• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Hate It's a Wonderful Life?

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The following is a quote from the film It's a Wonderful Life.

George Bailey said:
Just a minute... just a minute. Now, hold on, Mr. Potter. You're right when you say my father was no businessman. I know that. Why he ever started this cheap, penny-ante Building and Loan, I'll never know. But neither you nor anyone else can say anything against his character, because his whole life was... why, in the 25 years since he and his brother, Uncle Billy, started this thing, he never once thought of himself. Isn't that right, Uncle Billy? He didn't save enough money to send Harry away to college, let alone me. But he did help a few people get out of your slums, Mr. Potter, and what's wrong with that? Why... here, you're all businessmen here. Doesn't it make them better citizens? Doesn't it make them better customers? You... you said... what'd you say a minute ago? They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait? Wait for what? Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken down that they... Do you know how long it takes a working man to save $5,000? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well in my book, my father died a much richer man than you'll ever be!


So all of the people on this board who support the current system of unaffordable mortgages and sky high rents, do you hate this movie?
 
What is it with you and starting all these threads every week about high rents and housing expenses? You are pounding on this all the time. It is supply and demand. What do you want to accomplish with all this complaining about high rents? You want government controlled rents? That already exists in the form of subsidized housing for the poor.
 
What is it with you and starting all these threads every week about high rents and housing expenses? You are pounding on this all the time. It is supply and demand. What do you want to accomplish with all this complaining about high rents? You want government controlled rents? That already exists in the form of subsidized housing for the poor.

Housing prices are one of the primary drivers that restrict economic flow from individuals to companies to government and back to individuals. High housing prices impact literally everything.
 
Housing prices are one of the primary drivers that restrict economic flow from individuals to companies to government and back to individuals. High housing prices impact literally everything.

(1) Where do you think those rents go to? Not to companies and individuals?

(2) Why housing and not transportation prices or food prices?

(3) What's the point of starting a thread on this every few days?

and finally,

(4) What do you or what does the OP want to do about it?
 
What is it with you and starting all these threads every week about high rents and housing expenses? You are pounding on this all the time.

Because I'm sick of people calling Millenials entitled, that they're lazy, and that they just want to much. It's garbage. What we have is a failing economy, and those who have benefited from it, home onwers, are completely detached from the damaged that's been done. Collecting rent isn't a neutral process. It harms those who must pay it for the benefit of those who collect it. Stop thinking that you're some maverick businessman because you own a few properties and now are retired with a nice income. You're not a saint. You're a parasite on the actual productive part of the economy.

As for Millenials, this is the reality that they face. A median income around $25k isn't going to get you very far. What do you want to do about this?

566093bdc2814424008b7349-750-606.png
 
(1) Where do you think those rents go to? Not to companies and individuals?

They go to subsidize those who collect the rent. People who actually produce wealth are paying those who only collect that wealth.

(2) Why housing and not transportation prices or food prices?

Because those are a minuscule fraction of a budget compared to housing costs.

(3) What's the point of starting a thread on this every few days?

and finally,

(4) What do you or what does the OP want to do about it?

1. Forgive student loan debt.
2. A new homestead act.
3. Large tax increases on unearned wealth and tax cuts for wages.
4. Government subsidized loans to young families 0 interest and principal forgiveness upon the birth of each additional child.
5. Closed borders until the working age male activity rate is at least 95%.
6. Enactment of tariffs to correct the trade deficit.
7. Enactment of large public works spending instead of indiscriminate welfare to able-bodied men.

This is not comprehensive, but this would be a great start.
 
The following is a quote from the film It's a Wonderful Life.



So all of the people on this board who support the current system of unaffordable mortgages and sky high rents, do you hate this movie?

The movie, 'It's a Wonderful Life' has absolutely no relevance to the question you're asking. Have you even seen the movie, or have you merely taken some of the dialog printed online? The plot of the movie was quite simple. On Christmas Eve, George Bailey is about to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge. An angel named Clarence appears, stops him from jumping and takes George on a journey into what would have happened to their town if George never existed. The movie offers a happy ending for George and the entire town. A 1946 movie always ended on a happy note.

