NationStates

Senkaku wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Some people are lucky. Others aren't.

How in God’s name is luck an “inherent ability like intelligence or strength” though lmao

How isn't it? Why do you wish people good luck if not to lend them the weight of your own luck?

Nilokeras wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:Entitled is a weird word. It doesn't fit the concept, it's just what you use because you're upset about it.

Everyone is born with a different Orlæg. Different circumstances of birth and pre-ordained abilities. That's not an entitlement it's just reality. Some are born in prosperous countries to wealthy families. Others are born in desperate circumstances, the children of criminals or terrorists, and many are born in between. Some people are born smarter, stronger, or luckier than others.

You're not *stuck* where you start, your Orlæg isn't your destiny, and you can change your circumstances. You can excercise to grow your strength. You can educate yourself to make better use of your mind. But where you start is basically up to fate and there's no system that can change that.

Likewise, what happens to you in life is not up to you. You don't determine if a drunk driver takes your road or not. You don't determine if a meteor hits you. The world is fundamentally not in your hands to control or dictate. And so what your ultimate fate is, is less important than how you choose to meet it. A man born rich, who does nothing with that money is lesser than one who is poor, and remains poorer than he, but still accomplishes something in his life.

it takes some doing to invent a religious doctrine that is even more fatalistic than the wildest orientalist distortion of Hinduism. Doubly so when that doctrine seems to have been invented out of wholecloth by an obscure academic in the 1970s with a weak grasp of philology.

Like being a reconstructionist pagan is fine and all but do the necessary work at the very least.

Which is of course why pretty much every Reconstructionist Heathen that isn't a Neo-Nazi holds to the Well and Tree. Surely we must have all missed that.

Also yes, Norse Paganism is cynical and fatalistic as fuck. Just try reading the myths and Havamal sometime.

The Emerald Legion wrote:Which is of course why pretty much every Reconstructionist Heathen that isn't a Neo-Nazi holds to the Well and Tree. Surely we must have all missed that.

Neopagans picking up and uncritically adopting obscure, decades-old and shoddy ideas because they like the sound of it? More likely than you think.

The Emerald Legion wrote:Also yes, Norse Paganism is cynical and fatalistic as fuck. Just try reading the myths and Havamal sometime.

I'd rather not. More interesting to me is why you're using an obscure New Age religious belief as a way to deflect from having to think about injustice and inequality in the world.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Senkaku wrote:How in God’s name is luck an “inherent ability like intelligence or strength” though lmao

How isn't it? Why do you wish people good luck if not to lend them the weight of your own luck?

Nilokeras wrote:
it takes some doing to invent a religious doctrine that is even more fatalistic than the wildest orientalist distortion of Hinduism. Doubly so when that doctrine seems to have been invented out of wholecloth by an obscure academic in the 1970s with a weak grasp of philology.

Like being a reconstructionist pagan is fine and all but do the necessary work at the very least.

Which is of course why pretty much every Reconstructionist Heathen that isn't a Neo-Nazi holds to the Well and Tree. Surely we must have all missed that.

Also yes, Norse Paganism is cynical and fatalistic as fuck. Just try reading the myths and Havamal sometime.

Will they tell us anything useful about housing?

Ifreann wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
How isn't it? Why do you wish people good luck if not to lend them the weight of your own luck?



Which is of course why pretty much every Reconstructionist Heathen that isn't a Neo-Nazi holds to the Well and Tree. Surely we must have all missed that.

Also yes, Norse Paganism is cynical and fatalistic as fuck. Just try reading the myths and Havamal sometime.

Will they tell us anything useful about housing?

"One's own house is best, though small it may be,
each man is master at home;
with a bleeding heart will he beg, who must,
his meat at every meal."

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Will they tell us anything useful about housing?

"One's own house is best, though small it may be,
each man is master at home;
with a bleeding heart will he beg, who must,
his meat at every meal."

So that's a no.

