/b/ - Random

Password (For file deletion.)


Note that while it doesn't come across in the vid, this guy is a self-identified communist and he knows what that means (i.e. classless, moneyless, stateless society). He's a reformist though. And yes he has a Ph.D in economics.


File: 1605664234463.jpg (51.75 KB, 1258x155, NoHousingCrisis.JPG)

It's bad


thank you for saving 20 minutes of my life my g.


Both him and the other uighur are dumbasses, they are trying to look at the problem with housing in the fact that houses are distributed in the market, i.e. in circulation, but the actual problem of housing is not the market, although the market does increase the fucked upness of the housing problem, the problem is in production, not circulation. Truthfully, according to the market, everyone COULD have a house, the market is not really the reason why they don't, the real reason is surplus population, and the drive to minimum wage, as some portion of the population has to always remain destitute for capitalism to work, and also capitalists are always going to find a way to drive your wage to the level where you live like a cow. Your landlord charging you exhorbitant prices is an added thing, and product of the fact that a landlord charges you a porcentage of the maximum possible revenue you could have in the area, not what you earn, but this still remains a secondary problem. As long as you have a capital, there will always be a housing problems, because people will still live in squalor, and in fact they do do that, in poor countries, you know the ones he mentions as "not having a housing problem", even though they fucking do, you illerate fucking deluded burger


I feel like policy-wonk econ guys like him tend to reify nationalism to a weird degree. And by that I mean they go like "X country doesn't have a housing crisis therefore X country's policies must be good" and X country is basically always an imperialist core country.


Holy fucking shit. I want to bang the 538 fox so goddamn bad. I can't stand it anymore. Every time open the election tracker in my Linux browser I get a massive erection. I've seen literally every rule 34 post there is of her online. My dreams are nothing but constant fucking sex with Fivey. I'm sick of waking up every morning with six nuts in my boxers and knowing that those are nuts that should've been busted inside of Fivey's tight fox pussy. I want her to have my mutant human/fox babies.

Fuck, the fucking cops caught me with a fox at the zoo. I broke in and dressed her in my sister's skirt and went to fucking town. My mom hasn't said a word to me in 10 hours and I'm worried she's gonna take away my laptop and phone. I might not ever get to see Fivey again.


File: 1605664720304.jpg (33.07 KB, 403x490, profile-pic.jpg)

ummm okay here's one thing I bet you didn't know about me, okay
I HAVE A THEORY ABOUT THE WASHINTAHN MONYUMENT. I have a theory. About the Washington monument. Right, now we all know – it's cliché – what does the Washington monument look like? Right? We all know what it looks like. BUT! There's more to that story: Folks who look into the life of George Washington – the father of our country – will know that George Washington's children were all adopted. Why? Because when George Washington was a child he had the measles. And it left him sterile. And George Washington unable to have an erection. Right?
So the statue… The Washington monument… Looks a lot like something that George Washington could not do! My theory has always been… That George Washington was… he was old… and he was sitting around in the bar with his friends. And they said: ”You will never be a real woman. You have no womb, you have no ovaries, you have no eggs. You are a homosexual man twisted by drugs and surgery into a crude mockery of nature’s perfection. All the “validation” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back people mock you. Your parents are disgusted and ashamed of you, your “friends” laugh at your ghoulish appearance behind closed doors. Men are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of years of evolution have allowed men to sniff out frauds with incredible efficiency. Even transhumanists who “pass” look uncanny and unnatural to a man. Your bone structure is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get a drunk guy home with you, he’ll turn tail and bolt the second he gets a whiff of your diseased, infected axe wound. You will never be happy. You wrench out a fake smile every single morning and tell yourself it’s going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the depression creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight. Eventually it’ll be too much to bear - you’ll buy a rope, tie a noose, put it around your neck, and plunge into the cold abyss. Your parents will find you, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment. They’ll bury you with a headstone marked with your birth name, and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know a man is buried there. Your body will decay and go back to the dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a skeleton that is unmistakably male. This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.”. That's why the Washington monument was built. Now I have no evidence of this, but I find it to be an odd coincidence… That George Washington… Who could not have an erection… His monument looks like a giant erection. It's, it's odd! Thing's like that don't just happen! Right? And noone ever talks about the fact that he was sterile, that he had measles as a child and could not have an erection. So I think, you know- It's supposed to be an Egyptian obelisk, but I have a feeling that it's an inside-joke. That's. my. theory. Right? Put that in pipe and smoke it, I could be completely wrong… definitely not a historian, but I have a feeling, I have a feeling that's what was going on there. *clicks pen *


