Sharing Youtube discussion about LA homeless camps

[Andylusion]

That's wealth. Wealth is distributed to everyone. Some of middle class around the world, live a lower standard of living, than the poor in our country.

So no, distribution of wealth is better under Capitalism than Socialism, by a wide margin.

Not in this country.
Capital is money, or the realizable money value of collateralizable property and that is the main generator of wealth/income inequality in this country.
How Capitalism Actually Generates More Inequality - Evonomics

The Truth Behind American Prosperity: Income Inequality is Reaching Critical Mass

No, that is false.

Wealth is not money.

By your logic, Jeff Bezo, and other people in the 1%, are not wealthy.

Because Jeff Bezo does not have $180 Billion in money. He own stock in a company.

Wealth is more than money. It's the value of assets.

And we already covered this before. You pointed out that in Sweden the middle class owns more of the wealthy of the country.... and posted a link proving that 85% of all Sweden citizens invest money into stocks and assets.

That's why they have a greater portion of the wealth.

And similarly, I can promise you without any shred of doubt, that if every American working 40-hours a week, invested $100 a month into stocks, that entire complaint you have about how little the 40% own, would be flipped the other way in just a few years.

 

[Andylusion]

"And those maps were color-coded by first the Home Owners Loan Corp. and then the Federal Housing Administration and then adopted by the Veterans Administration, and these color codes were designed to indicate where it was safe to insure mortgages."

Yeah.... that was my point.

And that point was not based on reality.

A 'Forgotten History' Of How The U.S. Government Segregated America

"The Federal Housing Administration's justification was that if African-Americans bought homes in these suburbs, or even if they bought homes near these suburbs, the property values of the homes they were insuring, the white homes they were insuring, would decline.

"And therefore their loans would be at risk

There was no basis for this claim on the part of the Federal Housing Administration.

"In fact, when African-Americans tried to buy homes in all-white neighborhoods or in mostly white neighborhoods, property values rose because African-Americans were more willing to pay more for properties than whites were, simply because their housing supply was so restricted and they had so many fewer choices.

"So the rationale that the Federal Housing Administration used was never based on any kind of study.

"It was never based on any reality.."

Keep in mind these policies were put into effect nearly a century ago, long before the sort of urban decay you associate with African Americans with began to manifest itself.

Government policies created the decay we see today in Black ghettos.

But here's the problem with all that..... Why did black ghettos become ghettos?

If you are telling me, that there was no negative effect from an increase in crime, related to black presence... then black communities today should have the lowest rates of crime.

Is that the case? yes or no?

Again, every aspect of white flight, seems to ignore the reasons why it happen.

Show me the entirely black communities that have zero crime, and everyone is a doctor and lawyer. Where is this community?

Which neighborhoods, went from white to black, and had zero increase in crime?

I'm open to being informed. Give me your citations.

 

[Andylusion]

You complained that banks were not loaning money to people who didn't qualify.

My side complained about banks refusing to loan money to qualified people because of where they lived, i.e., the color of their skin.

I'm not sure you understand to what degree blind racism drove public policy 50 to 60 years ago, so I would like to relate a childhood experience of one of my Black neighbors who grew up in Watts during the 1960s.

She had an older brother who worked for GM. He took advantage of his factory employee discount (and many hours of overtime) to buy a brand new Corvette.

In 1965 a black man driving such a car in Watts inspired LAPD to stop and frisk every time he left his house even after the cops knew exactly who owned the car.

Finally, he was told to his face by a White officer "you don't deserve a car like this.," an opinion based solely on the color of his skin and address not his ability to meet loan obligations.

After months of such harassment, he parked the car in his mom's driveway and went back to public transportation.

My side complained about banks refusing to loan money to qualified people because of where they lived, i.e., the color of their skin.

First off, that simply isn't true. Redlining, had nothing to do with skin color. Can you show me the white person who got loans inside the redlined area? No you can not.

In 1965 a black man driving such a car in Watts inspired LAPD to stop and frisk every time he left his house even after the cops knew exactly who owned the car.

Finally, he was told to his face by a White officer "you don't deserve a car like this.," an opinion based solely on the color of his skin and address not his ability to meet loan obligations.

After months of such harassment, he parked the car in his mom's driveway and went back to public transportation.

What does this have to do with redlining? Nothing.

