4 ms·

In normal times I would agree with you, but these aren't normal times. The government has said that many of your tenants can't work right now, and that you can'

In normal times I would agree with you, but these aren't normal times. The government has said that many of your tenants can't work right now, and that you can't replace them with people who can. All of this is painful, but reasonable under the circumstances we find ourselves in. But "free market!" isn't what has messed up their plans. Surprise, almost completely unpredictable government regulation has messed it up.

helen___keller 6y ago
Sure but do we say the same for people who own airline stock, who own energy sector stock, etc? Either the government bails out the entire investor class, literally anybody who faced capital losses or loss of dividends in 2020, or we accept that risk assets are risk assets because a black swan can annihilate them, and we let them be annihilated.
- compiler-guy 6y ago
  That is very much a false dichotomy. And we did give relief to many small businesses. In fact, I'm even not making an argument that we should bail them out. But I am making the argument that "free market: you lose" isn't really the situation we find ourselves in.
  - helen___keller 6y ago
    If you aren't arguing that government should bail out real estate investors who find their investments struggling, I'm not sure what exactly you are arguing for. "Free market: you lose" is quite literally what's happening. Absent further action by government, there are a lot of investors who are going to lose their shirt. Free market is defined as business in the absence of government intervention, hence my attribution. Would you prefer "risky assets in a black swan event: you lose"?
    - compiler-guy 6y ago
      I'm arguing that we aren't in a free market. The government has stepped in in a very unpredictable way and changed your contracts out from under you. That isn't "free market: you lose". That's the only claim. And yes, "risky assets in a black swan event: you lose" is a much better claim.

helen___keller 6y ago

Sure but do we say the same for people who own airline stock, who own energy sector stock, etc? Either the government bails out the entire investor class, literally anybody who faced capital losses or loss of dividends in 2020, or we accept that risk assets are risk assets because a black swan can annihilate them, and we let them be annihilated.

compiler-guy 6y ago
That is very much a false dichotomy. And we did give relief to many small businesses. In fact, I'm even not making an argument that we should bail them out. But I am making the argument that "free market: you lose" isn't really the situation we find ourselves in.
- helen___keller 6y ago
  If you aren't arguing that government should bail out real estate investors who find their investments struggling, I'm not sure what exactly you are arguing for. "Free market: you lose" is quite literally what's happening. Absent further action by government, there are a lot of investors who are going to lose their shirt. Free market is defined as business in the absence of government intervention, hence my attribution. Would you prefer "risky assets in a black swan event: you lose"?
  - compiler-guy 6y ago
    I'm arguing that we aren't in a free market. The government has stepped in in a very unpredictable way and changed your contracts out from under you. That isn't "free market: you lose". That's the only claim. And yes, "risky assets in a black swan event: you lose" is a much better claim.