Who should be able to buy houses?

[Immortan Khan]

Which is also one of the reasons why property as investment traps people into small-time petit bourgeois landlordism.

Eh, that happens. Not everyone will succeed. That's life, as unfortunate as that is.

Because rent-seeking behaviour is a distorting economic force that drags down productivity and heightens inequality writ large.

I was talking more about the producerist sentiments that had been expressed, but inefficiency isn't always a bad thing. I'm opposed to excessive inequality but I'm not opposed to hierarchy or some amount of inequality. *shrug*

[Deacarsia]

Those who can afford the sale prices should be able to buy houses.

[Kowani]

For single dwelling houses should hedge funds,corporations, millionaires and billionaires be allowed to suck up all the small properties to then hold on to and rent out while they artificially inflate the market by creating scarcity? I am talking like a 2-4 bedroom houses for families.

I think houses shouldn't be used as a investments and instead used to be provide shelter and a better quality of living for the population.

\\

Leftists never learn the destructive unintended consequences of their well-intentioned efforts.

For example, if you undermine investment and profit in real estate, what do you think will happen to the supply of affordable housing?

Moreover, did you ever consider the damning effects progressive Democrat policies have on the cost of housing?

For example, why is it that housing costs are highest and inequality greatest in enclaves governed exclusively by progressive Democrats? In contrast, housing in Red states is almost always far more affordable.

i don't get how anyone thinks this is an own
the problem with unaffordable housing in areas run by democrats is a consequence of economic strength as a result of liberalism being paired with right-wing housing policy
the solution is moving left on those issues, not more market fundamentalism
the reason houses are affordable in republican governed areas is a bit more complex, and has to do with general economic hollowing-out as a result of disinvestment and trade policy (though i'd argue competitive advantage made the latter inevitable)
the problem is that the democrats are fundamentally a right-wing party on economic issues, and this shows nowhere more strongly than housing
the other problem is just
you don't understand how demand works

[Nazi Flower Power]

For example, why is it that housing costs are highest and inequality greatest in enclaves governed exclusively by progressive Democrats? In contrast, housing in Red states is almost always far more affordable.

The cause is mostly population density. More people -> more demand -> higher prices. This usually holds true even in other countries that don't have the same party system as the US.

[Alcala-Cordel]

No one should be able to buy houses

Or sell houses

Or own houses


But everyone is entitled to a home

[Nilokeras]

I was talking more about the producerist sentiments that had been expressed, but inefficiency isn't always a bad thing. I'm opposed to excessive inequality but I'm not opposed to hierarchy or some amount of inequality. *shrug*

The problem is that rent-seeking behaviour isn't just a small-time thing, even if you discard the producerist terms of Marxism - it's an economic phase change that if allowed to take hold distorts the entire economy into what we have today, where real estate is the only growth industry left.

i don't get how anyone thinks this is an own
the problem with unaffordable housing in areas run by democrats is a consequence of economic strength as a result of liberalism being paired with right-wing housing policy
the solution is moving left on those issues, not more market fundamentalism
the reason houses are affordable in republican governed areas is a bit more complex, and has to do with general economic hollowing-out as a result of disinvestment and trade policy (though i'd argue competitive advantage made the latter inevitable)
the problem is that the democrats are fundamentally a right-wing party on economic issues, and this shows nowhere more strongly than housing
the other problem is just
you don't understand how demand works

Is arguing with someone whose posting is functionally equivalent to a chatbot trained on the comments section of the Charlotte Observer really a good use of your time

[Azalfia]

Isn't land as naturally occurring as air, is needed to survive, produce oxygen, food, water, literally everything for human existence, right? We don't sell air for money; why do we sell land for money?

[Ifreann]

Isn't land as naturally occurring as air, is needed to survive, produce oxygen, food, water, literally everything for human existence, right? We don't sell air for money; why do we sell land for money?

Because you can put a fence around land up you can't put a fence around air.

[Genivaria]

Isn't land as naturally occurring as air, is needed to survive, produce oxygen, food, water, literally everything for human existence, right? We don't sell air for money; why do we sell land for money?

Because you can put a fence around land up you can't put a fence around air.

