3 ms·

Stealing/nationalizing property, even for a year, results in higher costs to do business in the future due to the assumed risk. So I agree with you that this ma

by niij 4y ago

Stealing/nationalizing property, even for a year, results in higher costs to do business in the future due to the assumed risk. So I agree with you that this may have helped the single metric in the short term; there are long term consequences. That means as an individual you will either pay higher rent or be forced to buy. Many people would rather have the flexibility and no maintenance that renting provides.

mullingitover 4y ago
> Stealing/nationalizing property, even for a year, results in higher costs to do business in the future due to the assumed risk. It's a good thing that's not what they did, then. Making landlords wait to be paid for a limited time is not the same thing as "stealing," and furthermore there were billions upon billions in subsidies passed around to mitigate the effects of this very reasonable measure. It's telling that the best we can come up with to criticize the CDC's actions is "won't someone think of the landlords."
- niij 4y ago
  > Making landlords wait to be paid for a limit time is not the same thing as "stealing," They weren't being paid, that's the whole issue. If they were then an eviction moratorium wouldn't have mattered. > furthermore there were billions upon billions in subsidies passed around to mitigate the effects of this very reasonable measure Are government subsidies to corporations something you're supporting here? > It's telling that the best we can come up with to criticize the CDC's actions is "won't someone think of the landlords." Property rights are fundamental to a capitalist, free, society. If you want an economic system where property rights are ignored or where the government wholesale manages the economy then just come out and say it.
  - mullingitover 4y ago
    They were eventually paid. Source: my friend who is a landlord and was not adversely impacted at all in the pandemic. > Are government subsidies to corporations something you're supporting here? Actually, in the case I have direct knowledge of, this was direct subsidies to renters (via the Emergency Rental Assistance Program), who then repaid their landlords. > If you want an economic system where property rights are ignored or where the government wholesale manages the economy then just come out and say it. I believe we could have an economic system that is so rigid and inflexible that it can't respond sensibly to a crisis and instead forces society into a death spiral to protect capital, but that we're wiser than that.
    - niij 4y ago
      > They were eventually paid By whom? My understanding of the situation was that landlords did not get a subsidy to make up for lost rents or being unable to evict non-paying tenants. Back-rent would be nice, but is not likely, especially with up to 12 months worth. > I believe we could have an economic system that is so rigid and inflexible that it can't respond sensibly to a crisis and instead forces society into a death spiral to protect capital, but that we're wiser than that. Well if that's the only choice here, then you made a pretty good argument for it.
    - diggernet 4y ago
      Not all of them. I know landlords who are still waiting to be paid. The eviction moratorium has ended. The tenant rent assistance program has been closed to new applicants. But the folks running the program have not bothered to make a decision on the existing applications, and eviction is not allowed until those applications have been approved or denied. The back rent owed exceeds the limits of the assistance program, so even if/when they get paid, it'll be far less than what they are owed. And every month that goes by unpaid isn't covered by the program and will never be paid. But they won't make a decision on the applications, and they won't allow eviction. The homeowners are stuck in an unlimited legal limbo, indefinitely. Yay California.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Aerroon 4y ago
  >Making landlords wait to be paid for a limit time is not the same thing as "stealing," It is though. Banks make an entire business about taking your money now and giving it back to you later. They even pay you extra! How would you feel if your employer decided to only pay you in 3 months' time? What consequences do you think this could have on the average person?
  - mullingitover 4y ago
    We were in a deflation spiral though, which would generally mean that the person receiving the loan (i.e. the tenant) would've been paying negative interest rates. The landlords would've been obligated to make the tenants whole for the 'damages' they received from receiving a loan from the landlords.
the_only_law 4y ago
> That means as an individual you will either pay higher rent or be forced to buy. So basically what I already do every year?
- niij 4y ago
  Assuming you're in the U.S. there has been positive inflation for decades, so unless you live in a place like Detroit, yes just like every year. This is just an _additional_ factor to raise your rent at an even faster rate. That's not even considering the currency devaluation, which is probably an even bigger contributing factor than landlord uncertainty. But it sure doesn't help.

by niij 4y ago

mullingitover 4y ago

> Stealing/nationalizing property, even for a year, results in higher costs to do business in the future due to the assumed risk. It's a good thing that's not what they did, then. Making landlords wait to be paid for a limited time is not the same thing as "stealing," and furthermore there were billions upon billions in subsidies passed around to mitigate the effects of this very reasonable measure. It's telling that the best we can come up with to criticize the CDC's actions is "won't someone think of the landlords."

niij 4y ago
> Making landlords wait to be paid for a limit time is not the same thing as "stealing," They weren't being paid, that's the whole issue. If they were then an eviction moratorium wouldn't have mattered. > furthermore there were billions upon billions in subsidies passed around to mitigate the effects of this very reasonable measure Are government subsidies to corporations something you're supporting here? > It's telling that the best we can come up with to criticize the CDC's actions is "won't someone think of the landlords." Property rights are fundamental to a capitalist, free, society. If you want an economic system where property rights are ignored or where the government wholesale manages the economy then just come out and say it.
- mullingitover 4y ago
  They were eventually paid. Source: my friend who is a landlord and was not adversely impacted at all in the pandemic. > Are government subsidies to corporations something you're supporting here? Actually, in the case I have direct knowledge of, this was direct subsidies to renters (via the Emergency Rental Assistance Program), who then repaid their landlords. > If you want an economic system where property rights are ignored or where the government wholesale manages the economy then just come out and say it. I believe we could have an economic system that is so rigid and inflexible that it can't respond sensibly to a crisis and instead forces society into a death spiral to protect capital, but that we're wiser than that.
  - niij 4y ago
    > They were eventually paid By whom? My understanding of the situation was that landlords did not get a subsidy to make up for lost rents or being unable to evict non-paying tenants. Back-rent would be nice, but is not likely, especially with up to 12 months worth. > I believe we could have an economic system that is so rigid and inflexible that it can't respond sensibly to a crisis and instead forces society into a death spiral to protect capital, but that we're wiser than that. Well if that's the only choice here, then you made a pretty good argument for it.
  - diggernet 4y ago
    Not all of them. I know landlords who are still waiting to be paid. The eviction moratorium has ended. The tenant rent assistance program has been closed to new applicants. But the folks running the program have not bothered to make a decision on the existing applications, and eviction is not allowed until those applications have been approved or denied. The back rent owed exceeds the limits of the assistance program, so even if/when they get paid, it'll be far less than what they are owed. And every month that goes by unpaid isn't covered by the program and will never be paid. But they won't make a decision on the applications, and they won't allow eviction. The homeowners are stuck in an unlimited legal limbo, indefinitely. Yay California.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Aerroon 4y ago
>Making landlords wait to be paid for a limit time is not the same thing as "stealing," It is though. Banks make an entire business about taking your money now and giving it back to you later. They even pay you extra! How would you feel if your employer decided to only pay you in 3 months' time? What consequences do you think this could have on the average person?
- mullingitover 4y ago
  We were in a deflation spiral though, which would generally mean that the person receiving the loan (i.e. the tenant) would've been paying negative interest rates. The landlords would've been obligated to make the tenants whole for the 'damages' they received from receiving a loan from the landlords.

the_only_law 4y ago

> That means as an individual you will either pay higher rent or be forced to buy. So basically what I already do every year?

niij 4y ago
Assuming you're in the U.S. there has been positive inflation for decades, so unless you live in a place like Detroit, yes just like every year. This is just an _additional_ factor to raise your rent at an even faster rate. That's not even considering the currency devaluation, which is probably an even bigger contributing factor than landlord uncertainty. But it sure doesn't help.