Why would you choose a purely innocent, entertaining movie made in 1946 in order to create a thread about "unaffordable mortgages and sky high rents"? You have to put those times in perspective. The world was still recovering from a war in which hundreds of thousands of lives were lost. People expected a better life than before the war years having emerged from the Great Depression which caused poverty and hardship worldwide. There were major shortages in jobs and housing for those returning from war. Around the world, the start of the baby boom generation started as couples married and had children, also there were still shortages of food, and materials. But, It was the beginning of 20 years of tremendous economic growth and prosperity for Americans.
 
Last edited:
The movie, 'It's a Wonderful Life' has absolutely no relevance to the question you're asking. Have you even seen the movie, or have you merely taken some of the dialog printed online? The plot of the movie was quite simple. On Christmas Eve, George Bailey is about to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge. An angel named Clarence appears, stops him from jumping and takes George on a journey into what would have happened to their town if George never existed. The movie offers a happy ending for George and the entire town. A 1946 movie always ended on a happy note.

Why would you choose a purely innocent, entertaining movie made in 1946 in order to create a thread about "unaffordable mortgages and sky high rents"? You have to put those times in perspective. The world was still recovering from a war in which hundreds of thousands of lives were lost. People expected a better life than before the war years having emerged from the Great Depression which caused poverty and hardship worldwide. There were major shortages in jobs and housing for those returning from war. Around the world, the start of the baby boom generation started as couples married and had children, also there were still shortages of food, and materials. But, It was the beginning of 20 years of tremendous economic growth and prosperity for Americans.

I have to ask you the same question. Do you know why George Bailey was fighting with Mr. Potter? Did you miss why Mr. Potter wanted to shut down Bailey's bank? Do you know what the meaning of Pottersville is?

capra_pottersville.jpg
 
I have to ask you the same question. Do you know why George Bailey was fighting with Mr. Potter? Did you miss why Mr. Potter wanted to shut down Bailey's bank? Do you know what the meaning of Pottersville is?

capra_pottersville.jpg

Um yes, I've seen the movie no less than 20 times since I was already born when that movie was made. I know everything about that movie. What's your point.
 
(1) Where do you think those rents go to? Not to companies and individuals?

(2) Why housing and not transportation prices or food prices?

(3) What's the point of starting a thread on this every few days?

and finally,

(4) What do you or what does the OP want to do about it?

It goes to a handful of individuals, who are making an absurd amount of money through inflation fiat. Land prices are ludicrous anymore.
 
They go to subsidize those who collect the rent. People who actually produce wealth are paying those who only collect that wealth.

You could say the same thing about anyone selling a service or a product.

Because those are a minuscule fraction of a budget compared to housing costs.

Huh? Minuscule fraction? Wrong. Transportation ($9,049) and food ($7,203) combined cost almost as much as housing ($18,886).

Heck, childcare costs 11.6k+ just for daycare alone, on average.

2. A new homestead act.

None of your other items were related to cost of housing. Only this one looks relevant - you'd have to tell us more what you want here.

It goes to a handful of individuals

Link?

who are making an absurd amount of money through inflation fiat.

It's supply and demand

Land prices are ludicrous anymore.

phattonez wants people to multiply - guess what that will do to land prices...
 
Last edited:
It goes to a handful of individuals, who are making an absurd amount of money through inflation fiat. Land prices are ludicrous anymore.

what do you call ludicrous? whats an example of the cost of an acre of land where you live?

I only ask out of absolute curiosity, nothing more.
 
The following is a quote from the film It's a Wonderful Life.

[FONT=&]

So all of the people on this board who support the current system of unaffordable mortgages and sky high rents, do you hate this movie?[/FONT]

Ben Carson takes aim at red tape blamed for soaring housing costs | Fox News
\
State and local governments are driving up the cost of housing through a web of regulations, industry groups and federal officials say – a situation that’s prompted Housing Secretary Ben Carson to call for new incentives to eliminate the red tape.

“Our country is facing serious housing affordability challenges,” Carson said in a statement for this report. “Too many families can’t afford a home mortgage, and too many Americans face high rent prices … We must do more to increase supply and bring down housing costs by reducing state and local regulations and zoning restrictions."

I back Ben Carson's plans
 
Um yes, I've seen the movie no less than 20 times since I was already born when that movie was made. I know everything about that movie. What's your point.
How did you miss the whole conflict between Potter and Bailey? It's a major theme in the movie.
 
You could say the same thing about anyone selling a service or a product.

