5 ms·

Basically... You don't like people who own property. You don't think people should be able to own property that they don't live in. You don't think banks sho

by cwhiz 6y ago

Basically... You don't like people who own property. You don't think people should be able to own property that they don't live in. You don't think banks should be able to foreclose. And when push comes to shove, you want property owners and banks to lose money first. And you falsely believe that owning property puts you into the top 1%. I think that about sums it up? ------------- Nearly half of landlords are what is called "mom and pop" landlords. Just normal people who happen to own rental property, a duplex, or a small apartment complex. These aren't rich people. They aren't 1%ers. I genuinely think you need to venture out into the world more and meet some different people. Meet some of these evil people that need to pay. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-frm-asst-sec-061118.html https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-frm-asst-sec...

thatcat 6y ago
Basically you believe that properties are Investments that should always increase and if people that can’t afford to pay what some literal rent seeker demands then they should go pound sand.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  I sincerely doubt that you even understand what "rent seeking" actually means.
- simonh 6y ago
  That doesn't follow at all from cwhiz' comment. There are plenty of other ways excess costs can be socialised without imposing them all on landlords as suggested by the OP, or imposing them all on tenants.
  - thatcat 6y ago
    If you make an investment in property for profit then you should accept the risk you've taken and expect to take an L when everything goes tits up instead of socializing the costs through some post-hoc insurance scheme to bail out property owners.
    - simonh 6y ago
      In a situation like this that hits the entire economy at all levels, almost the whole of society needs bailing out to at least some degree. The impact is across the economy, and the costs will be born across the economy and the government as insurer of last resort has a legitimate role to play in that. What simplistic 'screw the rich' takes like this miss is that no actually many of these people are not by any reasonable measure rich, and even for 'the rich' what we're largely talking about really is businesses which most of us work for directly or indirectly, and what hurts them very often hurts us. So to me the socialist 'screw the rich' rhetoric is rubbish because it's economically illiterate, and the dog eat dog radical capitalist take that the poor are all lazy losers is equally ignorant and harmfull. The reality is we're all in this together, society imposes responsibilities on it's citizens and in return owes them obligations, or vice versa depending how you look at it. Blaming everything on some other group is just putting up obstacles to finding actual workable solutions.
      - thatcat 6y ago
        I never said screw the rich, I said accept the risk you chose to take like an adult. Please explain why future generations that have no responsibility here are expected to shoulder the burden of someone elses failed investment property?
    - scsilver 6y ago
      If it only were so simple.
jdashg 6y ago
Small-time embezzlers are just normal people too! Loan sharks, shady mechanics, and bail bondsmen are also extractive everymen. Landlords extract the marginal difference between what people can buy and what people can rent. By participating in real estate markets, they leverage inequality of capital to overcharge renters beyond what the market would clear at without landlords. I know most tax evaders are poor too, paid under the table. I'm sorry for them but I don't forgive their theft from the rest of us. Likewise, I don't forgive market-distorting landlords extracting rents from would-be buyers.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  >Landlords extract the marginal difference between what people can buy and what people can rent. By participating in real estate markets, they leverage inequality of capital to overcharge renters beyond what the market would clear at without landlords. This statement presumes that people, if given the choice, would always choose to buy. Not so! People rent for numerous reasons, many of which have nothing to do with their income or ability to buy. >Small-time embezzlers are just normal people too! Loan sharks, shady mechanics, and bail bondsmen are also extractive everymen. Fairly absurd for you to compare people who own a second home or a duplex to embezzlers or loan sharks. Give me a break.
  - jdashg 6y ago
    I do not assume all people want to rent, merely that there exist renters who would prefer to buy but do not. People do rent for many reasons, but in my cohort the primary reason is "cannot afford to buy", and I don't think that's unusual. As I pointed out, homes would be strictly easier to purchase with fewer landlords in the market. I don't think my comparisons are absurd, which is why I made them: They are illustrative. Just as loan sharks occasionally do provide valuable loans to people with no other option, so too do landlords occasionally provide valuable flexibility. However, it's not their primary effect.

by cwhiz 6y ago

thatcat 6y ago

Basically you believe that properties are Investments that should always increase and if people that can’t afford to pay what some literal rent seeker demands then they should go pound sand.

cwhiz 6y ago
I sincerely doubt that you even understand what "rent seeking" actually means.
simonh 6y ago
That doesn't follow at all from cwhiz' comment. There are plenty of other ways excess costs can be socialised without imposing them all on landlords as suggested by the OP, or imposing them all on tenants.
- thatcat 6y ago
  If you make an investment in property for profit then you should accept the risk you've taken and expect to take an L when everything goes tits up instead of socializing the costs through some post-hoc insurance scheme to bail out property owners.
  - simonh 6y ago
    In a situation like this that hits the entire economy at all levels, almost the whole of society needs bailing out to at least some degree. The impact is across the economy, and the costs will be born across the economy and the government as insurer of last resort has a legitimate role to play in that. What simplistic 'screw the rich' takes like this miss is that no actually many of these people are not by any reasonable measure rich, and even for 'the rich' what we're largely talking about really is businesses which most of us work for directly or indirectly, and what hurts them very often hurts us. So to me the socialist 'screw the rich' rhetoric is rubbish because it's economically illiterate, and the dog eat dog radical capitalist take that the poor are all lazy losers is equally ignorant and harmfull. The reality is we're all in this together, society imposes responsibilities on it's citizens and in return owes them obligations, or vice versa depending how you look at it. Blaming everything on some other group is just putting up obstacles to finding actual workable solutions.
    - thatcat 6y ago
      I never said screw the rich, I said accept the risk you chose to take like an adult. Please explain why future generations that have no responsibility here are expected to shoulder the burden of someone elses failed investment property?
  - scsilver 6y ago
    If it only were so simple.

jdashg 6y ago

Small-time embezzlers are just normal people too! Loan sharks, shady mechanics, and bail bondsmen are also extractive everymen. Landlords extract the marginal difference between what people can buy and what people can rent. By participating in real estate markets, they leverage inequality of capital to overcharge renters beyond what the market would clear at without landlords. I know most tax evaders are poor too, paid under the table. I'm sorry for them but I don't forgive their theft from the rest of us. Likewise, I don't forgive market-distorting landlords extracting rents from would-be buyers.

cwhiz 6y ago
>Landlords extract the marginal difference between what people can buy and what people can rent. By participating in real estate markets, they leverage inequality of capital to overcharge renters beyond what the market would clear at without landlords. This statement presumes that people, if given the choice, would always choose to buy. Not so! People rent for numerous reasons, many of which have nothing to do with their income or ability to buy. >Small-time embezzlers are just normal people too! Loan sharks, shady mechanics, and bail bondsmen are also extractive everymen. Fairly absurd for you to compare people who own a second home or a duplex to embezzlers or loan sharks. Give me a break.
- jdashg 6y ago
  I do not assume all people want to rent, merely that there exist renters who would prefer to buy but do not. People do rent for many reasons, but in my cohort the primary reason is "cannot afford to buy", and I don't think that's unusual. As I pointed out, homes would be strictly easier to purchase with fewer landlords in the market. I don't think my comparisons are absurd, which is why I made them: They are illustrative. Just as loan sharks occasionally do provide valuable loans to people with no other option, so too do landlords occasionally provide valuable flexibility. However, it's not their primary effect.