Yes, there was far more racism back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.

I'm not sure who you think you are arguing with. I never said otherwise.

Today I know several black men that are driving really nice cars, and not one has been pulled over, unless they were speeding.

So again... trying to go back 70 years, to try and prove a point TODAY.... is a fail. That's failed argument.

 

[georgephillip]

You acted like it was the banks, that prevented blacks and minorities from getting wealthy, and if only we gave them loans, they would become wealthy.

Instead, it is personal choices that make people wealthy or poor, and giving a poor person, engaged in poor choices a loan, simply results in them being poorer.

It was regulation at all levels of government starting with the New Deal that prevented a Black middle class from being perpetuated in many parts of this country. Integrated neighborhoods were segregated by the government in order to build public housing. Suburbs were created as white-only enclaves, so the crime and violence you complain about today in Black communities is just one more example of the continuing legacy of white supremacy in the US.

 

[georgephillip]

Actually that doesn't mean much. When you want to sell a Chevy, you tend to call people who own Chevys. When you want to sell any production, you market to people who have already bought that product.

Just like if you want to market loans, you market to people who have loans.

Predatory lending practices aimed at victims of state-sponsored segregation doesn't qualify as sales; it's closer to legalized extortion, which is really capitalism at its core.

The Social Structure of Mortgage Discrimination

"Racial disparities in wealth are currently at their widest levels in decades.

"According to the Federal Reserve (2014), the wealth of the median white household stood at $141,900 in 2013, 13 times greater than that of the median black household ($11,000) and ten times that of the median Latino household ($13,700).

"These gaps in wealth by race are less a product of income disparities than of differential access to good homes in high quality neighborhoods, which in turn produces racial differences in homeownership rates, home values, and the accumulation of home equity, the principal source of wealth for most American families."

 

[georgephillip]

But that doesn't matter today. We know this because in the 1960s to 1970s, they moved blacks into new homes free of charge, and in a matter of years they were ghettos again.

Property values go up and down with crime and drugs.

Black families were denied the opportunity to buy homes in the 1940s and '50s and even into the 1960s by government mandate even though they were as qualified as white working-class families acquired none of the equity appreciation whites accumulated over those decades.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge the role white supremacy has played and continues to play in Black urban decay makes it highly unlikely you will ever accept the changes that will be required to MAGA.

A 'Forgotten History' Of How The U.S. Government Segregated America

"So in 1968 we passed the Fair Housing Act that said, in effect, 'OK, African-Americans, you're now free to buy homes in Daly City or Levittown' ... but it's an empty promise because those homes are no longer affordable to the families that could've afforded them when whites were buying into those suburbs and gaining the equity and the wealth that followed from that.


NPR ED
"How The Systemic Segregation Of Schools Is Maintained By 'Individual Choices'
"The white families sent their children to college with their home equities; they were able to take care of their parents in old age and not depend on their children.

"They're able to bequeath wealth to their children. None of those advantages accrued to African-Americans, who for the most part were prohibited from buying homes in those suburbs."

 

[georgephillip]

So when you see that black people per captia are poor TODAY... and far fewer whites per capita are poor TODAY... the reasons are because white people on average are getting jobs, and earning what they want.

Because white people were never the victims of state-sponsored racial discrimination in housing which is where most middle class families acquire their wealth; why is this reality so difficult for you to accept?

 

[Andylusion]

You acted like it was the banks, that prevented blacks and minorities from getting wealthy, and if only we gave them loans, they would become wealthy.

Instead, it is personal choices that make people wealthy or poor, and giving a poor person, engaged in poor choices a loan, simply results in them being poorer.

It was regulation at all levels of government starting with the New Deal that prevented a Black middle class from being perpetuated in many parts of this country. Integrated neighborhoods were segregated by the government in order to build public housing. Suburbs were created as white-only enclaves, so the crime and violence you complain about today in Black communities is just one more example of the continuing legacy of white supremacy in the US.

No, being poor does not cause crime. Nor does being in a certain neighborhood.

I've live in low income neighborhoods. Never once did I think... "I guess I should steal stuff now".

Sorry, but you can't blame 70 years ago, for crime today.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually that doesn't mean much. When you want to sell a Chevy, you tend to call people who own Chevys. When you want to sell any production, you market to people who have already bought that product.

