3 ms·

The issue is that the 2.5 billion dollars are not given to the public to spend. It's just Apple using it's stupid amount of capital to do bank-like things as fa

The issue is that the 2.5 billion dollars are not given to the public to spend. It's just Apple using it's stupid amount of capital to do bank-like things as far as I can see. From where I'm sitting, they'll still have to deal with the existing home-owners and speculators who want to maintain the value of their assets. I don't think waterhosing them with money will necessarily help.

thecopy 7y ago
> do bank-like things Could you specify what you are implying here?
- eptcyka 7y ago
  > $150 million Bay Area housing fund: In a public-private partnership, Apple is launching a new $150 million affordable housing fund with partners including Housing Trust Silicon Valley to support new affordable housing projects. The fund will consist of long-term forgivable loans and grants. The keyword here is _loans_.
  - thecopy 7y ago
    I still don't understand, I feel you are making elusive claims requiring some inside-knowledge to fully understand. Im not American so maybe I'm missing why loans are "just so wrong"
    - vectorEQ 7y ago
      imagine your government neck deep in debts with privately owned companies. ok ok you got me... , now imagine that's not banks :'D ... ok not much changes :D, government giving out their powers and money to some companies. its what they do i guess
conanbatt 7y ago
The problem is the "public" spend. San francisco spent 2 bill on a bus station alone.
- smt88 7y ago
  Inefficient spending by democratically-elected bodies is still better than inefficient spending by corporations. Do you really want to live in a society that only receives public works when a corporation decides it's good for business? There's this fantasy that corporations are somehow much more efficient than government, and I haven't found that to be the case. The major difference is that corporate spending isn't transparent to the public, so it's subject to decreased criticism. > San francisco spent 2 bill on a bus station alone. I assume you're referring to Salesforces Transit Center[1]. "Bus station" is a misleading way to describe it. It's huge (~235,000 sqft), includes a large public park, and will connect to high-speed rail. There are public benefits to having a large transit station with green space in a central urban location. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Transit_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Transit_Center
jswizzy 7y ago
Yes I don't see how making more money available is gonna cause prices to go down. Isn't it simple supply and demand? Now there is more money that housing investors and realtors can grab.
Nasrudith 7y ago
That the public would have that 2.5B is a false assumption even if it is a complete tax write off for Apple. The money was already theirs for better or worse.
- caseyf7 7y ago
  Exactly. The benefits largely accrue to the employees of the donor company rather than the public.

thecopy 7y ago

> do bank-like things Could you specify what you are implying here?

eptcyka 7y ago
> $150 million Bay Area housing fund: In a public-private partnership, Apple is launching a new $150 million affordable housing fund with partners including Housing Trust Silicon Valley to support new affordable housing projects. The fund will consist of long-term forgivable loans and grants. The keyword here is _loans_.
- thecopy 7y ago
  I still don't understand, I feel you are making elusive claims requiring some inside-knowledge to fully understand. Im not American so maybe I'm missing why loans are "just so wrong"
  - vectorEQ 7y ago
    imagine your government neck deep in debts with privately owned companies. ok ok you got me... , now imagine that's not banks :'D ... ok not much changes :D, government giving out their powers and money to some companies. its what they do i guess

conanbatt 7y ago

The problem is the "public" spend. San francisco spent 2 bill on a bus station alone.

smt88 7y ago
Inefficient spending by democratically-elected bodies is still better than inefficient spending by corporations. Do you really want to live in a society that only receives public works when a corporation decides it's good for business? There's this fantasy that corporations are somehow much more efficient than government, and I haven't found that to be the case. The major difference is that corporate spending isn't transparent to the public, so it's subject to decreased criticism. > San francisco spent 2 bill on a bus station alone. I assume you're referring to Salesforces Transit Center[1]. "Bus station" is a misleading way to describe it. It's huge (~235,000 sqft), includes a large public park, and will connect to high-speed rail. There are public benefits to having a large transit station with green space in a central urban location. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Transit_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Transit_Center

jswizzy 7y ago

Yes I don't see how making more money available is gonna cause prices to go down. Isn't it simple supply and demand? Now there is more money that housing investors and realtors can grab.

Nasrudith 7y ago

That the public would have that 2.5B is a false assumption even if it is a complete tax write off for Apple. The money was already theirs for better or worse.

caseyf7 7y ago
Exactly. The benefits largely accrue to the employees of the donor company rather than the public.