good to be a drug dealer.

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

Your entire failed worthless 40 something meter maid life is funded by taxpayer (other people's) 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.

Turn this around for a moment to understand the logic; Can government do it better? That’s the question. As we move away from capitalism, has homelessness gotten better or worse? When we assess economic progress, the socialist will say “It’s getting better. We succeeded in our policies”. Then you go back and assess before the policy, and you discover something interesting; society was accelerating at a faster pace BEFORE the policies were put in place. In other words, government has largely slowed us down, but we have completely stopped.

More recently though, our progress with equality and poverty has slowed significantly. Why? Capitalism, or government interference?

So what are we?

Use San Francisco as an example, or Sacramento, or Los Angeles A lot of government employees have gotten very rich out of allegedly helping the homeless

Instead of getting in to the difference of socialism, fascism, communism etc, let’s just make this easy; What isn’t capitalism?

Your entire failed worthless 40 something meter maid life is funded by taxpayer (other people's) money.

I can't make your argument for you.

You said the solution to homelessness is capitalism.

The US has many homeless persons.

How can the US "solve" their observed homelessness population with capitalism? How would deregulation address unemployment and homelessness?

I think class/wage division is the issue. But, I'm interested in hearing how truer capitalism would resolve that concern.

Read the books I recommended. Everything is explained in those, with strong evidence, including examples and data. They use logic and reason, along with explaining the processes, which is where most other economists and extremists fall flat.

Example; how would deregulation help unemployment? Well, every time the min wage goes up, unemployment does too. So how would we make unemployment go back down? Hmmm…

Regulations get added to the cost of production, and ultimately, works against both the consumer and the labor. You can’t force producers to stop making a profit, otherwise, they will refuse to produce anything. That would leave us without products and services. So, that’s not the answer. The consumer will stop buying the product, so if the price goes too high, there is no profit. So instead, the producer is forced to lay off/cut pay of the labor.

Lift regulations, lift minimum wage, and You will see the cost of living going down, unemployment go down, and because the cost of living is lower, people can get buy on lower wages. THe Fed causes inflation on purpose. What does that do to your cost of living? Why do people feel they constantly need raises? Trade offs…

This is why you have to stop looking at the economy as a thing that can be easily manipulated, and instead, look at it for what it is; people. Companies are people. Consumers are people…and they all make decisions. You will never change that. The economy is bound by the laws of Nature, which so many self proclaimed economists and politicians refuse to acknowledge.

Well, if anything, TLC further proves yet again that he's an unreasonable troll.

He's constantly dishonest and lies. Pretends to be reasonable, but every question is nothing more than bait to troll more.

This is narcissism at its best. TLC is a true Marxist.

"Marx and Ingles never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, devoted, slandered, traduce them, and in the use of these methods, their followers are not less expert.” Mises

So you have no legitimate retort, got it

More government, more socialism is the answer.....

If it were only that simple to take a homeless person, and put them in a home and give them 10-20K and get them on their feet and then from that point they become productive functional members of society, it would be money well spent. Even if it only worked half the time. I would support it. However, that doesn't work. Chances are only a handful of people will be put back on their feet productive members of society, but most of those people would have gotten on their feet anyways. Chances are it will just make more people give up and say fuk it do nothing and you'll be taken care of. If fact, most of that money will just end up fueling negative aspects of our society.

Participants in the cash groups received 7500 CAD. "This amount equaled the annual income assistance in British Columbia in 2016 and represented 59.6% of the average personal annual income ($12,580) of our participants."

Why haven't you given any of your money to a cause you believe in?

Honestly, it may work for a very small percentage of homeless people…though I’d say a stipulation of getting the money should be a requirement of attending a finance management class. But this study should in no way be taken as an indication that this is an effective approach for making a substantial dent in the homelessness problem in most major cities in America.


Our preregistered screening criteria were: age 19 to 65, homeless for less than 2 y (homelessness defined as the lack of stable housing), Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and nonsevere levels of substance use (DAST-10) (21), alcohol use (AUDIT) (22), and mental health symptoms Colorado Symptom Index (CSI) (23) based on predefined thresholds (see SI Appendix, Table S1 in SI Appendix, section 1.3.2).

The study was grant funded.

Okay, but with such amazing results, why haven't you given them any money?

JLC always brings the trollness.

So it turns out there were 229 initial participants. 114 of them took the money and disappeared. lol.

https://nationalpost.com/news/colby-...transfer-study

JLC always brings the trollness.

So it turns out there were 229 initial participants. 114 of them took the money and disappeared. lol.

https://nationalpost.com/news/colby-...transfer-study

JLC always brings the trollness.

So it turns out there were 229 initial participants. 114 of them took the money and disappeared. lol.

https://nationalpost.com/news/colby-...transfer-study

The money was given after enrolment.

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.