Just like if you want to market loans, you market to people who have loans.

Predatory lending practices aimed at victims of state-sponsored segregation doesn't qualify as sales; it's closer to legalized extortion, which is really capitalism at its core.

The Social Structure of Mortgage Discrimination

"Racial disparities in wealth are currently at their widest levels in decades.

"According to the Federal Reserve (2014), the wealth of the median white household stood at $141,900 in 2013, 13 times greater than that of the median black household ($11,000) and ten times that of the median Latino household ($13,700).

"These gaps in wealth by race are less a product of income disparities than of differential access to good homes in high quality neighborhoods, which in turn produces racial differences in homeownership rates, home values, and the accumulation of home equity, the principal source of wealth for most American families."

Predatory lending practices aimed at victims of state-sponsored segregation doesn't qualify as sales; it's closer to legalized extortion, which is really capitalism at its core.

I had loan sharks target me for years. You know what I did? I said "no".

Again, you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you are complaining that banks are engaged in "predatory lending", and on the other demanding they be given loans to get into high quality neighborhoods.

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't complain they are being denied loans, and then complain they are getting loans. Can't be both.

It's one or the other. Not both.

 

[Andylusion]

But that doesn't matter today. We know this because in the 1960s to 1970s, they moved blacks into new homes free of charge, and in a matter of years they were ghettos again.

Property values go up and down with crime and drugs.

Black families were denied the opportunity to buy homes in the 1940s and '50s and even into the 1960s by government mandate even though they were as qualified as white working-class families acquired none of the equity appreciation whites accumulated over those decades.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge the role white supremacy has played and continues to play in Black urban decay makes it highly unlikely you will ever accept the changes that will be required to MAGA.

A 'Forgotten History' Of How The U.S. Government Segregated America

"So in 1968 we passed the Fair Housing Act that said, in effect, 'OK, African-Americans, you're now free to buy homes in Daly City or Levittown' ... but it's an empty promise because those homes are no longer affordable to the families that could've afforded them when whites were buying into those suburbs and gaining the equity and the wealth that followed from that.


NPR ED
"How The Systemic Segregation Of Schools Is Maintained By 'Individual Choices'
"The white families sent their children to college with their home equities; they were able to take care of their parents in old age and not depend on their children.

"They're able to bequeath wealth to their children. None of those advantages accrued to African-Americans, who for the most part were prohibited from buying homes in those suburbs."

Your unwillingness to acknowledge the role white supremacy has played and continues to play in Black urban decay makes it highly unlikely you will ever accept the changes that will be required to MAGA.

Because I look at facts, not theories. Truth is truth, whether you like it or not.

The racism of 70 years ago, has no bearing on present day situations. We know this because there are tons of middle class blacks.

Again, how do you explain Chris Gardner who was homeless, in poverty, from a broken family, and now has a Wall Street firm as a multi-millionaire?

How do you explain other successful blacks who came from poverty?

The fact such people exist, proves the theory that such and such happened 70 years ago caused people to be poor today, false.

Fact disprove the theory. It's that simple. My unwillingness to acknowledge something that is provably false, is because I'm not a slave to ideology. I look at reality, and see the difference between ideology and reality.

 

[georgephillip]

The point is that for a system that has been in a war with poverty and hunger since at least the 1960's and longer, there seems to be poverty and hunger with the added cost of tens of trillions of dollars spent on it.

Yet a single ethnic group has been the victim of government mandated segregation for decades before the Great Society.

Segregation is a symptom.
White supremacy is the disease:

Interactive Redlining Map Zooms In On America's History Of Discrimination

"Redlining followed what Nelson, crediting his colleague Brent Cebul for the term, calls the 'one-house rule' — like the 'one-drop rule' for racial identity.

"Under the 'one-drop rule' in the 19th and early 20th century, a single drop of African-American 'blood made a person black, even if their heritage was overwhelmingly white.

"Similarly, on redlining maps, a single black household in a middle-class area could make the whole neighborhood 'risky' for mortgage loans in the eyes of the federal government."

 

[georgephillip]

The US is the only country in the world with sanctions against Cuba. Cuba has free trade with every other country in the world. Cuba is a major draw for tourism. Cuba's problem is it's government and has been ever since Castro overthrew Batista.