>3:1 blow (cocaine) to baking soda
>tbsp, grams, pounds, tons, doesn't matter
>put into coffee mug
>mix with water until all dissolved
>>only use as much water as you need to dissolve the powders
>>no more no less
>toss in microwave for 1 min on high
>>take out and swish around in mug
>back in mic for 30 secs
>take out and see if yellow oil is collecting on top
>if it isn't
>>back in for 30 secs
>if it is, don't swish
>>just back in nuke for 15-30 secs tops
>take out
>>let cool 5-10
>toss whole thing in freezer for another 5-10 maybe 15-20 depends
>crack is what's sitting on top
>Use a small mess kit, pan.
>2:1 ratio of conk to baking soda.
>Mix with 15 milliliters of water per every gram of mixture.
>Put on stove, stir like hell.
>Freebase will inevitably burn because you suck, wear a gas mask.
>Stir with steel straw hammered down to provide no opening, blow gently to dislodge any still stuck in the miniscule hole.




File: 1605664758483.jpg (523.52 KB, 1328x1018, IMG_20201028_225610.jpg)

Accidently made a thread about this video too, so I deleted it and post my thoughts here.

Basically, his entire premise is so far correct, that the housing market is not comparable to the rest of the commodity market due to owned land being a monopoly. His solution for that is a Georgian land tax, but at the same time I think he tries very hard to inject terminal levels of neoliberal ideology into this, claiming that homelessness is not a consequence of the housing market but merely a consequence of Keynesian policies or the lack thereof. I think this is highly dubious, there has never been a social-democratic nation that managed to abolish homelessness, only socialist states did that. He, just like many capitalist left-liberals, parade Finland as this great example of coming close to eradicate homelessness, but I don't think they will actually manage to eradicate it.

His actual solution seems very limp-wristed, and goes along the lines of "community owned finance" and stuff like that. His retort to actual socialist public ownership is quite frankly a libertarian talking point along the lines of "then who makes the decisions??!!!" The point where I really thought that this guy is a complete shill is when he compared landlords (!) to wage workers in the fossil fuel industry who are threatened by their plants shutting down. What the fuck?

He also could have discussed the Chinese model where land is in public ownership but real estate isn't. China has one of the highest home ownership rates worldwide, but somehow he is against public land ownership?


Is the guy a Leftist or not?


He's a capitalist.


he claims on his twitter and medium that he is a communist


File: 1605664759557.jpg (56.38 KB, 540x519, 7e0.jpg)

I think he's not. He proposes all kinds of reformist Keynesian ideas that make everything more complication, economists do this a lot, they overcomplicate the issue to give off the impression that it's "way to complex to ever be rationally planned" when the central issue is quite simple, it's the property question. In material terms, there is already more housing available than people who look for housing or are homeless, all it takes is a single redistribution like in Cuba where every tenant just became homeowner. The state has this power.

In response to Philosophy Tube's expropriation suggesting, he starts with "according to Olly's argument, landlords have already been compensated through the rent in the past…" - like who gives a flying fuck? They are landlords. They're just gonna be expropriated, period.

He's the kind of guy that will tell you that he's a leftist and on your side but because of [insert post-Keynesian heterodox techno-babble] you have to freeze to death next season. It's the economy, sorry!

That he uses Germany as an example is terrible. Germany has a [b]huge[/b] housing crisis, even more so than places in the United States where there low demand, it's the number one issue in Germany, the unaffordable rents.

expropriate all landlords

centrally allocate everybody a place to live

It's not that fucking hard.


this video sucked but his video on krugman is pretty based




Ungodly based
t. economist



[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]