allegedly equal?

Do you feel that's different under anarchism?

Maybe that's why I'm using it as an example?

He rejected what I proposed in defense of the status quo.

The least amount of homelessness and inequality has come from capitalism.

The argument from the socialist is always "well it isn't zero". But the capitalist argues "it is the least of any other system". What we do know, is that absolute arguments have no place in societal issues. You will never have zero crime. You will never have zero poverty, you will never have zero homelessness.

This means that the only thing that we know that works so far, is capitalism. And then we have to dive into what is it about capitalism that works. This is where things become difficult, because if there are fundamental values that have not been imprinted in you, fundamentally, they become very difficult to understand, which leads to disbelief.

By far the easiest author to understand would be Thomas Sowell. He gets straight to the point, and makes you understand that things are not as clear as what you want them to be. Economics is all about trade-offs. If you implement a policy, it comes at a cost, and not just monetary costs. We are talking about creating wealth caps, more poverty, more homelessness as a cost. You have to weigh those costs against the benefit, and many times the cost is not worth it. Read his book Economics Facts and Fallacies as a warm up.

Most main stream economists do not advocate for capitalism because of self interest. For instance, you almost never find a classic liberal economist working in Government, because they understand the harm that government can do, you and if you don't advocate for government fixing all of our economic problems, then there is no job security. Because of this, the MSEs want everyone to believe that government is necessary for everything.

Socialists, Keynesians, monetarists etc., make up a vast majority of main stream economics. Every one of these prescribe government intervention to fix economic problems.

Meanwhile, classic liberals and the Austrian economists understand the trade offs and the cost, so they tend to want to find alternatives to government intervention.

I've barely scratched the surface and have already typed quite a bit. I recommend you read Thomas Sowell, Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises. And when you are finished reading those, you will see government solutions in a whole new light. They will make you think completely different.

In conclusion, we do know what works; capitalism and independent charitable acts, but every social experiment we have done had a great cost that many times does more harm than good.

So all these Migrants camping out in the stations, just give them money and a home?

And whatever happened to "earning" money?

So the US just isn't capitalist enough?

Is there an example of a nation that is or was capitalist enough to not have any homeless people?

Capitalism kind of assumes the proletariat are an unlimited resource.

I get the survival of the fittest angle, it's just not a view I hold.