4 ms·
>It will make very little difference in the end. It will make very little difference if Wall Street investors hold very little property. Putting a finger on t
by austhrow743 9mo ago
>It will make very little difference in the end.
It will make very little difference if Wall Street investors hold very little property.
Putting a finger on the scale of how much real estate is individually owned definitely makes a difference though. It makes it worse.
100,000 individuals who own 100,000 properties have far more political power than 10 companies who own 100,000 properties.
>If you want housing to be cheaper and renters to be better treated, increase supply. Everything else is window-dressing.
Yes. However supply is artificially restricted by government, to the approval of the average property owning voter. So more specifically, that is what needs to be changed. Everything else is window-dressing.
This is a country sliding further towards being us, with their housing being more restricted and more expensive.
- ZeWaka 9mo ago> 100,000 individuals who own 100,000 properties have far more political power than 10 companies who own 100,000 properties. Is that really true in the US?
- austhrow743 9mo agoConsider every other expense that people have that's supplied by companies (see: literally everything). Why have those companies not successfully lobbied to prevent competition? Industries where it happens are the exception, not the rule.
- mpyne 9mo ago100,000 votes (and really probably closer to 150,000 influenceable votes across those households) is a significant number compared to 10 companies who own an average of 10,000 properties each, yes.
- _silicon 9mo agoCompanies with tremendous wealth manipulate voters and lobby their representatives. Don’t presume that voters are remotely well-informed of who backs their interests.
- mpyne 9mo agoIf wealth could simply buy elections then Clinton would have won over Trump in 2016 and Sanders would have won the primary over Biden in 2020.