3 ms·

I'm not condoning willfully damaging something, I would never do that, however I am amused that the original poster just wanted to live the rentier dream of del

I'm not condoning willfully damaging something, I would never do that, however I am amused that the original poster just wanted to live the rentier dream of delegating and watching the dollars flow in. No risk (wrong). No work (wrong). As for "collecting the rent" for the most part this is checking if it appears in a bank account. If you are exploiting someone who has finance issues then sometimes you have to threaten them if they don't pay. They should just work on creating wealth instead of trying to exploit a need for housing for their own gain. The negative equity they found themselves in is part of the same cycle of greed. As a another poster noted, it's a zero sum game and for there to be successful parasites others have to lose.

talmand 8y ago
>> I'm not condoning willfully damaging something Yes, you are. By using it as a point against the landlord in saying they thought there was no risk in renting out property. The willful destruction of the property is the risk. The work comes in having to deal with the outcome of that risk as well as building up the capital to purchase the property in the first place. The person wasn't just magically gifted a property to rent out to someone who would just destroy it. The story you are trying to refute actually quite handily disproves the point you think you are gloriously making. But keep going with this drivel, you are quite amusing.