5 ms·

Pernicious attacks on landlords because of some perceived collusion amongst them is ugly. The landlords aren't any more to blame for the lack of supply than th

Pernicious attacks on landlords because of some perceived collusion amongst them is ugly. The landlords aren't any more to blame for the lack of supply than their tenants or the politicians. There's obviously money to be had in leveling a block of houses and increasing the population density by 10-30 times the amount. The market demand is extremely high. Real estate developers would jump at the chance to do so if they thought they could get through all the red tape. The landlords owning those houses would certainly sell for the right price. The entire society is abandoning free market principles in favor of social engineering. If they're not careful, they'll kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

fivre 7y ago
They may not be some grand cabal, but if biggerpockets.com posts are anything to go by, I have no qualms with any pernicious attacks against them. Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well.
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  "Capitalism" doesn't mean profit motivated action. Advocating for government restrictions on private property rights, in order to restrict supply growth and increase profits, is not capitalism. It's cronyism.
- jlebar 7y ago
  Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well. I dunno. I don't have much trouble finding reasonably priced, nutritious, and tasty food (cooked or as ingredients) anywhere I've visited in the world. Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos? What about...petroleum? Like it or not, it's necessary for survival today. Absolutely ruthless capitalism at play, and at the hands of a lot of people we don't like. And yet...the system works pretty ok, I think? The last major oil shock we had was in the '70s -- not bad, considering how many financial crises we've had since then. I don't get what is your proposed alternative to "ruthless capitalism" for housing. Are you proposing "single payer housing"? Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market, where the means of production^W^W^Whousing stock is owned by The People but decisions about how to employ the housing stock is made by the government?
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Neither food nor oil actually make your point, since both are heavily subsidized by the US government.
    - fiter 7y ago
      But surely they're not subsidized for the entire world by the US government?
    - jlebar 7y ago
      To refresh the point that I am making: OP said "Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well." The implication being, housing should not be subject to ruthless capitalism. And I use the ready and cheap availability of food and oil as a counterargument. Your point seems to be that food and oil are beneficiaries of subsidies in the US, therefore are not "ruthless capitalism". The US government pays $20B/yr in farm subsidies. HUD has a budget of $40B, and the mortgage interest deduction is a $110B/yr subsidy to homeowners. If food in the US is subsidized such that it is not "ruthless capitalism", then on this basis it would seem to me that housing has been subsidized well beyond the point of "ruthless capitalism" as well. Yet OP (and you) seem to think that food is subsidized to a far greater degree than housing. I challenge you to make a concrete case that this is true, either in the US or globally in general.
    - jlebar 7y ago
      I wrote Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos? Are you in fact arguing that US farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos?
  - abalone 7y ago
    Petroleum is literally exhibit number one of the failures of ruthless capitalism in that its negative externalities have led to the possibly irreversible destruction of our climate. This is not a good start to your argument. > Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market, where the means of production^W^W^Whousing stock is owned by The People but decisions about how to employ the housing stock is made by the government? Basically yes. The “progressive” position on affordable housing generally calls for major government investment in housing. This is not a new idea; in the U.S., much of the big buildout of middle class housing last century was heavily subsidized by HUD.

fivre 7y ago

They may not be some grand cabal, but if biggerpockets.com posts are anything to go by, I have no qualms with any pernicious attacks against them. Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well.

CryptoPunk 7y ago
"Capitalism" doesn't mean profit motivated action. Advocating for government restrictions on private property rights, in order to restrict supply growth and increase profits, is not capitalism. It's cronyism.
jlebar 7y ago
Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well. I dunno. I don't have much trouble finding reasonably priced, nutritious, and tasty food (cooked or as ingredients) anywhere I've visited in the world. Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos? What about...petroleum? Like it or not, it's necessary for survival today. Absolutely ruthless capitalism at play, and at the hands of a lot of people we don't like. And yet...the system works pretty ok, I think? The last major oil shock we had was in the '70s -- not bad, considering how many financial crises we've had since then. I don't get what is your proposed alternative to "ruthless capitalism" for housing. Are you proposing "single payer housing"? Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market, where the means of production^W^W^Whousing stock is owned by The People but decisions about how to employ the housing stock is made by the government?
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Neither food nor oil actually make your point, since both are heavily subsidized by the US government.
  - fiter 7y ago
    But surely they're not subsidized for the entire world by the US government?
  - jlebar 7y ago
    To refresh the point that I am making: OP said "Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well." The implication being, housing should not be subject to ruthless capitalism. And I use the ready and cheap availability of food and oil as a counterargument. Your point seems to be that food and oil are beneficiaries of subsidies in the US, therefore are not "ruthless capitalism". The US government pays $20B/yr in farm subsidies. HUD has a budget of $40B, and the mortgage interest deduction is a $110B/yr subsidy to homeowners. If food in the US is subsidized such that it is not "ruthless capitalism", then on this basis it would seem to me that housing has been subsidized well beyond the point of "ruthless capitalism" as well. Yet OP (and you) seem to think that food is subsidized to a far greater degree than housing. I challenge you to make a concrete case that this is true, either in the US or globally in general.
  - jlebar 7y ago
    I wrote Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos? Are you in fact arguing that US farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos?
- abalone 7y ago
  Petroleum is literally exhibit number one of the failures of ruthless capitalism in that its negative externalities have led to the possibly irreversible destruction of our climate. This is not a good start to your argument. > Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market, where the means of production^W^W^Whousing stock is owned by The People but decisions about how to employ the housing stock is made by the government? Basically yes. The “progressive” position on affordable housing generally calls for major government investment in housing. This is not a new idea; in the U.S., much of the big buildout of middle class housing last century was heavily subsidized by HUD.