Ifreann wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
"One's own house is best, though small it may be,
each man is master at home;
with a bleeding heart will he beg, who must,
his meat at every meal."

So that's a no.

How so? Do you not understand the meaning of the poem?

Me. I should buy houses. Me and myself only.

Anyone else attempting to buy houses will be sent to Brazil.

Merimenea wrote:Me. I should buy houses. Me and myself only.

Anyone else attempting to buy houses will be sent to Brazil.

What if they buy a house in brazil

Kubra wrote:

Merimenea wrote:Me. I should buy houses. Me and myself only.

Anyone else attempting to buy houses will be sent to Brazil.

What if they buy a house in brazil

Wait... There are houses in Brazil?

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Senkaku wrote:How in God’s name is luck an “inherent ability like intelligence or strength” though lmao

How isn't it?

strength and intelligence are defined by innate biological characteristics and by intentional training

"luck" is just stuff that happens or doesn't happen to you for reasons outside your control, it's just the sum of all the coincidences in your life, nothing about your genes or your behavior influences it (unless you're Larry Niven trying to come up with a sort of funny plot point in a sci-fi novel)

if I start gambling more I can't train myself to "be luckier" lmao why do you even need this explained to you

Why do you wish people good luck if not to lend them the weight of your own luck?

because it's a polite thing people say to each other lol not because it's some mystical incantation with actual power

Senkaku wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
How isn't it?

strength and intelligence are defined by innate biological characteristics and by intentional training

"luck" is just stuff that happens or doesn't happen to you for reasons outside your control, it's just the sum of all the coincidences in your life, nothing about your genes or your behavior influences it (unless you're Larry Niven trying to come up with a sort of funny plot point in a sci-fi novel)

if I start gambling more I can't train myself to "be luckier" lmao why do you even need this explained to you

Why do you wish people good luck if not to lend them the weight of your own luck?

because it's a polite thing people say to each other lol not because it's some mystical incantation with actual power

Nah nah if I tell you good luck and you win a poker game you owe me a fucking debt, buddy. 20%, in proportion to the good luck I lent.

Three acres and a cow for every man and woman!

Okay 3 acres in this age is a bit much, but we really should maximize private ownership of housing to ensure that as many people as possibly own what they live in.

The biggest issue to this, at least where I'm from, is we simply can't build housing fast enough. That which gets built tends to often be massive luxury homes. We need smaller homes.

Senkaku wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
How isn't it?

strength and intelligence are defined by innate biological characteristics and by intentional training

"luck" is just stuff that happens or doesn't happen to you for reasons outside your control, it's just the sum of all the coincidences in your life, nothing about your genes or your behavior influences it (unless you're Larry Niven trying to come up with a sort of funny plot point in a sci-fi novel)

if I start gambling more I can't train myself to "be luckier" lmao why do you even need this explained to you

Why do you wish people good luck if not to lend them the weight of your own luck?

because it's a polite thing people say to each other lol not because it's some mystical incantation with actual power

And your luck is an innate component of your spiritual self and can be increased by putting yourself in situations that give you better odds of accomplishing what you want.

It's polite because it has it's origins in the lending of luck. Likewise, we name children after people in the hopes that some of that persons luck will rub off on the child. Just because you've forgotten the reasons behind it doesn't mean there aren't any.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Senkaku wrote:strength and intelligence are defined by innate biological characteristics and by intentional training

"luck" is just stuff that happens or doesn't happen to you for reasons outside your control, it's just the sum of all the coincidences in your life, nothing about your genes or your behavior influences it (unless you're Larry Niven trying to come up with a sort of funny plot point in a sci-fi novel)

if I start gambling more I can't train myself to "be luckier" lmao why do you even need this explained to you

because it's a polite thing people say to each other lol not because it's some mystical incantation with actual power

And your luck is an innate component of your spiritual self

Ah, one of those

But that does mean it’s still not at all like strength or intelligence, which are emergent properties of *physical* characteristics— say whatever you want about spirituality but there are certain verifiable truths abt the body and the mind that we’ve figured out

and can be increased by putting yourself in situations that give you better odds of accomplishing what you want.

come onnnn lol

“If I wanted to be lucky I would simply not do things I’ll fail at” like what are u even trying to say

It's polite because it has it's origins in the lending of luck. Likewise, we name children after people in the hopes that some of that persons luck will rub off on the child.

