Heh, there is a GLUT of homes.  Historically the number of homes per member of the population is like 5-7% above the average, and the average has held for 80 years.

Add to that the fact that a number of boomers will be looking to get out of their homes over the next 5 years and move into smaller places, or retirement communities.

I can't believe I'm even discussing Iori's idiotic idea.

Heh, there is a GLUT of homes.  Historically the number of homes per member of the population is like 5-7% above the average, and the average has held for 80 years.

Add to that the fact that a number of boomers will be looking to get out of their homes over the next 5 years and move into smaller places, or retirement communities.

I can't believe I'm even discussing Iori's idiotic idea.

Probably because you don't have any better ones. What do you suggest Vir?

I suggest you slit your wrists and die.

It's been three years since I first started reading Gameriot. I've yet to comment on more than a couple blogs, but even after months and months of reading Iori and Vir go back and forth on many issues on these boards, I've yet to read something so incomprehensibly stupid.

The only instruction I've received in Economics comes from one AP class, the news, and Freakonomics, and even I know that your whole "idea" is a fallacy. Do you not understand that there are THOUSANDS (literally, THOUSANDS), of houses that are UNUSED because American citizens are unable to afford the cost of living in them? I know people who have purchased four bedroom houses in walking distance from wonderful beaches for under $20,000. This may surprise you, but when people "lose" things like their homes, THEY DESERVE IT (most of the time).

I believe your suggestion is to give homes to people who have lost theirs. I have a better idea. Lets take all of the foreclosed homes, call doovers, and just hand the titles back to the people who lost their houses. I mean, it's not really their fault that they weren't able to afford the mortgage they took out is it?

I think we might need a bigger stimulus the economy isn't working yet. Or maybe just a bigger welfare program???

Do you not understand that there are THOUSANDS (literally, THOUSANDS),
of houses that are UNUSED because American citizens are unable to
afford the cost of living in them?

Yes  I am highly aware of that. Your idea is good too. However, my idea was driven by the fact that we ahve 10%+ unemployment. I made an idea based off of fixing unemployment. It was an idea at the end of the day.  But like I said to Vir, do you have a better idea to fix unemployment?

Secondly, most of the foreclosures from the real estate crisis was due to Bank fraud. Yes, there were some that were living above their means, but the house appropriation part of my idea was for FRAUD VICTIMS, not fiscally irresponsible people. It was clear to see that. You took my suggestion a bit out of context I am afraid.

Do not take my idea seriously. It is completely frivolous and unrealistic, and was meant to mock yours.

Define fraud victim. Is it a person who was unable to pay off his adjustable-rate mortgage after the rate rose higher?

We already have too many houses, and your proposition is to build more, then give them away for free. How are we going to pay for this? Who is going to pay for it? I assume you are a champion for FDR's New Deal, but while it was mostly successful you have to take into account that it nearly destroyed private enterprise for a decade, and was also boosted by the coming of WWII.

You have your head in the right place, but the answer lies not in GIVING things away, but in letting people work for and EARN them themselves. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, feed him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

'Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity' - Karl Marx

Can I ask you a question? Do you think its ok that things like, food, shelter, healthcare, and education are purely on the basis of cash and not need?   Why are we always customers and not humans?  When things are on the basis of cash, the basis of human existence is being a  customer. If you don't have cash, or capital, you aren't a customer.  Kinda scary that suddenly you aren't a human, and you can't preserve your existence as a human being just because you don't have money.  Think about that my friend .

Nothing is preventing people who have lost their homes to foreclosure from obtaining any of the necessities you've listed. I don't know how you managed to find a way to go off on that tangent, but when most families lose their homes, they don't resort to living on the streets with nothing but the clothes on their back.

America has become a champion for the loser. Even as children, little league trophies for first and second place are equal in size, and kids are told that "it's okay as long as you try your best". This may surprise you, but sometimes your best is not good enough. Life is not fair, and the more handouts given out the fewer that are to come.

I couldn't agree more.  Items that are essential to survival shouldn't be accessible only with the exchange of another item.   I believe that people should work for what they want in life, if you want a big house, a nice car, a nice tv, a new computer or whatever it is that makes you happy then you should work for that because to make all of those things require work by someone so its the only way the system really functions correctly.  The problem isn't the system the problem is the human exploitation of the system, although you could say the system is flawed for allowing such exploitation I guess.  But that's a whole different argument, I guess you're not 'free' if you're not free to exploit.