Homelessness in USA Reaches a High

[Hispo]

^^^ Americans voted Trump in for two basic reasons:
1. They finally saw how good Trump is when...
2. They were shown how bad the Deep State is... by the Deep State, themselves.

Americans voted for God, in faith in their hearts, and God brought Trump in because he is good for the American people.

Kamala Harris for President? It would never happen even if it did. We'd simply get the prompter back. The Deep State cut their own throats, because that is all they are good for... cutting throats.

People voted for Trump and put Trump back into the White House because he was popular and he appealed to the common American citizen and the problems they have.
Though, Trump still is a rich man who will continue to serve the interest of other rich people like him, he could not care less for the housing crisis going on in the country.

If he wanted to help the people of the United States, at the very least, he would try to step up the building projects for new houses in the country, increasing the offer for new houses to keep up with the demand, but that would mean the prices for renting and also the prices of homes would decrease dramatically, he does not want that. He would rather to continue to have people living in the streets than decreasing the rent prices in urban centers around the country.

[BADecker]

^^^ Americans voted Trump in for two basic reasons:
1. They finally saw how good Trump is when...
2. They were shown how bad the Deep State is... by the Deep State, themselves.

Americans voted for God, in faith in their hearts, and God brought Trump in because he is good for the American people.

Kamala Harris for President? It would never happen even if it did. We'd simply get the prompter back. The Deep State cut their own throats, because that is all they are good for... cutting throats.

People voted for Trump and put Trump back into the White House because he was popular and he appealed to the common American citizen and the problems they have.
Though, Trump still is a rich man who will continue to serve the interest of other rich people like him, he could not care less for the housing crisis going on in the country.

If he wanted to help the people of the United States, at the very least, he would try to step up the building projects for new houses in the country, increasing the offer for new houses to keep up with the demand, but that would mean the prices for renting and also the prices of homes would decrease dramatically, he does not want that. He would rather to continue to have people living in the streets than decreasing the rent prices in urban centers around the country.

You didn't see the inflation caused by the Deep State when Biden was in power?

America isn't built like a place where government helps people out. It's a place where people are allowed to help themselves out. Jan 6 2020 is only one example of where government organized to put people down so they couldn't help themselves out.

Trump is simply changing politicizing of government against the people. That's what people want. Get government out of their life.

[caroasi]

If you mean to say correlation isn't causation, then okay. Strong correlations are good enough to make policy decisions without any technical proof.

Yeah, right.

Sound money according to the chart provided shows it fuels the economy for the lower class, just not as much as for the upper class. The only thing fiat money fuels is government bloat and inflation, which is part of the economy that hurts society by it's growth. Just because you are "fueling the economy" doesn't mean you are fueling it in a good way. Only moral fiscal policy that is healthy for families (rather than bankers and bureaucrats) is a good way to fuel the economy.

Chart didn't say anything about sound money, it's about wealth concentration. People don't get wealthier because they store money, they get wealthier because they invest it.

In fact if you see end of gold standard as some kind of trigger, you see that wealth concentration was all time high during gold standard? And that started to drop when they ceased using it in 1933 (Totally abandoned it in 1971).

So what's your point? Pluto was discovered in 1930, maybe that was the reason for this? It makes as much sense.

The point of the USA statistics is they are easy to collect compared to other countries. However, given you didn't even acknowledge evidence when evidence was there, I don't see how extending this evidence to other countries would be accepted by you as valid. Would it? If every single country that made a substantial switch to fiat showed the lower class worse off, then would that be proof of my point or just nothing at all?

Again, that link you gave me wasn't evidence, it was a chart, and it didn't correlate in any way that would back your theory up.
And when i say that no country in the world are using gold standard anymore, and that there are countries that don't have such increase with homelessness. How that proves your point exactly?

While I consider correlation to be among the strongest kinds of evidence, it is not a 100% proof as you have shown clearly with your own correlation chart that proves your point, so I welcome you to explain what evidence is. What are your categories of evidence? However, apparently that is not enough as it "could be a coincidence". So what TYPES of evidence are there and how do they rank with each other, especially as they ascertain whether or not a gold standard changes how wealthy the poor and middle class are?

I made a prediction that the gold standard most likely crushed the less wealthy classes based on the accounting hypothesis that basically demands that via mathematical pressures of accounting, and I saw the middle class was indeed crushed in the USA after the gold standard was ended. That was good enough for me, but as you say its not 100% proof.

[paxmao]

^^^ Americans voted Trump in for two basic reasons:
1. They finally saw how good Trump is when...
2. They were shown how bad the Deep State is... by the Deep State, themselves.

