6 ms·

Landlords don't "need" to exist. They simply exist because for everything someone has to own something. Communism doesnt work, I hope that knowledge doesn't hav

Landlords don't "need" to exist. They simply exist because for everything someone has to own something. Communism doesnt work, I hope that knowledge doesn't have to be relearnt

kerkeslager 2y ago
> They simply exist because for everything someone has to own something. And for things like housing, that should be the person who lives in the house. > Communism doesnt work, I hope that knowledge doesn't have to be relearnt What part of our massive homelessness problem do you see as the current system working? I'm not even proposing communism as a solution, but this absurd pretense that we have a working system needs to be crushed, and trotting out scare words like "communism" when you don't even know what they mean whenever someone criticizes the existing system is a big part of why our system is so broken.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  It depends on what the hypothetical alternative is. If the solution is ban renting, then we would substantially increase the number of homeless. Prices would absolutely go down, but anyone unable to buy would have no option.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > Prices would absolutely go down, but anyone unable to buy would have no option. Without numbers, which you don't have because no one does, that's total nonsense. Price determines options, not buy/rent. If the price of buying were lower than current rent, more people would have options, not fewer. There are a lot of ways to make that happen. Government could build housing which would both provide jobs and housing, and act as a means of controlling prices (if prices get too high, the government undercuts them). This was done in the 50s and while the results in cities were bad (i.e. "projects", which were largely a result of racism), suburban and rural houses built in that time are pretty good--I grew up in one--and we can learn from the mistakes of that time. Government lending which is currently extended to banks could be extended directly to homebuyers--there's no reason for the middle man here. Home ownership is part of the American dream and without it, the American dream is dying.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      >Without numbers, which you don't have because no one does, that's total nonsense. Price determines options, not buy/rent. If the price of buying were lower than current rent, more people would have options, not fewer. More people would have options to buys, absolutely. Those who can't would have major problems. There are millions of people who can afford rent, but not pull together a down payment, who would have their options reduced. The purpose of banks is to discriminate good loans from bad. If you have a system where everyone qualifies for government lending, you will have massive losses. If you add restrictions to government lending, but renting is banned, the only option is social housing, which i don't think would be successful in the US. I don't think the GDP can support the losses.
      - kerkeslager 2y ago
        > There are millions of people who can afford rent, but not pull together a down payment, who would have their options reduced. This is a non-point, because deposits aren't different from down payments. > The purpose of banks is to discriminate good loans from bad. ...a purpose which they fail miserably at without government regulation. If government can regulate this, they can just do it. Having greedy corporations constantly looking for loopholes in regulation and then requiring bailouts is not a necessary or desirable part of the system. Do we need a history lesson in housing crises?
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        governments do not stipulate the action of banks, of 99% of their discrimination policy and process. Regulation operates at a much higher level. In practical terms, this is all besides the point due to the credit issue. Would you lend 500k to a drug addict with part time minimum wage work. If so, please go and be the change you want to see in the world. Otherwise, note that this is the exact problem. prohibition of renting would adversely impact individuals who statistically would destroy value lent to them. Sorting these people is the entire purpose of the mortgage lending system.
        2y ago
- catlikesshrimp 2y ago
  Are you saying that only physical persons can own a property and that only the owner can live in it? Good luck with that idea. And it does sound like communism when you unwind it. I still believe that an oversupply of houses would crash prices. Make too many affordable houses so that they don't work as investments and really stay affordable. Spoiler alert: People who work and still live in a car need a house. But Homelessness is a mental health issue for the most part, so it isn't going away. Edit: your next post is about the same idea.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > Are you saying that only physical persons can own a property and that only the owner can live in it? Good luck with that idea. And it does sound like communism when you unwind it. If we're worrying about how things sound, the total callousness with which Hacker News treats the homeless sounds like sociopathy. I'm less interested in categorizing actions into your pointless capitalist/communist divide, and more interested in solving homelessness. > I still believe that an oversupply of houses would crash prices. Make too many affordable houses so that they don't work as investments and really stay affordable. Good. Crash prices. Houses are for living in, not for investing in. > But Homelessness is a mental health issue for the most part, so it isn't going away. Homelessness is more of a cause of mental health issues than a result of mental health issues. No mental health treatment can be effective for a patient experience the ongoing trauma of homelessness. The solution to homelessness is homes. In countries that care about their people instead of housing profits, they provide homes for the homeless. As it turns out, effectively no one is so mentally ill that they choose to be homeless in those countries. "Homelessness is a mental health issue" is complete bullshit used to justify not helping in ways that hurt some people's profits. Homelessness isn't a mental health issue, it's a lack of homes issue.
    - em-bee 2y ago
      In countries that care about their people instead of housing profits, they provide homes for the homeless. As it turns out, effectively no one is so mentally ill that they choose to be homeless in those countries. if that were true everywhere then those countries that do provide homes for everyone would have noone staying homeless at all. but yet they do. some countries are doing better than others. finland among them i think. germany may actually have a lack of housing problem in larger cities, but even there you'll at least have access to a shelter, but i am certain that vienna doesn't lack housing at the rate they are building with 2/3rds of all housing being subsidized. there is a difference to countries that do not provide adequate support for homeless people like the USA where thousands live in tents, and countries that do provide support, and countries where the chronically homeless are those few who do not have mental health necessary to apply for the necessary help to get a new home. homelessness is a lack of homes issue until that issue is being addressed. homelessness that remains after that is a mental health problem. of course once you are in that situation, the initial mental health issue that prevented you from seeking help right away is just a small part. the experience reinforces the mental health issues so that in the end you can't tell the difference anymore.

