3 ms·

Really a stimulus is just subsidizing inflated rents. And landlords are using the threat of mass homelessness to coerce the government into that subsidy.

• steffan 6y ago
  That's a simplistic view that doesn't take into account property prices; not every landlord has owned property since the beginning of time, taking advantage of price increases. Imagine a retired teacher who decides to rent out a garage apartment to supplement her pension - is she taking advantage of 'inflated rents' if the rent amount barely covers a proportional amount of the mortgage? Additionally, landlords have to pay 'inflated property taxes', 'inflated utilities', and 'inflated garbage service' - these aren't discretionary costs for a property owner unless you advocate letting people stay in their apartments, but without landlord contributions to water, heat, cooling, garbage.
  • nsnick 6y ago
    Retired teachers in San Francisco who own property have either owned it since the beginning of time, or have an incredibly rich spouse.
  • rbecker 6y ago
    All your examples are consequences of inflated property prices. When I complained of inflated rents, the complaint over property prices was implied. By subsidizing rents, you also subsidize property prices.
  • mercer 6y ago
    Most landlords are not retired teachers who rent out their garage apartment.
• googthrowaway42 6y ago
  Certainly the fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus as been inflating the housing and rental markets, there's no question whatsoever. Generally speaking the asset holding class has benefited wildly from all of this stimulus to the detriment of the working and middle class. As far as explicit coercion I really doubt that and I doubt it would be even necessary. For many, many reasons politicians are heavily incentivized to just flood the system.