Americans voted for God, in faith in their hearts, and God brought Trump in because he is good for the American people.

Kamala Harris for President? It would never happen even if it did. We'd simply get the prompter back. The Deep State cut their own throats, because that is all they are good for... cutting throats.

People voted for Trump and put Trump back into the White House because he was popular and he appealed to the common American citizen and the problems they have.
Though, Trump still is a rich man who will continue to serve the interest of other rich people like him, he could not care less for the housing crisis going on in the country.

If he wanted to help the people of the United States, at the very least, he would try to step up the building projects for new houses in the country, increasing the offer for new houses to keep up with the demand, but that would mean the prices for renting and also the prices of homes would decrease dramatically, he does not want that. He would rather to continue to have people living in the streets than decreasing the rent prices in urban centers around the country.

He does not even have any particular incentive for solving anything else, since anyway in theory, he would not serve another mandate. His incentives for the future is to leave a lasting impact to benefit a group of people in the US. Destroying the estate and BTW destroying international relations can only benefit the group of people who do not want a estate, usually the very rich that want to make the rules for them as they go.

[BADecker]

^^^ Americans voted Trump in for two basic reasons:
1. They finally saw how good Trump is when...
2. They were shown how bad the Deep State is... by the Deep State, themselves.

Americans voted for God, in faith in their hearts, and God brought Trump in because he is good for the American people.

Kamala Harris for President? It would never happen even if it did. We'd simply get the prompter back. The Deep State cut their own throats, because that is all they are good for... cutting throats.

People voted for Trump and put Trump back into the White House because he was popular and he appealed to the common American citizen and the problems they have.
Though, Trump still is a rich man who will continue to serve the interest of other rich people like him, he could not care less for the housing crisis going on in the country.

If he wanted to help the people of the United States, at the very least, he would try to step up the building projects for new houses in the country, increasing the offer for new houses to keep up with the demand, but that would mean the prices for renting and also the prices of homes would decrease dramatically, he does not want that. He would rather to continue to have people living in the streets than decreasing the rent prices in urban centers around the country.

He does not even have any particular incentive for solving anything else, since anyway in theory, he would not serve another mandate. His incentives for the future is to leave a lasting impact to benefit a group of people in the US. Destroying the estate and BTW destroying international relations can only benefit the group of people who do not want a estate, usually the very rich that want to make the rules for them as they go.

It's already solved. Homeless people have never had it better. Why would they want to change?

[Hispo]

... Destroying the estate and BTW destroying international relations can only benefit the group of people who do not want a estate, usually the very rich that want to make the rules for them as they go.

I don't still understand what his strategy is when he now gets so openly aggresive when comes to international relationships, There is people on Twitter already talking about Trump somehow buying Greenland from Denmark and an hypothetical take-over against Panama and his canal.
Though, It is rather interesting how he is both threatening American and European countries with aggressive diplomacy (let us call it that way for now) and he has now mentioned anything on the Russian aggression against Ukraine. As if he was getting out his way to create chaos and disharmony among (not only the people of the USA) but also the allies of the country. It will obviously benefit Putin.

[UTON Blockchain]

Seeing this phenomenon, I’m more concerned about how to solve this issue. In China, you don't see homeless people on the streets or in parks. As far as I know, people who can’t make a living either return to their hometowns on their own, or law enforcement officers send them back. In their hometowns, with the help of local villagers and the government, their basic needs like food are guaranteed, and they’re also given some work. The American society doesn’t have the concept of clans, and the causes of homelessness are more complex: drugs, immigration, etc. These factors make it difficult for the U.S. government to follow China's example.

[caroasi]

Seeing this phenomenon, I’m more concerned about how to solve this issue. In China, you don't see homeless people on the streets or in parks. As far as I know, people who can’t make a living either return to their hometowns on their own, or law enforcement officers send them back. In their hometowns, with the help of local villagers and the government, their basic needs like food are guaranteed, and they’re also given some work. The American society doesn’t have the concept of clans, and the causes of homelessness are more complex: drugs, immigration, etc. These factors make it difficult for the U.S. government to follow China's example.

The homeless issue is 90% an artifact of fascist, communist, and socialist policy positions all generally described as big government. Countries that rank highly on the Index of Economic Freedom will all show declining poverty rates. Sound money is merely the most important policy position, but when a country has millions of pages of economic laws it will have millions of problems leading to homelessness. Countries like the USA that have had shrinking economic freedom for decades, have growing poverty, while countries that have topped the list of economic freedom for decades have shrinking to almost no poverty problems. The correlation is the causation.

