evince
Truthmatters
They blame the boomers for causing the wealth gap idiot
Billionaire Peter Thiel warns if you ‘proletarianize the young people,’ don’t be surprised they end up communist
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
It is unfettered capitalism
Which eats its self
Fetter it correctly with regulations and taxes to pay for that fettering by the people
We need to CRUSH all the monopolies
The "high cost" is a difference in the types of housing. Back when the boomers were first buying the houses were smaller, with far less of the things that folks expect regularly in houses today (dishwashers, big kitchens, walk in closets, multiple bathrooms, etc.).
This makes for fewer starter homes and pushes the average into McMansionville.
cawacko
Well-known member
Developers want to meet demand. The systems we have in place now from local restrictions, zoning laws and basic NIMBYism prevent that happening in many areas.
If more market forces were allowed to operate, more housing would be built and prices would come down. But we have a system set up to protect existing home owners at the expense of everyone else.
evince
Truthmatters
Dear fucking idiot
They wrote socialistic programs INTO THE CONSTITUTION
POST OFFICE AND POST ROADS
That is undeniable proof the founders didn’t FEAR socialistic aspects in our government structure
They liked those ideas and employed them in our constitution
Reality seems to think your brain is too toxic for it to dwell in
Fuck you very much
cawacko
Well-known member
That’s true to an extent. Expectations have definitely changed, and homes today tend to be larger with more features. But that’s only part of the story.
The real issue is that zoning and development rules make it almost impossible to build smaller, entry level homes in many areas. I speak with many developers and it's not like they forgot how to build smaller types of homes, rather we've made it economically unfeasible to do so.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
That doesn't mean the Founders or Constitution allow for unbridled Socialism. As I pointed out, you fucking retard, the 10th Amendment specifies the exact opposite. It limits federal government to what is spelled out in the Constitution meaning that the federal government shouldn't be able to have programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, SNAP, or for that matter any other social welfare program on a national level. States could enact them, but the federal government can't under the 10th Amendment.
USPS differs from Socialism in several ways, I'll explain in the simplest terms below. Simple ownership of one business in an open market is not Socialism, I'll attempt to explain in ways even simple boomers can understand.
1. Ownership vs. Control
- USPS: An independent agency of the federal government, established by Congress under the Postal Reorganization Act of 1971. It is not a private company, but it is not a government department either (unlike the Department of Defense). It has its own board of governors, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and operates with significant autonomy.
- Socialism: Typically involves state ownership of the means of production (factories, utilities, etc.) with centralized government control over economic planning and resource allocation.
2. Funding and Self-Sufficiency
- USPS: Funded almost entirely by revenue from postage and services (over 98% in recent years). It receives no regular taxpayer funding for operations. It must break even or generate profit through sales.
- Socialist enterprises: Often subsidized by the state, with losses covered by taxes, and prices set by political rather than market forces.
3. Monopoly vs. Competition
- USPS: Has a legal monopoly only on first-class letter mail and mailbox access (by law, only USPS can deliver non-urgent letters to your mailbox). But it competes directly in packages, express mail, and priority services.
- Socialism: Eliminates private competition in key sectors (e.g., nationalized healthcare, energy, or transportation).
4. Purpose and Universal Service
- USPS: Required by law to provide universal service—delivering mail to every address in the U.S., including remote areas, at uniform rates. This is a public service mandate, not a profit-driven decision.
- Socialism: Public ownership is used to achieve ideological goals (equality, worker control, etc.), not just service access.
5. Labor and Governance
- USPS: Employees are federal workers with union rights, but it negotiates contracts like a business. It can lay off workers, close facilities, and adjust prices (with regulatory approval).
- Socialist systems: Workers may have more control (e.g., co-ops) or be state employees with less flexibility.
Summary: Why USPS ≠ Socialism
| Feature | USPS | Socialism |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Government-affiliated agency | State ownership of production |
| Funding | Self-funded via sales | Tax-funded, subsidized |
| Competition | Competes with private firms | Eliminates private firms |
| Control | Autonomous, business-like | Centralized state planning |
| Goal | Universal service + profitability | Economic equality, state control |
Bottom line: The USPS is a government-sponsored enterprise with a public mission, operating in a capitalist framework. It’s more like Amtrak or the Tennessee Valley Authority than a socialist institution. Socialism requires systemic public ownership and control of the economy, USPS is a single service in a market economy.
cawacko
Well-known member
Oh wise one, housing plays a huge role in the wealth gap.
