3 ms·

A few notes: An active problem in the US' form of capitalism is we don't let businesses die naturally. I think landlords fall under this - if they can't find r

by ar_lan 5y ago

A few notes: An active problem in the US' form of capitalism is we don't let businesses die naturally. I think landlords fall under this - if they can't find renters for the prices they are charging, then their business is functionally failing, and it should be allowed to simply die. This is economically healthy at a more macro-level and invites better management practices and reduces people over-leveraging. In this case, people were still renting, however, and functionally for free. Landlords got screwed due to government intervention - the moratorium on evictions forced landlord's hands - it was the state saying "your business structure must be forced to fail" here, which is pretty ridiculously unfair of the state. Making the landlords whole seems entirely correct given their over-stepping measures earlier last year.

ericmay 5y ago
Here’s an honest question: where do you draw the line? Government intervention constantly creates winners and losers. New laws are passed, businesses lose licenses, or maybe some other government action causes the business to lose money. At what point do we say “ok you get money because the government destroyed your business” and “too bad for you”? I think I read somewhere that this specific issue is a legal one, but generally speaking I’m not sure why government action here is so different than other actions. Restaurants for example that we’re doing just fine went under. Why isn’t the government making them whole? This probably was an easier one to solve too. You could have just said something like “everyone freeze”. No mortgage for the landlord or interest for one year. Tenants don’t have to pay rent for one year. And then you resume payments. You could argue the bank loses out but I’d say you’re just extending the loan a year so they’re not really taking a loss in the long term either. At least this would have been a better and more just solution.

by ar_lan 5y ago

ericmay 5y ago

Here’s an honest question: where do you draw the line? Government intervention constantly creates winners and losers. New laws are passed, businesses lose licenses, or maybe some other government action causes the business to lose money. At what point do we say “ok you get money because the government destroyed your business” and “too bad for you”? I think I read somewhere that this specific issue is a legal one, but generally speaking I’m not sure why government action here is so different than other actions. Restaurants for example that we’re doing just fine went under. Why isn’t the government making them whole? This probably was an easier one to solve too. You could have just said something like “everyone freeze”. No mortgage for the landlord or interest for one year. Tenants don’t have to pay rent for one year. And then you resume payments. You could argue the bank loses out but I’d say you’re just extending the loan a year so they’re not really taking a loss in the long term either. At least this would have been a better and more just solution.