The solution is for consumers rather than the government to regulate businesses. By shopping at a business, you approve all of it's policies. By stopping shopping at a business when it does something unethical, you regulate a business. Full detail in my free PDF linked to in my signature. ALL government licensing, especially in banking, is cancer on an economy. ALL government licensing in the medical industry only makes it more expensive, not safer. Government licensing is mostly designed and highly effective at restricting the supply of important services to increase the salaries of those professions.

Now that the USA ranks much more lowly on the Index of Economic Freedom, it has a burgeoning homeless population.

[The Great Kardoko]

This is an important part of our society and necessary to keep.

... Destroying the estate and BTW destroying international relations can only benefit the group of people who do not want a estate, usually the very rich that want to make the rules for them as they go.

I don't still understand what his strategy is when he now gets so openly aggresive when comes to international relationships, There is people on Twitter already talking about Trump somehow buying Greenland from Denmark and an hypothetical take-over against Panama and his canal.
Though, It is rather interesting how he is both threatening American and European countries with aggressive diplomacy (let us call it that way for now) and he has now mentioned anything on the Russian aggression against Ukraine. As if he was getting out his way to create chaos and disharmony among (not only the people of the USA) but also the allies of the country. It will obviously benefit Putin.

Lol, you guys see this?

[o48o]

While I consider correlation to be among the strongest kinds of evidence, it is not a 100% proof as you have shown clearly with your own correlation chart that proves your point, so I welcome you to explain what evidence is. What are your categories of evidence? However, apparently that is not enough as it "could be a coincidence". So what TYPES of evidence are there and how do they rank with each other, especially as they ascertain whether or not a gold standard changes how wealthy the poor and middle class are?

I made a prediction that the gold standard most likely crushed the less wealthy classes based on the accounting hypothesis that basically demands that via mathematical pressures of accounting, and I saw the middle class was indeed crushed in the USA after the gold standard was ended. That was good enough for me, but as you say its not 100% proof.

You must be kidding me. Like i already explained, your chart was about wealth concentration that radically dropped after gold standard. How is that crushing middle class? It's the literal opposite of that.

But even if that chart would be going like you think it is,  you can find all sorts of anomalies with correlation of 2 things that doesn't have anything to do with each other. And like i said, even if it would prove a connection, your chart wasn't even correlating in a way you said it does.

If i may recommend, you might want to look how basics of bayesian data analysis works, when you are trying to prove something with correlations. Because with economy, there are other factors to be included in the mix as well.

Evidence that 2 things would have correlated in the past (which in your case, according to your chart even didn't), only proves that 2 things has correlated in the past. It's not an evidence of anything more. If those would have correlated, we could have looked more into it, to try to prove the connection. And in your case there wasn't even that correlation.

[paxmao]

Seeing this phenomenon, I’m more concerned about how to solve this issue. In China, you don't see homeless people on the streets or in parks. As far as I know, people who can’t make a living either return to their hometowns on their own, or law enforcement officers send them back. In their hometowns, with the help of local villagers and the government, their basic needs like food are guaranteed, and they’re also given some work. The American society doesn’t have the concept of clans, and the causes of homelessness are more complex: drugs, immigration, etc. These factors make it difficult for the U.S. government to follow China's example.

The homeless issue is 90% an artifact of fascist, communist, and socialist policy positions all generally described as big government. Countries that rank highly on the Index of Economic Freedom will all show declining poverty rates. Sound money is merely the most important policy position, but when a country has millions of pages of economic laws it will have millions of problems leading to homelessness. Countries like the USA that have had shrinking economic freedom for decades, have growing poverty, while countries that have topped the list of economic freedom for decades have shrinking to almost no poverty problems. The correlation is the causation.

The solution is for consumers rather than the government to regulate businesses. By shopping at a business, you approve all of it's policies. By stopping shopping at a business when it does something unethical, you regulate a business. Full detail in my free PDF linked to in my signature. ALL government licensing, especially in banking, is cancer on an economy. ALL government licensing in the medical industry only makes it more expensive, not safer. Government licensing is mostly designed and highly effective at restricting the supply of important services to increase the salaries of those professions.

Now that the USA ranks much more lowly on the Index of Economic Freedom, it has a burgeoning homeless population.

I think you have hit the right point: In China you do not see them. The reason is that nobody is allowed to show them. Countries in which free press and freedom of expresion do not exist can claim to be perfect, but there is nobody to check it.

There are regions in China where people live in poverty and they need a permit - that they will not ever get - if they wish to move a more prosperous area.

Now, the US has homlessness for the same reason many other countries have it: Economic interests. If I am one of those influential funds that own 50% of the homes in certain cities, I am going to do everything possible to avoid others building new homes - and we are talking about companies and people with huge influence that are not guided by democratic principles.