I-is that why we name children after other people though…

Just because you've forgotten the reasons behind it doesn't mean there aren't any.

Appropriating dead branches of medieval magical thinking to justify apathy in the face of modern injustice is, as others have said, very weird; just be normal and use the typical Bronze Age traditions that’ve been maintained for centuries for that purpose

This thread is now about magic.

Senkaku wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
And your luck is an innate component of your spiritual self

Ah, one of those

But that does mean it’s still not at all like strength or intelligence, which are emergent properties of *physical* characteristics— say whatever you want about spirituality but there are certain verifiable truths abt the body and the mind that we’ve figured out

and can be increased by putting yourself in situations that give you better odds of accomplishing what you want.

come onnnn lol

“If I wanted to be lucky I would simply not do things I’ll fail at” like what are u even trying to say

It's polite because it has it's origins in the lending of luck. Likewise, we name children after people in the hopes that some of that persons luck will rub off on the child.

I-is that why we name children after other people though…

Just because you've forgotten the reasons behind it doesn't mean there aren't any.

Appropriating dead branches of medieval magical thinking to justify apathy in the face of modern injustice is, as others have said, very weird; just be normal and use the typical Bronze Age traditions that’ve been maintained for centuries for that purpose

Why would I do that when they make no sense?

It's hardly an injustice. Just buy a house like a normal person. Or y'know. Don't and quit whining about it. A house granted to you by the government would be pointless since it's not yours.

Ifreann wrote:This thread is now about magic.

Yes but also no.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-condo-developer-to-buy-1-billion-worth-of-single-family-houses-in/

A Toronto condo developer is buying hundreds of detached houses in Ontario, with the plan of renting them and profiting on the housing crisis ripping across the country.

Core Development Group Ltd. is building a large-scale single-family home rental operation, an unproven business model in Canada, where the market is fragmented and individual investors lease a small number of their own properties for income.

Institutional house rentals have become highly lucrative in the United States, with private-equity firms, pension funds and big companies throwing billions of dollars into the asset class. In Canada, deep-pocketed investors, as well as real estate investment trusts, have already acquired hundreds of apartment buildings to tap into the strong rental demand but have not moved into rental houses.

Core founder Corey Hawtin and executive vice-president Faran Latafat questioned why there wasn’t a similar business in Canada, which has had a rental vacancy rate below 3 per cent since the turn of the century.

“We were trying to answer the question: Why is nobody doing this in Canada? We could not come up with an objective answer to that. In Canada, it works as well or better than the U.S.,” said Ms. Latafat, Core’s president of single-family development.

parasites are starting to infect canada, days after the thread was made they made this announcement

From a policy-political perspective, homeownership is good in only one specific instance... gentrification. Otherwise, what happens is:

• policy capture by homeowners
• a media cult around homeownership (related/cause of the above point)
• the ability to create what's called an asset based welfare state (i.e. retirement is funded by leveraging the
• housing bubbles
• "who doesn't pay their mortgage" (aka The Big Short movie's thesis for the GFC)
• the wealth effect
• an extremely cyclical construction industry

From a political perspective, most of these things are useful... unless you're interested in making better policy everyone (i.e. including for people who lose out)*. For example, under gentrification, homeowners are able to contend with neighbourhood change in such a way that at least they get fairly, well market rate, compensated if they do end up feeling like they have to move (and, also, you can tell yourself it was their choice to move... they got paid).

