4 ms·
This is exactly what the speaker seems to be missing. Building homes required significant money in the first place; there's no such thing as a free house. My p
by gavazzy 11y ago
This is exactly what the speaker seems to be missing. Building homes required significant money in the first place; there's no such thing as a free house.
My point is that if Person A purchases something, and then Person B says that having that thing taken is equivalent to not having it in the first place, then Person B is ignoring the cost that Person A had to incur in the first place.
- cowsandmilk 11y ago> This is exactly what the speaker seems to be missing. Building homes required significant money in the first place; there's no such thing as a free house. You do realize the speaker is advocating for developers, who have the money (typically through financing, which is fairly straightforward to get if you are a competent developer), to be allowed to build the projects they propose. Not for housing to magically appear out of the ether.