Hmmmm, looks like someone isn't too sure what a commodity is, I wonder if there's a book or something somewhere that literally begins by defining what that word means
Commodities are good because they are traded on Markets which are also good.
De-Commodification is bad because it takes away Markets which are good.
Everyone knows that Communism Is When No Food. And the reason for No Food is because when Food is a Commodity, Markets make them plentiful. Farmers want to make a profit so they make more food. And when Markets are flush with food, the food becomes cheap. And then everyone wins.
But when you de-commodify something, you have to ration it because nobody wants to make any more of it. This is why people had famines for thousands of years. No markets means no profit-motive. No profit-motive means no incentive to labor. And no incentive to labor means no commodities to buy.
Now, you might be about to assert a number of contradictions and historical counterfactuals to the above claims. Let me preempt them all by saying you are wrong, you are dumb, you have been brainwashed, and you don't really understand economics at all because you are a Leftist.
Now, if you don't mind, I'm off to take pictures of the empty interior of my local Supermarket and explain why this is just like North Korea.
::menaker_voice:: This week's reading series is by friend of the show Thomas Friedman, with a little article titled "Commodities: Capitalism's secret weapon"
All the $1 apples in the world can't feed a man with $0.
Incidentally, the US has a relatively low rate of homelessness but an exceptionally high rate of evictions and foreclosures. This stems from the fact that we're flush with low-rent slums people only move into as a last resort. We also have a Boomer generation (who bought in relatively cheaply) that's been operating as housing-of-last-resort for their children and grandchildren going on forty plus years.
Much like with education and health care, the issue is less simple volume of units and more quality and accessibility. Getting housing out in the boonies is still relatively cheap. But the units will be dilapidated, the utilities barely functional, and the commute is going to be a nightmare.
Pretty sure the US has the highest rate if homelessness of all imperial core nations.
The UK has three times our rate. Germany has closer to five times our rate and more homeless outright.
The US has a lot of problems, but sheer volume of available housing isn't really one.
Jesus! I was always told that the US had the highest homelessness in the imperial core. Kind of shocked to find out I am wrong, and that Germany is do high. Like I know it is austerity neoliberal hell, but damn to beat America is wild.
if my boyfriend nails me against a house's wall, does it count as a threesome
:bloomer: I consent!
:gigachad: I consent!
:cool-zone: Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?
:volcel-judge: I don't know how you're supposed to do that while keeping your hands, feet, AND genitals 6 feet apart. The Volcel Vanguard takes Corona very seriously!
Commodities are plentiful and cheap
Like gold! Famously plentiful and cheap!
Even the neoliberal subreddit often finds the Twitter account extremely cringe
I am again asking you to stop posting the neoliberal accounts.
I can never figure out what ones are the bit subreddits/birdsite and what ones are the "real" ones. It makes me feel stupid.
:doomjak:
The main property of commodities is that they're fungible. How does this moron propose that should work with houses?
Construct an active secondary market for surplus properties that operate as a store of value rather than a habitat for humans. Value the units by some generic quantifiable qualities (age, interior size, construction material value, average price of housing in the area). Then do algorithmic trading on the surplus units, until you end up with a massive excess inventory and declare a $420M loss during a real estate boom.
They don't even know what a commodity is. That is literally econ 101.
At least they differentiate themselves from the left though.
Ain't no law that says a dog can't *checks notes* be a neoliberal Twitter pundit
Is /r/Neoliberal earnest, or has some kind of evil genius concocted it specifically to haunt me?
I choose to believe that Ghislaine Maxwell was shilling for /r/Neoliberalism because that's almost funny enough to make my cynical heart feel something.
It's earnest in the sense that the atomized members within it, desperate for community, have found their political group to identify with and will defend it from haters and make basedcringe wojak memes about it to demonstrate their dedication. It's not earnest in the sense that none of them will do anything politically beyond voting for their candidates every 2-4 years, because it's just affectation to them.
I'm glad that our political tendency of choice can actually, indisputably point to things like defeating Fascism, ending famines, bringing literacy to the highest levels in the world, and generally improving the livers of poor people.
The illegal dissolution of the USSR lead to the greatest decline in liver health in human history.
"he's either an idiot or a genius who has figured out the exact best way to annoy me in which case fair enough"
Yeah, gold is a commodity, that’s why I have a crate of it, you idiot, you buffoon.