From the political perspective, you also get added benefits that kind of set apart from the structural (which, in this case, includes behavioural) factors above:

• racial/immigration based dogwhistling gets very easy
• an easy sell (who doesn't want to own things!?)... which is the other main cause of policy capture and the media cult

And that's in well designed countries. There are all sorts of things you can do to make homownership even worse if what you're trying to do is make good policy for everyone.

So... the answer is: the state. But even that requires a well designed country (see: NZ from 1840 to somewhere between 1876 and 1951, though the issue there was mostly around land rather than houses per se).

That being said, I feel it's cheaper to build houses on top of the private market... and if you're doing that properly (without fear of the "private enterprise" dogwhistle, i.e. the crowding out effect), then it probably doesn't matter what's going on (i.e. who can buy houses) so long as you have sane fiscal policies (see: NZ over the last decade for what happens when economic management is given over exclusively to the central bank, i.e. very low interest rates that ultimately just end up stimulating massive house price increases rather than the economy as a whole). Given the other fiscal demands that are exerted on a country, my answer is therefore:

if you can tax them, they can buy.

*Hence, my formulation of a policy-political perspective, i.e. the need to make policy within a political context (c.f. a city building game, for example).

Kowani wrote:while i don't know enough about the british situation to comment, i'd add that the racialization of the construction of american suburbia was a key point in allowing for later social service slashing and ghettoization

I don't think the racialisation was that proximate... with the way American societies are constructed (i.e. the arbitrary county lines), the suburb was always going to destroy social service provision for four reasons:

• the tax base that sustained the city was destroyed (this would be where redlining etc fits in... as a cause of "white flight") with the flight of people
• the need to create motorways to handle (in reality: stimulate) car dependency, necessitated the destruction of the city and thus land value... and therefore the ability to generate revenues even if people didn't leave
• even if a city was fortunate enough to be the same political entity collecting monies from its suburbs, it now has to provide these services over a vastly bigger area so the costs of doing so increase (on top of every other cost's also increasing)
• the whole system of American suburbanisation is a Ponzi Scheme and/or a serious moral hazard, since the state is left with the ongoing (and much of the initial) costs and, of course, the bill to replace the infrastructure as it depreciates... which is a further drain on resources, unless you suburbanise some more to create new revenues

Within the American system, social services would have been gutted even if racism didn't exist.

Kowani wrote: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

The best known housing affordability metric (i.e. Demographia's) is literally constructed to push a pro-sprawl political agenda... we might characterise this as a "Republican political agenda" but really it's the neoliberal agenda (which only pre-Trump establishment Republicans really fit in, anyway... and, as you say, the Democrats also accept in economic matters; though, whether neoliberalism has a social, as opposed to socio-economic, theory is another question, imo).

As any real estate agent will tell you, housing is all about location... and once you allow the cost (as opposed to the price) of a specific location to actually be counted within your measure, you get radically different interpretations.

So... my question is this: is housing really more affordable in Republican (governed) areas, or do Republican areas just look better through the lens of the median multiple?

People who are willing and able to buy.

-Ra- wrote:People who are willing and able to buy.

People who are able to buy houses should be able to buy houses.

Ifreann wrote:

-Ra- wrote:People who are willing and able to buy.

People who are able to buy houses should be able to buy houses.

Yes. That’s why this question is silly. Who should be able to buy pineapples? Cars? It’s the same answer. People with the means to.

Free housing or bust tbh.

-Ra- wrote:

Ifreann wrote:People who are able to buy houses should be able to buy houses.

Yes. That’s why this question is silly. Who should be able to buy pineapples? Cars? It’s the same answer. People with the means to.

What means are required to buy a house? Can they be provided to those who otherwise lack them? Can the requirements be changed in some way? Should housing even continue to be a thing which we buy and sell?

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Free housing or bust tbh.

Pretty much. Housing, along with food and water, healthcare, electricity, and internet access, must be considered basic human rights.