Batista was a dictator in the process of selling his country to US corporations. Castro improved the lives of all Cubans by deposing the US puppet.

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia

"The embargo has been criticized for its effects on food, clean water,[72] medicine, and other economic needs of the Cuban population.

"Criticism has come from both Fidel Castro and Raúl Castro, citizens and groups from within Cuba, and international organizations and leaders.

"Some academic critics, outside Cuba, have also linked the embargo to shortages of medical supplies and soap which have resulted in a series of medical crises and heightened levels of infectious diseases.[73"

 

[georgephillip]

Essentially lenders would lend to anyone with a heartbeat regardless of the creditworthiness; writing off their losses on their taxes and maximizing their profits on repossessions where the borrower losses everything

Sounds like socializing costs and privatizing profits?
It was government regulations beginning in the 1930s that produced a large Black underclass living in urban slums. If the US had an economic system that put people over profits, the Federal Reserve could have made loans to the inner-city poor at the same interest rate it charges major Wall Street banks today.

Wall Street vs. The Regulators: Public Attitudes on Banks, Financial Regulation, Consumer Finance, and the Federal Reserve

 

[Andylusion]

The point is that for a system that has been in a war with poverty and hunger since at least the 1960's and longer, there seems to be poverty and hunger with the added cost of tens of trillions of dollars spent on it.

Yet a single ethnic group has been the victim of government mandated segregation for decades before the Great Society.

Segregation is a symptom.
White supremacy is the disease:

Interactive Redlining Map Zooms In On America's History Of Discrimination

"Redlining followed what Nelson, crediting his colleague Brent Cebul for the term, calls the 'one-house rule' — like the 'one-drop rule' for racial identity.

"Under the 'one-drop rule' in the 19th and early 20th century, a single drop of African-American 'blood made a person black, even if their heritage was overwhelmingly white.

"Similarly, on redlining maps, a single black household in a middle-class area could make the whole neighborhood 'risky' for mortgage loans in the eyes of the federal government."

Yet a single ethnic group has been the victim of government mandated segregation for decades before the Great Society.

Which changes nothing of what he said.

Yeah, in history, such and such happened.

None of that has any bearing on today. None of it.

 

[Andylusion]

The US is the only country in the world with sanctions against Cuba. Cuba has free trade with every other country in the world. Cuba is a major draw for tourism. Cuba's problem is it's government and has been ever since Castro overthrew Batista.

Batista was a dictator in the process of selling his country to US corporations. Castro improved the lives of all Cubans by deposing the US puppet.

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia

"The embargo has been criticized for its effects on food, clean water,[72] medicine, and other economic needs of the Cuban population.

"Criticism has come from both Fidel Castro and Raúl Castro, citizens and groups from within Cuba, and international organizations and leaders.

"Some academic critics, outside Cuba, have also linked the embargo to shortages of medical supplies and soap which have resulted in a series of medical crises and heightened levels of infectious diseases.[73"

Again, Cuba has no problem importing medicines when it has the money to do so. We know this from the Resort hospitals.

When tourists go to resort hospitals, they have medical supplies.

The problem is, when you go to hospitals for Cubans, there are no medical supplies.

Why is this? Because tourists don't want to go to a resort, where if they have a headache, they are told to sleep it off.

They want full service health care. The Cuban government knows this. So they are more than happy to supply medical supplies, when it profits the Cuban government to provide them.

It doesn't profit the Cuban government to give medical supplies to their own people, and thus they don't.

Again, the universal problem with blaming anything on the embargo, is that Cuba is able to get anything at all that they want... when it benefits the Cuban government to do so.

Thus the embargo is not the problem.

The problem is socialism. The resorts are effectively a capitalist system run by the state, for the benefit of the state officials.

Thus under that capitalist system, they have all the health care needed for tourists... because tourists pay, and thus it makes a profit.

Socialism for all the Cubans, means they can't even get Aspirin.

 

[Andylusion]

Essentially lenders would lend to anyone with a heartbeat regardless of the creditworthiness; writing off their losses on their taxes and maximizing their profits on repossessions where the borrower losses everything

Sounds like socializing costs and privatizing profits?
It was government regulations beginning in the 1930s that produced a large Black underclass living in urban slums. If the US had an economic system that put people over profits, the Federal Reserve could have made loans to the inner-city poor at the same interest rate it charges major Wall Street banks today.

