Turns out when you save the world from Hitler, you don't have to be a paragon.
Whenever I say that about Stalin, people get mad at me.
The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
81–90 of 151 posts
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#82Churchill was no saint, I don't think any sane person anyone would elevate him to such - but he's no war criminal - and no villain to most. Churchill was a nationalist, an unreformed victorian, an imperialist - and yes, a racist too. The Bengal famine of 1943 was 1.5m deaths, this in the midst of a war that killed 85m people. I'd also point out that in the context of India - a country which in 1943 had around 400m pe…
"I'd also point out that in the context of India - a country which in 1943 had around 400m people living in it - in other words .375% of the total population." When you want to trivialize the death of 1.5 million people, it's better to use even larger denominator like the population of the entire world.
Compared to the total number of people who have ever died or will ever die...
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the benefit of actual living quarters for the tenants? Who besides a landlord is going to rent 4 walls and a roof to someone who needs it? Seems similar to saying that hotel owners 'contribute nothing to the general welfare'.
Well the landlord's contribution is maintenance and matchmaking. The problem is that the fair economic value of maintenance and matchmaking, plus construction (labor, materials, design, oversight, etc.) when amortized monthly is far less than the average SF rent of 2-4 thousand dollars a month.
Unfortunately, in the modern American economic system, prices are set by what consumers are willing to spend (assuming that is above what producers need to ask) rather than whatever "fair economic value" is.
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#84FWIW, the (in)famous “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas” quote was in reference to tear gas. Ultimately banned for use in warfare by international treaty, but still commonly used today in civilian matters. https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/churchills-1919-war-...
More than "for what it's worth", that's an important difference. The full quote puts a very different spin on Churchill's position.
The article: "When some British officials objected to his proposal for “the use of gas against natives,” he found their objections “unreasonable.” In fact he argued that poison gas was more humane than outright extermination: “The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum.”"
The full quote: "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."
While Churchill's use of "poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes" certainly sounds abominable, he does primarily seem to be advocating for the use of non-deadly tear gas rather than something deadly. On the other hand, he also seems to be saying that he'd be OK with escalating to a more deadly gas if for some reason the non-deadly approach wasn't effective.
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
California has prop 13 which results in property taxes not keeping up with assessments.
Sure, but it still negates the argument that landlords don't contribute towards shared services at all.
Landlords like the Peery Arrillaga have owned their land from before Prop 13. They pay virtually nothing in property taxes for it.
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property taxes? At least where I live, land values are assessed annually, and the owner is obligated to pay a percentage of that value. Those tax funds are used for the very improvements mentioned, as well as usage-based utility fees for the services.
Not in the UK. We have a system that's vaguely related to the value of the house, banded so that expensive property is under-taxed, and usually capped by central government. It's quite a mess.
And, since 2013, starting to disproportionately affect the poorest too.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/16/counci...
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the problem in SF that the wages have gone up hugely for a small subset of the population? If that's the case, then the landlord is just following a standard negotiation tactic [1], since this is their livlihood. [1] https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/dont-leave-mon...
> Isn't the problem in SF that the wages have gone up hugely for a small subset of the population? Wages of the renting population is irrelevant to the 'fair economic price1' of an apartment. The equilibrium/fair cost of a latte doesn't go up because a few millionaires move into a neighborhood, it might go up because of a barista labor-shortage, a coffee bean-tariff, or other supply-side effect. You're not wrong that…
Well, it seems like you're making an assumption about the 'opportunity cost' of building/operating the apartment building, that it's grown far less than the wages. If your argument (that rental costs are too high) rests on that assumption, seems like it should be addressed and backed up.
I am curious, though, about the artificial constraint you mentioned. Don't know what you're specifically referring to, would like to know more.
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#88While we're Churchill-bashing, let's not forget his legacy as First Lord of the Admiralty. He had the bright idea to force the Dardanelles by landing at Gallipoli. Utterly futile, terrible loss of life, particularly among the ANZAC corps, no military gain.
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the problem in SF that the wages have gone up hugely for a small subset of the population? If that's the case, then the landlord is just following a standard negotiation tactic [1], since this is their livlihood. [1] https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/dont-leave-mon...
> Isn't the problem in SF that the wages have gone up hugely for a small subset of the population? Wages of the renting population is irrelevant to the 'fair economic price1' of an apartment. The equilibrium/fair cost of a latte doesn't go up because a few millionaires move into a neighborhood, it might go up because of a barista labor-shortage, a coffee bean-tariff, or other supply-side effect. You're not wrong that…
A question: is N * $x less than or greater than M * $y, where N is the number of current units for rent, M the proposed number of units (N I'm wondering if the current disfunctional market is economically rational.
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the problem in SF that the wages have gone up hugely for a small subset of the population? If that's the case, then the landlord is just following a standard negotiation tactic [1], since this is their livlihood. [1] https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/dont-leave-mon...
> Isn't the problem in SF that the wages have gone up hugely for a small subset of the population? Wages of the renting population is irrelevant to the 'fair economic price1' of an apartment. The equilibrium/fair cost of a latte doesn't go up because a few millionaires move into a neighborhood, it might go up because of a barista labor-shortage, a coffee bean-tariff, or other supply-side effect. You're not wrong that…
> The equilibrium/fair cost of a latte doesn't go up because a few millionaires move into a neighborhood, it might go up because of a barista labor-shortage, a coffee bean-tariff, or other supply-side effect.
In my economics class, I remember drawing a supply curve and a demand curve, and labeling the intersection “equilibrium.” If a millionaire moves into my neighborhood and buys so many lattes on a regular basis that the coffee shops keep running out, it’s a hint that the demand curve has shifted, which has caused the equilibrium price to change.
Since “equilibrium” means “balance,” I can’t see you can find the equilibrium price by looking at only one of supply or demand. What is supply balanced with at equilibrium?