Not yet we can't.

[The Blaatschapen]

Isn't land as naturally occurring as air, is needed to survive, produce oxygen, food, water, literally everything for human existence, right? We don't sell air for money; why do we sell land for money?

Because you can put a fence around land up you can't put a fence around air.

I just had this business idea!

[Genivaria]

Because you can put a fence around land up you can't put a fence around air.

I just had this business idea!

The sheep is secretly working for Nestle!

[CoraSpia]

No one should be able to buy houses

Or sell houses

Or own houses


But everyone is entitled to a home

Nope, you're entitled to what you can afford. Taxpayers (which always just means richer people) have no reason to give you shit for free.

[Alcala-Cordel]

No one should be able to buy houses

Or sell houses

Or own houses


But everyone is entitled to a home

Nope, you're entitled to what you can afford. Taxpayers (which always just means richer people) have no reason to give you shit for free.

Nope, people are worth more than their monetary possessions and are all entitled to a certain standard of living. Besides, who said anything about the taxpayer? The collective will pay for it, but it can be done with the labor value already stolen from them by the 1%.

[Nilokeras]

No one should be able to buy houses

Or sell houses

Or own houses


But everyone is entitled to a home

Nope, you're entitled to what you can afford. Taxpayers (which always just means richer people) have no reason to give you shit for free.

A beautifully plated meal of pure ideology, fresh from the trash can.

[Grenartia]

Housing should be a human right, and people and businesses who own more than one should be taxed at a prohibitively higher and higher rate based on how many they own. The money from that should be used to provide free housing for all.

[Thermodolia]

No one should. Enclosing housing, like enclosing land, is an act of appropriation that turns something that is required for human survival into a commodity to be bought and sold and speculated upon.

I disagree greatly. I like my house that I own

[Nilokeras]

No one should. Enclosing housing, like enclosing land, is an act of appropriation that turns something that is required for human survival into a commodity to be bought and sold and speculated upon.

I disagree greatly. I like my house that I own

''I disagree greatly. I like this car that I stole from the guy down the street"

[Thermodolia]

Talking sheep should be able to buy houses.

>_>

Even the more introverted ones.

But pantsless cats shouldn’t be allowed to buy one

[Thermodolia]

I disagree greatly. I like my house that I own

''I disagree greatly. I like this car that I stole from the guy down the street"

Ya I didn’t steal shit from anyone. I bought a house for me to live in. Didn’t steal anything, unless you’re talking about the price than sure it was a steal

[Thermodolia]

Housing should be a human right, and people and businesses who own more than one should be taxed at a prohibitively higher and higher rate based on how many they own. The money from that should be used to provide free housing for all.

The problem, at least in California. Isn’t so much the fact that there aren’t enough houses but that there’s more empty bedrooms than people not counting hotels.

So basically if you where required to rent out the extra homes you own so that you could fill out all the bedrooms you’d fix the homeless problem.

And I don’t think we should be taxing people just for owning a second or third home. If you own say ten homes then you might want to start taxing higher

[Great Algerstonia]

Anyone who can afford to.

[Nilokeras]

''I disagree greatly. I like this car that I stole from the guy down the street"

Ya I didn’t steal shit from anyone. I bought a house for me to live in. Didn’t steal anything, unless you’re talking about the price than sure it was a steal

and where did that land come from

[Thermodolia]

Anyone who can afford to.

I think that’s a tab but too broad because technically yes I could afford to buy a $600k house but then I’d be dead in a week from not eating

[CoraSpia]

Anyone who can afford to.

I think that’s a tab but too broad because technically yes I could afford to buy a $600k house but then I’d be dead in a week from not eating

Not really. It'd be a seriously fucking stupid decision for you to make, but you're an adult. You're allowed to make stupid choices.

[CoraSpia]

Nope, you're entitled to what you can afford. Taxpayers (which always just means richer people) have no reason to give you shit for free.

Nope, people are worth more than their monetary possessions and are all entitled to a certain standard of living. Besides, who said anything about the taxpayer? The collective will pay for it, but it can be done with the labor value already stolen from them by the 1%.

Oh so we're talking in fantasy land. The collective doesn't exist and never will.