Landlords don't "need" to exist. They simply exist because for everything someone has to own something. Communism doesnt work, I hope that knowledge doesn't have to be relearnt

kerkeslager 2y ago

> They simply exist because for everything someone has to own something. And for things like housing, that should be the person who lives in the house. > Communism doesnt work, I hope that knowledge doesn't have to be relearnt What part of our massive homelessness problem do you see as the current system working? I'm not even proposing communism as a solution, but this absurd pretense that we have a working system needs to be crushed, and trotting out scare words like "communism" when you don't even know what they mean whenever someone criticizes the existing system is a big part of why our system is so broken.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
It depends on what the hypothetical alternative is. If the solution is ban renting, then we would substantially increase the number of homeless. Prices would absolutely go down, but anyone unable to buy would have no option.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > Prices would absolutely go down, but anyone unable to buy would have no option. Without numbers, which you don't have because no one does, that's total nonsense. Price determines options, not buy/rent. If the price of buying were lower than current rent, more people would have options, not fewer. There are a lot of ways to make that happen. Government could build housing which would both provide jobs and housing, and act as a means of controlling prices (if prices get too high, the government undercuts them). This was done in the 50s and while the results in cities were bad (i.e. "projects", which were largely a result of racism), suburban and rural houses built in that time are pretty good--I grew up in one--and we can learn from the mistakes of that time. Government lending which is currently extended to banks could be extended directly to homebuyers--there's no reason for the middle man here. Home ownership is part of the American dream and without it, the American dream is dying.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    >Without numbers, which you don't have because no one does, that's total nonsense. Price determines options, not buy/rent. If the price of buying were lower than current rent, more people would have options, not fewer. More people would have options to buys, absolutely. Those who can't would have major problems. There are millions of people who can afford rent, but not pull together a down payment, who would have their options reduced. The purpose of banks is to discriminate good loans from bad. If you have a system where everyone qualifies for government lending, you will have massive losses. If you add restrictions to government lending, but renting is banned, the only option is social housing, which i don't think would be successful in the US. I don't think the GDP can support the losses.
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      > There are millions of people who can afford rent, but not pull together a down payment, who would have their options reduced. This is a non-point, because deposits aren't different from down payments. > The purpose of banks is to discriminate good loans from bad. ...a purpose which they fail miserably at without government regulation. If government can regulate this, they can just do it. Having greedy corporations constantly looking for loopholes in regulation and then requiring bailouts is not a necessary or desirable part of the system. Do we need a history lesson in housing crises?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        governments do not stipulate the action of banks, of 99% of their discrimination policy and process. Regulation operates at a much higher level. In practical terms, this is all besides the point due to the credit issue. Would you lend 500k to a drug addict with part time minimum wage work. If so, please go and be the change you want to see in the world. Otherwise, note that this is the exact problem. prohibition of renting would adversely impact individuals who statistically would destroy value lent to them. Sorting these people is the entire purpose of the mortgage lending system.
        2y ago
catlikesshrimp 2y ago
Are you saying that only physical persons can own a property and that only the owner can live in it? Good luck with that idea. And it does sound like communism when you unwind it. I still believe that an oversupply of houses would crash prices. Make too many affordable houses so that they don't work as investments and really stay affordable. Spoiler alert: People who work and still live in a car need a house. But Homelessness is a mental health issue for the most part, so it isn't going away. Edit: your next post is about the same idea.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > Are you saying that only physical persons can own a property and that only the owner can live in it? Good luck with that idea. And it does sound like communism when you unwind it. If we're worrying about how things sound, the total callousness with which Hacker News treats the homeless sounds like sociopathy. I'm less interested in categorizing actions into your pointless capitalist/communist divide, and more interested in solving homelessness. > I still believe that an oversupply of houses would crash prices. Make too many affordable houses so that they don't work as investments and really stay affordable. Good. Crash prices. Houses are for living in, not for investing in. > But Homelessness is a mental health issue for the most part, so it isn't going away. Homelessness is more of a cause of mental health issues than a result of mental health issues. No mental health treatment can be effective for a patient experience the ongoing trauma of homelessness. The solution to homelessness is homes. In countries that care about their people instead of housing profits, they provide homes for the homeless. As it turns out, effectively no one is so mentally ill that they choose to be homeless in those countries. "Homelessness is a mental health issue" is complete bullshit used to justify not helping in ways that hurt some people's profits. Homelessness isn't a mental health issue, it's a lack of homes issue.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    In countries that care about their people instead of housing profits, they provide homes for the homeless. As it turns out, effectively no one is so mentally ill that they choose to be homeless in those countries. if that were true everywhere then those countries that do provide homes for everyone would have noone staying homeless at all. but yet they do. some countries are doing better than others. finland among them i think. germany may actually have a lack of housing problem in larger cities, but even there you'll at least have access to a shelter, but i am certain that vienna doesn't lack housing at the rate they are building with 2/3rds of all housing being subsidized. there is a difference to countries that do not provide adequate support for homeless people like the USA where thousands live in tents, and countries that do provide support, and countries where the chronically homeless are those few who do not have mental health necessary to apply for the necessary help to get a new home. homelessness is a lack of homes issue until that issue is being addressed. homelessness that remains after that is a mental health problem. of course once you are in that situation, the initial mental health issue that prevented you from seeking help right away is just a small part. the experience reinforces the mental health issues so that in the end you can't tell the difference anymore.