Re: The US is facing a dollar collapse by the end of 2021 and an over 50% chance of a double-dip recession, economist Stephen Roach says

On 29 Aug 2021, kensi <[email protected]> posted some
news:[email protected]: 

> On Sun, 29 Aug 2021 00:36:24 -0700, Checkmate wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2021 03:08:43 -0000 (UTC), kensi had the audacity to
>> say the following: 
>> 
>>> Since those landlords would not be getting any of that money anyway,
>>> the *only* thing you getting your way would have accomplished would
>>> have been to kill tens of millions of American citizens. Which would
>>> have put you in some very distinguished company: Stalin, Mao, Hitler
>>> ... 
>> 
>> That's the stupidest notion that's bubbled out of your libtard head
>> in at least a week.  We have a Winter every year, and the next one's
>> not that far off, so now what... free rent forever?
> 
> No, just until the pandemic is over and unemployment is back down to
> 2019 levels.
> 
>> Are you forgetting that there were many thousands of homeless people
>> already last Winter and they somehow managed to get by?
> 
> Or, the ones in the more northerly states died but more people became
> homeless during the following year.
> 
>> Your claim that landlords wouldn't have gotten paid anyway is
>> absolute bullshit.  They would have gotten paid if they could have
>> kicked out the non-paying tenants and replaced them with new tenants
>> who COULD pay, 
> 
> There *were* no "new tenants who COULD pay", dimbulb. Mass temporary
> unemployment had drastically reduced the total population of
> potential-and- actual tenants who could pay, and thus the total amount
> of money landlords could soak that population for. No amount of
> evictions would magically have changed that. It would just have caused
> mass homelessness, mass COVID spread, mass death, and the cessation of
> regular maintenance by tenants on a lot of the housing stock, leading
> to its deterioration. 
> 
>> Simple math, "Professor":  The number of homeless people in the
>> country is the number of people that exceeds the number of homes
>> available to live in,
> 
> Nonsense. You assume there's no gap between the number who want homes
> and the number who can actually afford homes.
> 
>> In your distorted dysfunctional world, the tenants get something for 
>> nothing, which many of them now imagine should be a never-ending 
>> entitlement, and the people who had to come up with the money to buy,
>> maintain, and pay taxes on the property have to take a huge loss on
>> their investment.  Where would people who can't afford to buy a house
>> live if there were no incentives for others to provide rental housing
>> in the first place?  
> 
> Slippery slope fallacy.
> 
>> As a former landlord myself,
> 
> you are biased.
>  
> SPNAK!
> 
> *snicker*
>