Wall Street vs. The Regulators: Public Attitudes on Banks, Financial Regulation, Consumer Finance, and the Federal Reserve

Nah, that is ridiculous. And we proved that claim ridiculous with the 2008 sub-prime crash. The whole cause of that problem was giving loans to people who could not afford them.

If we had done that in the 1930s, as you suggest, we would have had a second depression in the 1940s. There is no way to give people who do not qualify for loans, loans, and not have a crash follow.

 

[Andylusion]

So when you see that black people per captia are poor TODAY... and far fewer whites per capita are poor TODAY... the reasons are because white people on average are getting jobs, and earning what they want.

Because white people were never the victims of state-sponsored racial discrimination in housing which is where most middle class families acquire their wealth; why is this reality so difficult for you to accept?

Because the facts don't support it. I accept theories that are backed by fact.

For example... You point out correctly that white people were never victims of state-sponsored racial discrimination in house, which you then claim is where most middle class families acquire their wealth.

I would only partially agree with that. If all you have is a house as your source of wealth, you are likely to end up poor, because you typically end up forced to sell the house, to retire on.

But if that's your claim as to why whites are able to become wealthy.... then how do you explain all the impoverished whites? Why didn't they get wealthy since their great great grandfather was not the victim of state-sponsored racial discrimination?

Have you seen appalachia? Have you seen skid row? Why are there so many impoverished whites?

Didn't their great great grand parents become wealthy since they didn't have state sponsored discrimination?

See again, take me... I don't have a penny from my parents, or grand parents, or great grand parents.

Even stock I own, I purchased by working a job. Every dollar in my savings account at the bank, I put there by working.

Even so, I make barely $30,000 a year, and drive a beat up 2003 car. I'm not wealthy. Why didn't all that magical wealth from the lack of state sponsored discrimination, make me wealthy?

I'll tell you why. My great grand parents died with almost nothing. A tornado ripped through the old farm, and not a building was left after they died.

My grand mother used up nearly all her money before she died, and split between 3 sons, there wasn't much left.

My other grand mother died, and most of the money was used up in settling the estate. Most of her money was Social Security, and unlike a 401K or IRA, when you die the money you paid in is gone. So there was nothing.

The reason my parents are millionaires today, is because they saved and invested wisely. It had nothing to do with what happened 100 years ago.

If they had spent all their money, and not saved and invested, they would be impoverished right now.

Same is now true of Black people. The ones that save and invest, and work wisely, and live wisely, end up wealthy.

The ones that don't... don't. What happened 100 years ago, has absolutely no bearing on their lives today. None.

 

[MeBelle]

" Camps" is a polite term for degenerate druggies and alcoholics to invade areas that used to be considered parks. Years ago I visited Seattle and was shocked to see permanent tents set up in parks that were once set aside for the enjoyment of people. Citizens didn't seem to mind the likelyhood of their kids witnessing some creep shitting or pissing in public or the waste associated with permanent camps.

By some accounts one in every thirty children in the US is homeless at some point during the year.

MAGA?

National Center on Family Homelessness.

Not MAGA.



Obama and Biden did nothing

The latest version of America’s Youngest Outcasts, released in November 2014 to raise awareness of the current state of child homelessness in the United States, documents the number of homeless children in every state, their well-being, their risk for child homelessness, and state level planning and policy efforts.

Child homelessness increased in 31 states and the District of Columbia from 2012 to 2013.
Children are homeless in every city, county, and state throughout our country.

 

[MeBelle]

We note houseless U.S. Army vets living in their vans in Eugene, Oregon, who could not vote.

Thanks to automatic mail in voting.

Those vets CAN vote if they walk into a polling station.

 

[georgephillip]

1 in 30?

That sounds more like runaways, rather than an economic problem.
Also that would include battered women's shelters. Again, not an economic problem.

Domestic violence is another in a long line economic problems enhanced by capitalism.

Exposure to domestic violence costs US government $55 billion each year

"The federal government spends an estimated $55 billion annually on dealing with the effects of childhood exposure to domestic violence, according to new research by social scientists at Case Western Reserve University.

"The results of a study on the national economic impact of exposure to domestic violence—published in The Journal of Family Violence—showed higher health-care costs, higher crime rates and lower productivity in children as they aged."