Not true. Car manufacturers make cars. Farmers grow food. What do landlords do?

Huh? Minuscule fraction? Wrong. Transportation ($9,049) and food ($7,203) combined cost almost as much as housing ($18,886).

Heck, childcare costs 11.6k+ just for daycare alone, on average.

There's a problem with using averages. Look at what this looks like for the bottom quintile:

BLS said:
The average family in the bottom quintile of the income distribution has less than $500 left after paying rent, a monthly amount that must be allotted for essential necessities, such as food, clothing, health care, and transportation.

None of your other items were related to cost of housing. Only this one looks relevant - you'd have to tell us more what you want here.

Open up land in the West for farming, ranching, etc. We have a ton of good, undeveloped land.
 
Car manufacturers make cars. Farmers grow food. What do landlords do?

Fix toilets, roofs, fridge, and maintain properties in other ways; pay property taxes, insurance, mortgage, etc; and have to deal with renters that think they are fat cats that don't do anything

Car manufacturers, farmers, and landlords all do something and they all do it to make profits.

There's a problem with using averages. Look at what this looks like for the bottom quintile

Link?

Open up land in the West for farming, ranching, etc. We have a ton of good, undeveloped land.

How is that going to help with rents? You can already move to many such areas for cheap housing options.
 
What is it with you and starting all these threads every week about high rents and housing expenses? You are pounding on this all the time. It is supply and demand. What do you want to accomplish with all this complaining about high rents? You want government controlled rents? That already exists in the form of subsidized housing for the poor.

I think the point is, the supply of cheaper and subsidized living accommodations needs to increase.
It is not supply and demand because the demand is clearly there. It's the supply that isn't.

Some areas could relax overly restrictive codes to allow so called "tiny houses" and other solutions, other areas could allow more trailer homes, still others could allow construction of more low income homes and apartments.

"...is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath?"

Right now, apparently it is, and we're witnessing the result.
If I could afford a crummy 120 SF sardine can efficiency apt with a tiny kitchenette and a bathroom for 110 bucks a month in 1977 on a part time dishwasher's wages as a starving student, then it becomes clear that there is a shortage of 450 dollar a month sardine can efficiency apts today, as 450 bucks is the 2019 equivalent of 110 dollars in 1977.

No, they may not wind up in the best neighborhoods, yes they may lack the luxury amenities many take for granted, yes they might be small, but if you're not being fried or frozen to death, or sleeping among rats and feces with your family, you might be able to keep the miserable job you're holding down long enough to better your situation.
Then the day you move up and out, some other unfortunate takes your place and they too get the chance to bootstrap their upward mobility, too.

It's the Despair Quotient. Americanism consists of extending a chance and an opportunity to as many as possible.
We cannot expect equal outcomes but it behooves us to extend equal opportunity.
 
The following is a quote from the film It's a Wonderful Life.

[FONT=&]

So all of the people on this board who support the current system of unaffordable mortgages and sky high rents, do you hate this movie?[/FONT]

A lot of people think it's just a Christmas fable. It is much more than that.
 
Because I'm sick of people calling Millenials entitled, that they're lazy, and that they just want to much. It's garbage. What we have is a failing economy, and those who have benefited from it, home onwers, are completely detached from the damaged that's been done.
Yaaay, more hyperbolic rhetoric!

I concur that it is silly to dump on Millennials. However, the economy is not "failing." We're not even in a recession.

There are some economic issues which contribute to the current housing crunch. For example, after the 2007 real estate and financial crash, developers pulled back on building new homes. The dual inefficiencies of the bubble and subsequent underbuilding resulted in a shortage of housing, and that drives up prices. Income inequality is another (international) issue which has an impact on housing affordability.

However, most of the factors impacting housing are not due to macroeconomic conditions. To wit:
• Mortgage lenders learned their lesson after the previous crash, and are much more restrictive about lending standards
• Home buyers are also still skittish
• Younger generations are getting married later in life, meaning they are often delaying purchase of a home
• The Trump tax cut disincentivizes home ownership, as the SALT deduction was drastically cut, which drives up the tax bill for most homeowners
• Young people have larger debts when completing college
• Lots of people want to move to dense urban areas, which have limited available housing
• A lack of investment in regional public transportation further exacerbates the attractiveness of specific areas
• Many of those top urban locations have strict building codes, which further limits the supply of new housing (especially in the Bay Area)


Collecting rent isn't a neutral process. It harms those who must pay it for the benefit of those who collect it. Stop thinking that you're some maverick businessman because you own a few properties and now are retired with a nice income. You're not a saint. You're a parasite on the actual productive part of the economy.
Wow. That's pretty messed up.

