4 ms·

> some governments give poor people vouchers for rent ... targeted by slumlords who find a way to give you as little as possible for them This seems to be a pr

> some governments give poor people vouchers for rent ... targeted by slumlords who find a way to give you as little as possible for them This seems to be a problem because the vouchers are only redeemable by government-granted monopolies, and thus neither tenant nor landlord are participating an open market. If the tenant could go anywhere else with their money a la UBI nobody would choose those terrible living quarters / they would be priced appropriately.

sergers 6y ago
You dont need UBI for this though (not throwing my support for either side, I am sitting on the fence). My govt doesnt restrict people to only rent from certain approved places. If you have a rental agreement, and abiding by the rental agreement policies, then u can rent from anyone under govt assistance. I had rented my basement out to a family under rental assistance. The govt wrote the checks with my name on it that the renter would provide to me.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
An open market will always favour the landlord, so you'd end up with more homelessness, or more slum housing and ten-people-to-a-room at the very best. We've been trying these approaches for centuries now, and they always end the same way. There has never been a "free" market which hasn't vastly increased inequality of opportunity across the population as a whole. Why is it so hard for proponents of "free" markets to accept this fact? UBI simply highlights that money is a proxy for political power, and there's no way - short of violence - that those with limited power can access personal or political leverage in any system which over-rewards concentrations of power. UBI will improve nothing, and may make some problems much worse. The real solution is improved public education at all levels, limits to advertising that promotes selfish greed and consumption, regulation of the press to eliminate the deliberate dissemination of obvious fake news, good public healthcare, higher taxation for giant monopolies and their owners, improved regulation to end the financialisation of everything, much improved public infrastructure, stronger unionisation and other forms of collaborative politics, and easier and cheaper access to capital for small business of all kinds.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >An open market will always favour the landlord, Why don't you try being a landlord if it so easy? Not only do you have to capitalize to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars (or get leveraged to that level), between costs and taxes, your profit rate is going to be pretty tepid. It's not easy money, trust me. >We've been trying these approaches for centuries now, and they always end the same way. There has never been a "free" market which hasn't vastly increased inequality of opportunity across the population as a whole. Why is it so hard for proponents of "free" markets to accept this fact? Because that's not true. The free market has been the primary and pretty much the only driver of prosperity. And you cannot legislate prosperity. There is no magic combination of minimum wage, rent control and welfare that will increase jobs, income and wealth of the individuals. > limits to advertising that promotes selfish greed and consumption, regulation of the press to eliminate the deliberate dissemination of obvious fake news, good public healthcare, higher taxation for giant monopolies and their owners, improved regulation to end the financialisation of everything, much improved public infrastructure, stronger unionisation and other forms of collaborative politics, and easier and cheaper access to capital for small business of all kinds. Every communist nation thought it could 'educate away' human nature and brainwash to population into good communist automatons, and every time they tried it led to a humanitarian crisis. It's seems to be a core property of communist thought that human nature is completely flexible and can be shaped in anyway to make communism actually possible.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    It IS easy to be the landlord. You can borrow the money for the property and charge more than the mortgage and then outsource the actual day to day collection of rent and finding tenants. Compare this with your actual job then compare this to people who have to work multiple physical job instead of your sole intellectual one.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      Why don't you try it if it is so easy. >You can borrow the money for the property and charge more than the mortgage and then outsource the actual day to day collection of rent and finding tenants. TRY IT and see how the math shakes out for you. I bet all those leveraged landlords are really having a ball with this pandemic. Or how about 10 years earlier when the housing market collapsed and debts were called in. Or tenants that destroy their property requiring thousands in repair. Or delinquent tenants that cannot be evicted for months due to municipal policies. Or property that sits empty because cannot find tenants. There is no free lunch and no easy money. Your perspective is based on ignorance and a comically naive view of real estate.

sergers 6y ago

You dont need UBI for this though (not throwing my support for either side, I am sitting on the fence). My govt doesnt restrict people to only rent from certain approved places. If you have a rental agreement, and abiding by the rental agreement policies, then u can rent from anyone under govt assistance. I had rented my basement out to a family under rental assistance. The govt wrote the checks with my name on it that the renter would provide to me.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

An open market will always favour the landlord, so you'd end up with more homelessness, or more slum housing and ten-people-to-a-room at the very best. We've been trying these approaches for centuries now, and they always end the same way. There has never been a "free" market which hasn't vastly increased inequality of opportunity across the population as a whole. Why is it so hard for proponents of "free" markets to accept this fact? UBI simply highlights that money is a proxy for political power, and there's no way - short of violence - that those with limited power can access personal or political leverage in any system which over-rewards concentrations of power. UBI will improve nothing, and may make some problems much worse. The real solution is improved public education at all levels, limits to advertising that promotes selfish greed and consumption, regulation of the press to eliminate the deliberate dissemination of obvious fake news, good public healthcare, higher taxation for giant monopolies and their owners, improved regulation to end the financialisation of everything, much improved public infrastructure, stronger unionisation and other forms of collaborative politics, and easier and cheaper access to capital for small business of all kinds.

macspoofing 6y ago
>An open market will always favour the landlord, Why don't you try being a landlord if it so easy? Not only do you have to capitalize to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars (or get leveraged to that level), between costs and taxes, your profit rate is going to be pretty tepid. It's not easy money, trust me. >We've been trying these approaches for centuries now, and they always end the same way. There has never been a "free" market which hasn't vastly increased inequality of opportunity across the population as a whole. Why is it so hard for proponents of "free" markets to accept this fact? Because that's not true. The free market has been the primary and pretty much the only driver of prosperity. And you cannot legislate prosperity. There is no magic combination of minimum wage, rent control and welfare that will increase jobs, income and wealth of the individuals. > limits to advertising that promotes selfish greed and consumption, regulation of the press to eliminate the deliberate dissemination of obvious fake news, good public healthcare, higher taxation for giant monopolies and their owners, improved regulation to end the financialisation of everything, much improved public infrastructure, stronger unionisation and other forms of collaborative politics, and easier and cheaper access to capital for small business of all kinds. Every communist nation thought it could 'educate away' human nature and brainwash to population into good communist automatons, and every time they tried it led to a humanitarian crisis. It's seems to be a core property of communist thought that human nature is completely flexible and can be shaped in anyway to make communism actually possible.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  It IS easy to be the landlord. You can borrow the money for the property and charge more than the mortgage and then outsource the actual day to day collection of rent and finding tenants. Compare this with your actual job then compare this to people who have to work multiple physical job instead of your sole intellectual one.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    Why don't you try it if it is so easy. >You can borrow the money for the property and charge more than the mortgage and then outsource the actual day to day collection of rent and finding tenants. TRY IT and see how the math shakes out for you. I bet all those leveraged landlords are really having a ball with this pandemic. Or how about 10 years earlier when the housing market collapsed and debts were called in. Or tenants that destroy their property requiring thousands in repair. Or delinquent tenants that cannot be evicted for months due to municipal policies. Or property that sits empty because cannot find tenants. There is no free lunch and no easy money. Your perspective is based on ignorance and a comically naive view of real estate.