Since you live in California, do you support the NIMBY policies that have restricted development for decades and pushed prices to levels most people can’t afford?
The USPS is not “socialism” in any meaningful sense of the term.
Here’s why:
POOR DESH
Here’s why:
- It’s a government-owned corporation, not worker-owned production. Socialism, at its core (whether Marxist, market-socialist, or democratic-socialist versions), involves the social/worker/democratic ownership of the means of production. The USPS is owned by the federal government and run by political appointees and Congress, not by its workers or the public as a cooperative. It’s state capitalism or a state-owned enterprise, not socialism.
- It operates in a capitalist economy and competes with private firms. FedEx, UPS, DHL, and Amazon deliver packages alongside USPS. The Post Office has to price its services, pay its bills, and (since 1971) function under the Postal Reorganization Act as a self-funding entity. That’s the opposite of central planning or abolishing markets.
- It’s constitutionally authorized, not a socialist takeover. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power “To establish Post Offices and post roads.” Ben Franklin ran the postal service under the Continental Congress. It’s older than the Communist Manifesto by 72 years.
- Every country has a postal service—capitalist, socialist, or otherwise. Singapore (hyper-capitalist) has SingPost. Switzerland has Swiss Post. Saudi Arabia has Saudi Post. Having a state postal monopoly on letters is just a policy choice, not an indicator of economic system.
- The “socialism” label is pure culture-war rhetoric. Calling USPS “socialism” is like calling the Army, public roads, or the FDA “socialism.” It’s a rhetorical trick to make ordinary government functions sound scary. Conservatives defended the USPS for decades until it became politically useful to attack it.
POOR DESH
QP!
Verified User
It can also read exactly what Trump is doing on a large scale for his rich Oligarchs and Corporations.
QP!
Verified User
Nothing in the 10th amendment there prohibits forms of socialism being adopted. They do not even mention it. You just made shit up and then acted like the shit you made up was backing your point when it does not.
QP!
Verified User
Use hospitals, military and police then, if you want.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
South Park had a good take on Theil this year. LOL
"Small is Donald Trump's penis? Between 6 and 7 centimeters"
"Six Seven!"
LOL
Sez the original Mr. Tiny Penis himself.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Then why is it that more billionaires give more money to the Democrats than Republicans? Why do the rich favor the Democrat party?
Democrats being party of the rich could cost them 2024 election
A growing body of research shows wealthier Americans flocking to the Democratic Party. The working class, meanwhile, has been forgotten.
www.newsweek.com
Democrats say they're fighting inequality. But many of their policies favor the rich.
Over the last several years, many Democrats have waged nonstop to ease the tax burden of their high-income constituents.
reason.com
The problem where this fails is none of those are constitutionally created corporations, which was why Desh posted about the USPS, there is only one of those things. But Hospitals would fit in there nicely with the reality here that they compete with private hospitals. Militaries though, not so much. Militaries are not a private affair and do not compete with mercenaries, though they may enhance with them.
cawacko
Well-known member
Threads usually take on a life of their own here but Thiel's point is getting missed.
His argument is the high cost of housing first and foremost, then student debt, is what's driving young people to vote for socialists who promise to do things like free rent etc.
People who go off on things like USPS are completely missing his point.
Those in NY city are getting their wish with Mamdani and the result is going to be higher costs.
I dont know but Whitney Webb keeps saying that he is a particularly dangerous oligarch.
QP!
Verified User
Because Putin and Xi and Trump have SELECT Oligarchs and companies they want to enrich and get enriched by but otherwise ruin the market for the bulk of the rest of the rich people.Then why is it that more billionaires give more money to the Democrats than Republicans? Why do the rich favor the Democrat party?
Democrats being party of the rich could cost them 2024 election
A growing body of research shows wealthier Americans flocking to the Democratic Party. The working class, meanwhile, has been forgotten.
Democrats say they're fighting inequality. But many of their policies favor the rich.
Over the last several years, many Democrats have waged nonstop to ease the tax burden of their high-income constituents.