Landlords are not "parasites." They give renters more flexibility with housing, including the ability to move for family or work; it doesn't require incurring a huge debt, or paying property taxes. Sure, some landlords behave unethically, but most are fine. We should also note that they often take huge risks, including tenants who damage property, fail to pay rent, or harass other tenants.


As for Millenials, this is the reality that they face. A median income around $25k isn't going to get you very far. What do you want to do about this?
We can start by not using incomplete sources, including images that don't load.

The actual figures for household income in 2018 by age:

15 to 24 years: $40,093.
25 to 34 years: $62,294.
35 to 44 years: $78,368.
45 to 54 years: $80,671.
55 to 64 years: $68,567.
65 years and older: $41,125.
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2017

Needless to say, household income is much higher in areas like Santa Monica, San Francisco, Manhattan, and so forth.
 
They go to subsidize those who collect the rent. People who actually produce wealth are paying those who only collect that wealth.



Because those are a minuscule fraction of a budget compared to housing costs.



1. Forgive student loan debt.
2. A new homestead act.
3. Large tax increases on unearned wealth and tax cuts for wages.
4. Government subsidized loans to young families 0 interest and principal forgiveness upon the birth of each additional child.
5. Closed borders until the working age male activity rate is at least 95%.
6. Enactment of tariffs to correct the trade deficit.
7. Enactment of large public works spending instead of indiscriminate welfare to able-bodied men.

This is not comprehensive, but this would be a great start.

I'm thinking that #5 and #6 are a bit extreme.

#5: We certainly should tighten quotas some, apply merit tables, and bolster security and enforce deportation where applicable, but an outright closure is a salvo directly to the economy, which is supply chained and labor/trade enhanced to the hilt.

#6: I am not sure that tariffs are wise. If we're going to do them then everyone else will do them, too.
Trouble is, there is disagreement as to whether it will correct trade deficits. Smarter people than myself have made good arguments as to why trade deficits exist the way they do, in the markets they exist in.

#4: The latter (principal forgiveness upon birth) is no different than the welfare algorithm.
Some pro-rata adjustment of principal might be doable however.
 
#4: The latter (principal forgiveness upon birth) is no different than the welfare algorithm.
Some pro-rata adjustment of principal might be doable however.

The difference is that you only get it if you're married, and it's a loan that has to be paid back if you don't have children. #7 is the real answer to welfare.
 
1. Forgive student loan debt.
That will help. Have fun paying off everyone else's student loans with your tax dollars. ;)


2. A new homestead act.
Uh, hello? What land do you imagine people are going to seize? Are we going to invade Canada? Egads.


3. Large tax increases on unearned wealth and tax cuts for wages.
Good plan, but... Good luck getting that one passed. It's not like the federal government has spent decades slashing taxes, especially for corporations and the wealthy.


4. Government subsidized loans to young families 0 interest and principal forgiveness upon the birth of each additional child.
Hard no.

Interest rates are already incredibly low -- around 4%. We've already seen the disasters that happen when lending standards are relaxed. And no, I'm not down with throwing the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars at someone just because they gave birth. Not to mention the potential abuses -- e.g. someone buying a house when pregnant, having the principal written off, and then selling it at a huge profit? F that. Dumb, dumb plan.


5. Closed borders until the working age male activity rate is at least 95%.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

First, that is obvious gender discrimination. Screw that.

Second, it is literally impossible to "close the border." That's just crazy talk. Even if you could somehow do it, you'd kill economic growth, which would destroy any chances of increasing anyone's employment.

Third, the LFPR rate for men has NEVER been 95%. Its peak was around 88%... in 1950. That was also at a time when women were 30% of the workforce -- do you plan on firing all the women, too? Anyway. LFPR for men has been sliding for decades, and is now at 69%, and it's likely to drop further as more Boomers retire. To say that your goal is unrealistic would be an incredible understatement.


6. Enactment of tariffs to correct the trade deficit.
Yet more dumbass policy proposals, with total ignorance of how economies work.

