[artsytrashcan]

You could say the same about the US healthcare industry as it currently exists. Or the illegal drug trade. Or slavery, as it used to. Perhaps the costs of allowing a deleterious institution to continue existing dwarf the costs of reforming them, on occasion. Family formation is down, bankruptcy is up, and somehow I imagine that you have not figured in the trillions in lost value from these and the like realities that are extant because the 3rd most basic human need is unaffordable in this country.

Perhaps you can explain why taxation is so anathema to you. Are you one of the nutcases who consider it theft?

[alex_sf]

> You could say the same about the US healthcare industry as it currently exists.

No, because despite the mixed-bag that a single payer system would bring, it is not actually destroying healthcare. Unless you intend to force them to provide their services for no pay.

> Perhaps the costs of allowing a deleterious institution to continue existing dwarf the costs of reforming them, on occasion.

Absolutely. Private property is not one of those institutions.

> Family formation is down, bankruptcy is up, and somehow I imagine that you have not figured in the trillions in lost value from these and the like realities that are extant because the 3rd most basic human need is unaffordable in this country.

It is substantially less than destroying the entire real market, unquestionably. That doesn't mean that it's not a problem that should be addressed. But free, permanent housing to everyone is not, in any way, a practical solution.

> Perhaps you can explain why taxation is so anathema to you. Are you one of the nutcases who consider it theft?

I'm not. I've got no problem at all paying my taxes. I have no interest in those taxes being wasted.

[artsytrashcan]

> I have no interest in those taxes being wasted.

Welfare spending is the least of your concerns, then.

>it is not actually destroying healthcare.

I didn't say it would. "Healthcare" is not the same as "the healthcare industry as it currently exists".

>Absolutely. Private property is not one of those institutions.

Ironically: despite the mixed bag that crashing the value of real estate by implementing a housing guarantee (or even simply increasing construction velocity) would bring, it would not actually destroy the concept of "private property", legally or otherwise.

>But free, permanent housing to everyone is not, in any way, a practical solution.

Again, that's not what I said. You seem to have a problem with this. It would be interesting to see you actually argue against something other than a strawman. Are you capable of that?

EDIT: Going out on a limb here, but are you perchance a real estate agent? Because that would be the most hilarious of conflicts of interest.

[alex_sf]

> Again, that's not what I said. You seem to have a problem with this. It would be interesting to see you actually argue against something other than a strawman. Are you capable of that?

Yep. In fact, I specifically asked you for your proposal, and you chose to rant about identity politics instead of policy. Which is on brand, I guess.

> Going out on a limb here, but are you perchance a real estate agent? Because that would be the most hilarious of conflicts of interest.

Nope. The current system for performing real estate transactions is wildly inefficient, rent-seeking, insecure, and I'd love to see it destroyed.