Tariffs don't reduce trade deficits. Protectionism does not work, period. Take an econ class one of these days. Yeesh.


7. Enactment of large public works spending instead of indiscriminate welfare to able-bodied men.
Uh, hello? There is almost no "welfare" in the US for people who are not working.

So basically, all we've really got are incredibly expensive plans to forgive student loan debt, funded by huge taxes. I guess that means you'll be voting for Elizabeth Warren. Have fun with that.
 
However, most of the factors impacting housing are not due to macroeconomic conditions. To wit:
• Mortgage lenders learned their lesson after the previous crash, and are much more restrictive about lending standards
• Home buyers are also still skittish
Younger generations are getting married later in life, meaning they are often delaying purchase of a home
• The Trump tax cut disincentivizes home ownership, as the SALT deduction was drastically cut, which drives up the tax bill for most homeowners
Young people have larger debts when completing college
Lots of people want to move to dense urban areas, which have limited available housing
• A lack of investment in regional public transportation further exacerbates the attractiveness of specific areas
• Many of those top urban locations have strict building codes, which further limits the supply of new housing (especially in the Bay Area)

The bolded are certainly due to macroeconomic conditions. Younger people are getting married later because they don't have the means to get married younger. Debt is certainly an economic condition! And people want to move to dense urban areas because that's where the only jobs are!

Wow. That's pretty messed up.

Landlords are not "parasites." They give renters more flexibility with housing, including the ability to move for family or work; it doesn't require incurring a huge debt, or paying property taxes. Sure, some landlords behave unethically, but most are fine. We should also note that they often take huge risks, including tenants who damage property, fail to pay rent, or harass other tenants.

What's fine about charging around 50% of your area's median income? You know in other markets, people would call this gouging.

The actual figures for household income in 2018 by age:

15 to 24 years: $40,093.
25 to 34 years: $62,294.
35 to 44 years: $78,368.
45 to 54 years: $80,671.
55 to 64 years: $68,567.
65 years and older: $41,125.
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2017

Needless to say, household income is much higher in areas like Santa Monica, San Francisco, Manhattan, and so forth.

I never said household income, nor did I ever imply it. You cannot use household income and do a fair comparison because young people are delaying household formation precisely because of economic conditions!
 
That will help. Have fun paying off everyone else's student loans with your tax dollars. ;)

You assume I think we should pay the debt.

Uh, hello? What land do you imagine people are going to seize? Are we going to invade Canada? Egads.

There's plenty of good, undeveloped land in the West.

Hard no.

Interest rates are already incredibly low -- around 4%. We've already seen the disasters that happen when lending standards are relaxed. And no, I'm not down with throwing the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars at someone just because they gave birth. Not to mention the potential abuses -- e.g. someone buying a house when pregnant, having the principal written off, and then selling it at a huge profit? F that. Dumb, dumb plan.

So we need immigration because we don't have enough workers, but we cannot just encourage more childbirth to do the same thing? You don't find that curious?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

First, that is obvious gender discrimination. Screw that.

Second, it is literally impossible to "close the border." That's just crazy talk. Even if you could somehow do it, you'd kill economic growth, which would destroy any chances of increasing anyone's employment.

Third, the LFPR rate for men has NEVER been 95%. Its peak was around 88%... in 1950. That was also at a time when women were 30% of the workforce -- do you plan on firing all the women, too? Anyway. LFPR for men has been sliding for decades, and is now at 69%, and it's likely to drop further as more Boomers retire. To say that your goal is unrealistic would be an incredible understatement.

Every assumption that you have here is wrong.

fredgraph.png


Yet more dumbass policy proposals, with total ignorance of how economies work.

Tariffs don't reduce trade deficits. Protectionism does not work, period. Take an econ class one of these days. Yeesh.

Nothing you stated here is an actual argument.

Uh, hello? There is almost no "welfare" in the US for people who are not working.

Lol! I notice you used quotation marks. I assume that's because you know that there is no work requirement for food stamps, and you don't want to call that welfare.

So basically, all we've really got are incredibly expensive plans to forgive student loan debt, funded by huge taxes. I guess that means you'll be voting for Elizabeth Warren. Have fun with that.

Elizabeth Warren has better economic policy prescriptions than most Republicans. That said, she's still utterly insane on social issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom