Free Market

[Anonymous No.11733996]

This society is retarded. You are paying $1000+ a month just for rent.
You pay $1000+ a month just to have a place to sleep and take a dump. Wtf??? Fucking stupid.

I'm all for a free market when it comes to luxuries (wifi, phone, etc.), but NOT necessities (food, water, and a roof over your head).
Imagine if water bottles cost $1000 a pop? Retarded, right?

I believe humans are ENTITLED to having NECESSITIES as cheaply priced as reasonably possible. Seems priced okay with food and water, but not rent.

People shouldn't be able to make a profit off of selling property. Property should be government owned and by law should be made as cheaply possible for citizens.

If you disagree... why?

Again, luxuries should be priced at whatever the range a business wants.

Not necessities. That is abuse and retarded.

It's funny because if you think about it, so many people struggle in the u.s. 78% live paycheck to paycheck and 50% of renters are cost burdened meaning they spend over 30% of their income on rent. Median wage is very low at 18 an hr nation wide.
Etc. I can go on with stats (and it is especially bad in certain areas such as LA), but if you think about it, the MAJOR problem with the u.s. isn't about schools (though schools are 99% bullshit) or low wages.

It's the cost of living. It's rent.

So..... why the fuck can't it just be made cheaply for citizens? That would literally solve one of the biggest problems in the u.s. and help poor people live modestly. Would also help end homelessness.

Why the hell is a NECESSITY so overpriced?

People need to learn the difference between a necessity and a luxury.

[Anonymous No.11734033]

>>11733996
Get off my board you commie son of a bitch.

[Anonymous No.11734038]

>>11733996
free markets are the most efficient ways to price goods and services. Rent controlled cities are shitholes because rent control causes all kinds of problems. Property should absolutely not be govt. owned. You really think the govt. is efficient at doing things? You want to give those corrupt fucks MORE wealth and MORE power? Absolutely retarded.

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell anon, start there and see if you can realize how dumb everything you just wrote is

[Anonymous No.11734048]

>>11733996
>If you disagree... why?
I disagree because us jews have a right to exploit the goyim according to the torah which we tampered slightly with.

[Anonymous No.11734082]

>>11733996

property shouldn't be gov't owned but "rent seeking" is bullshit. you should be allowed to own your own property, even multiple properties if you actually use them for vacation or letting family live there or whatever. but owning multiple properties to rent out for profit, ESPECIALLY in areas with strict building codes meaning new medium density housing is almost NEVER built, is fucking bullshit and is probably the root cause behind the drop in birth rates in the west. if people didn't have to worry so much about being able to just afford rent, maybe they'd be having more babies.

[Anonymous No.11734111]

>>11734082
That's an interesting point. maybe the problem is that the building codes are too strict then, though. If you don't allow landlord to rent out for profit, then who fills that gap? Not everyone wants to own their own apt, or their own property and be responsible for maintaining it. That takes time and money, or a handy man.

[Anonymous No.11734113]

>>11734082

Having kids as an American is simply not practical when you account for the astronomical cost of an education, health care, rent, child care, etc.

[Anonymous No.11734131]

>>11734113
It depends on where you live. If I lived in a big city I would have a hard time affording it, but "Fly over states" have some upsides to them, low cost of living is one of them.

[Anonymous No.11734139]

>>11734033
Shut up. You can't even offer a decent counter-argument

[Anonymous No.11734215]

>>11734038
You are EXTREMELY vague.

1. You just say "gov bad dur hur" and don't even list one example
2.
>Rent controlled cities are shitholes because rent control causes all kinds of problems
Problems such as...?

[Anonymous No.11734239]

>>11733996
Mainly because the government indirectly taxes property owners through various methods, so in practice they get additional money they wouldn't if they did what you propose.
You are a slave meant to mantain a parisitic political class, anon. They'll squeeze you as much as they can. Talks about fairness and justice are beautiful platitudes to lull the servants.

[Anonymous No.11734261]

http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap18p1.html

[Anonymous No.11734288]

>>11734215

Rent control have been tried in many places, it is very easy to go and read the aftermath of such policy. It baffles my mind that you would argue for such policy without even doing preliminary research on what such policy entails.

[Anonymous No.11734293]

>>11734038
>Explicitly defending landlords
>Being cucked this hard
Look swine, both Adam Smith and Karl Marx saw that rent and usury were two features of capitalism that could subvert the whole thing. And low and behold it is.
Considering housing as a commodity instead of a national resource will always lead to tyranny.
If you want to argue that government corruption is ineffective at handling resources, maybe you should combat corruption. The (((free market))) certainly has no problem with it.

[Anonymous No.11734372]

>>11734293
I'm just not sure what the alternative is. What OP is suggesting, government ownership, is clearly not the way to go and probably even worse

[Anonymous No.11734413]

>>11734288
Burden of proof is on you. Do you even know what burden of proof means?

[Anonymous No.11734448]

>>11734413

You're a moron and I'm glad you're nowhere near the position of policy making.

[Anonymous No.11734480]

>>11734261
"Because of low fixed rents in old buildings, the tenants already in them, and legally protected against rent increases, are encouraged to use space wastefully..."
I don't understand what they mean by "use space wastefully"

"It tends to force rents in them, at the beginning, to a higher level than they would have reached in a wholly free market."

How would rent control make it so that rent would be HIGHER than if there was a free market?
I can't follow this guy's logic. Maybe you can simplify it for me.

"landlords will not trouble to remodel apartments or make other improvements in them. In fact, where rent control is particularly unrealistic or oppressive, landlords will not even keep rented houses or apartments in tolerable repair."

Again, makes no sense. I don't understand why there can't be laws to force property owners to make "tolerable repairs" or have them face consequences.

"Not only will they have no economic incentive to do so; they may not even have the funds."

Then they should face consequences if they simply lack the "incentive". If they don't have the funds idk.


Also, this link isn't government owning property. It just attempts to explain the supposed affects of rent control on landlords. Not what I was arguing in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11734491]

>>11734448
And you're a complete dumbass.
Do you even know what "burden of proof" means? Of course you don't.

[Anonymous No.11734492]

When you limit the supply in a city such as San Francisco, sure it is great if you are lucky enough to get rent control. Let's just say it's at 10%. There are now 10% less homes on the open market the avg person can rent, but the demand is still the same. This increases the price, pricing people out.

[Anonymous No.11734499]

>>11733996
Something something, replace all taxes with single land value tax something something...

[Anonymous No.11734535]

>>11734480
You're really fun to be around aren't you

[Anonymous No.11734556]

>>11734139
what's your argument?
>muh things are expensive, gib free, gib now

[Anonymous No.11734558]

>>11733996
You retards always ignore basic econ 101 concepts like government price controls throwing the market equilibrium out of wack and fucking up the supply/demand cycle. It's also a huge reason why fast food employers have a hard time finding and keeping employees but still refuse to raise wages to increase demand, but nooooo let's blame "duh free markit SMASH CAPITALIZM WE COMMUNIST NOW"

[Anonymous No.11734569]

>>11734448
Reminder that his vote counts just as much as yours, and someone as stupid (Cortez) literally won an election recently

[Anonymous No.11734572]

there's rent control in Paris
net result: shitskins propped up by NGOs and on gibs from the government are flooding in, rich people remain, and the middle class is priced out
any system that claims to be equal yet relies heavily on the government gets exploited, fast. the temptation is too much
the ills you blame on "evil rentseekers" in murica are actually caused by rampant immigration, welfare, government zoning laws... there is no free market for houses due to government interference

[Anonymous No.11734584]

>>11734556
What do you mean what's the argument? Read the op.

Necessities like rent should be priced cheaply while luxuries can be priced at whatever.

[Anonymous No.11734589]

Reason why properties are so expensive:

>subsidised which artificially raises the demand
>the gov not allowing apartments/houses to be build at many places
>very strict regulations when it comes to houses, at least here in yurop
>interest rates artificially low, making it easy for everyone to buy a house they wouldn't be able to afford without a central bank -> demand artificially high again
>due to the low interest rates you have everyone and their mom putting their savings into real estate
>mass migration which is also subsidised by the gov (many people wouldnt come if they wouldnt apply for various forms of welfare)
>real estate taxes which landlords obviously have to include into the rent


I probably even forgot one or two reasons, but you really can't blame that on the free market
Next thing you say is healthcare sucks because of capitalism

[Anonymous No.11734624]

>>11734584
and everyone should be able to live a life of luxury and decadence, nobody should get cancer, nobody should have to work hard. You are not living in reality.

[Anonymous No.11734638]

>>11734558
Got 2 Bs in my macro and micro econ classes. Can't follow what you're saying.

"It's also a huge reason why fast food employers have a hard time finding and keeping employees but still refuse to raise wages to increase demand "

Why? You didn't actually explain. Your previous sentence doesn't explain anything. You basically just said "fucking up the supply and demand cycle fucks up the economy" without explaining shit.

[Anonymous No.11734648]

>>11734624
>and everyone should be able to live a life of luxury and decadence

No... luxury should be priced at whatever. Necessities shouldn't be a business in the first place is all I'm arguing.

You aren't following me here.

[Anonymous No.11734741]

>>11734624
Let me make this simple.

Outside a society, within the wild, you don't pay rent or for food. You simply hunt for food, eat, sleep, and shit.

Doesn't cost money.

In a society, the hunting is done for you so you have to pay for food now and the homes are created for you so you have to pay rent. Reasonable.

My basic question is, what makes rent so expensive? Now, maybe gov owning property can be a solution or maybe not.

That aside, the fact that 78% of people live paycheck to paycheck and 50%of renters spend over 30% of their income on rent is NOT a fucking good sign.

You all FAIL to see this as an actual problem.

Obviously something needs to change to make having a roof over your head more affordable for americans.

Why can't small homes be made for minimalists? Should those be priced at 1000+ a month too?

What should determine the price of a home?

[Anonymous No.11734796]

>>11734741

>What should determine the price of a home?

What people are willing to pay. Meaning, those without a house simply got outbid by those who do.

You can buy a house for 50k in flyover states, but that not good enough. You want to live in the city, where land is in extremely high demand, and where people are willing to pay a lot more for a piece of the land.

>Why can't small homes be made for minimalists? Should those be priced at 1000+ a month too?

Because of government zoning regulation and safety regulation. If they're in high enough of a demand and low enough of a supply, then yes, it can go for $1000.

What is considered expensive is relative.

[Anonymous No.11734857]

>>11733996
Sounds like Georgism is up your alley OP. I actually think you're right - you should get an empty plot of land, and a guarantee to access water for life, and on your death it should revert to another random. If you wanna pitch a tent in there - great.

[Anonymous No.11734875]

>>11733996
You might be interested in the economic philosophy of Henry George. Specifically Progress and Poverty, where he laid out a plan to only tax landowners. The book is in the public domain now, so you can read it for free if you're really interested. He claimed this would balance the budget, alleviate all poverty, and basically solve all economic problems.

[Anonymous No.11734877]

>>11734082

This. Just ban multiple property ownership or make it so highly regulated and taxed that it becomes impossible to profit from. You don’t want to make all property free because property isn’t created equal, how do you decide who gets to live in a mansion on a waterfront estate vs a shitty commie block full of gang members and drug addicts?

If it were illegal to own more than one residential property we would see a huge increase in housing affordability. Property investment is drain on the economy because it doesn’t actually produce anything of value and enables the rent seeking class to act in a parisitic fashion.

[Anonymous No.11734909]

Its not overpriced dummy. It is literally exactly its value.

We are doomed with this level of rampant retardation.

Government cannot build housing cheaper than the free market. A fact more real than gravity son.

[Anonymous No.11734914]

>>11734638
>B's in economics
<expert
>still in college
<expert
>can't see decisions made outside of a vacuum
<expert

I think we've all seen enough here

[Anonymous No.11734924]

>>11734796
>What people are willing to pay. Meaning, those without a house simply got outbid by those who do.

So fuck the homeless, right?
"about 45 percent of homeless adults had worked in the past 30 days"

Doesn't matter if they are doing their part by working, right?

This is a FAILURE for a society when people work and STILL can't afford to live independently.

>You can buy a house for 50k in flyover states, but that not good enough. You want to live in the city, where land is in extremely high demand, and where people are willing to pay a lot more for a piece of the land.

Wrong. I was forcefully born in the city and don't make enough to move yet so...? It definitely wasn't "a choice". And your solution is basically just "to move". Can work for me eventually but look at LA. Should everyone struggling there simply move to?

>What is considered expensive is relative.

Ya and looking at statistics I cited, current rent nationwide is too high for most.

[Anonymous No.11734936]

I just realized this is bait. You ignorant sly fuck

[Anonymous No.11734944]

>>11734741
>My basic question is, what makes rent so expensive?
Supply and demand.

Rent control is only part of the problem- it does choke off supply: I have considered investing in property in my local area, but fuck that. I *could* afford to become a landlord in NYC but there's actually a good chance that rent control could fuck me over in the next thirty years if do that. This money that I invest is the result of careful saving; I can't easily get it back and using it wisely will have a huge impact on my life. So you have some kind of unquantifiable level of underdevelopment here- i.e., less supply of housing, increasing prices.

Much, much, much more significant is regulation that prevents building. Even if I became a landlord, I am a small fish and I would just buy a place and rent it out. I certainly can't afford to build. But even if I could, there are many restrictions on new development that exist just to preserve neighborhood appearances. New buildings can't be too large and it's not just because of safety or environmental reasons.

Limit the amount of new housing production below population growth and you will see rents skyrocket. Every obstacle to increasing supply will instead increase price.

As for government-owned housing, I actually would love to see the government massively overbuild housing and then sell excess inventory to individual humans (NOT INVESTORS, NOT SPECULATORS, NOT COMPANIES) with say, a requirement that the owners live in the United States and regularly prove that they do. Just build so much more than desired and massively inflate the supply beyond demand, causing prices to crash. Just as government printing excess money causes the market price of currency to fall, government building excess housing would cause prices to fall.

I think government action should be simple if it's going to happen- try to really on market forces rather than laws with inscrutable side effects, like rent control.

[Anonymous No.11734961]

>>11734944
Scarcity.

[Anonymous No.11734994]

>>11734914
1. And you ARE an expert? I never claimed to be one.
2. Graduated college already
3. I was asking a genuine question but people just love to scream out "communist" whenever something threatens their ideology.

[Anonymous No.11734998]

>>11733996
>Property should be government owned and by law should be made as cheaply possible for citizens.
>If you disagree... why?

because its retarded. not evry person wants the same property. the governemnt will never be able to statisfy the population with its slow bureaucrazy.
instaed the state you own all land, but give it for free to all citizens (and citizens only, no foreigners allowed) but cap the max amount one person is allowed to have.

people who dont want/need lots of land (thsoe who are currentyl poor and whom you want to help) can make money renting it to others.

[Anonymous No.11734999]

>>11734914
It's another
>It's so stupid I shouldn't bother refuting it because it's stupid
episode

[Anonymous No.11735023]

>>11734944
Take one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Manhattan and triple its capacity to house people.

Since the surrounding neighborhoods are quite pricey, the new housing might not be much cheaper, but people living adjacent to that neighborhood who were just a little bit priced out will be able to move in, and that effect will be similar THOSE neighborhood's adjacent neighborhoods, and so on.

The construction costs might not even be the main factor- basic land costs coul be higher. And since the government has fucked the area with regulations that slow private developers from creating new housing, and the government is building all this new housing, the gov could take their time selling it and make sure they milk it for a profit. Or even just keep it and rent it out eternally at market rates to buffer the city's revenue.

[Anonymous No.11735024]

>>11734293
corruption is alos a problem in socialist countries. Thus corruption is a statist problem, not a capitlist problem.

[Anonymous No.11735026]

>>11734909
Idk about that. I've seen extremely small homes built for honeless people before.

https://youtu.be/n6h7fL22WCE

[Anonymous No.11735042]

>>11734111
You need building codes to be somewhat strict for the safety of the citizens. If housing frames weren’t level, columns double secured, flooring reinforced etc then you would get poorly constructed houses that would become a wooden or brick death trap.

[Anonymous No.11735048]

>>11734131
Problem with fly over states is they don’t have too many high paying jobs or jobs in general.

[Anonymous No.11735050]

>>11734999
It's another
>I am literally allergic to history books
episode

Shitposts beget shitposts. There's nothing worth debating here

[Anonymous No.11735051]

>>11733996
How bout you stop being a poorfag?

[Anonymous No.11735069]

>$1000 rent

I wish. Rent in my city is closer to $2k. $1500 will maybe get you a studio in a homeless AIDS infested ghetto

[Anonymous No.11735073]

>>11734994
ignore them OP
These are far gone sheep who already paid 200k to shekelstein for their degree. And now feel comfy paying him 3k a month for rent, along with 30% tax in which they have no say how it gets spent.

They are too far gone to see a fair change in society. I live in LA
90% of it is a shit hole, even the trenches is at least 1k a month. Where you are lucky to not have your car broken into once a day, and robbed at least once a week.
The cucks in this thread support this scenario.

[Anonymous No.11735079]

>>11734924

So in other words, you're failure who can't even make enough to afford basic living necessity.

[Anonymous No.11735094]

>>11735073
Thank the boomers and their love of immigrant labor. Hurr lets bring in millions of 3rd wolders so we can pay them less and at rhe same time increase our home prices by sheer demand and overpopulation

[Anonymous No.11735100]

>>11733996
We still live in feudalism. We have land LORDS for christ sake

[Anonymous No.11735119]

>>11734961
Yes. Attack scarity directly by inflating the supply.

Land is scarce in Manhattan, but the neighborhood I live in, hardly ant buildings have more than four floors. There's no reason for that.

I live in a building that is four floors tall and over a hundred years old. It can't be torn down and rebuilt bigger because of height restrictions and muh "neighborhood character". I.e., people who can't afford to live in th West Village have SERIOUS opinions on how it should look. The building is considered "historic" just because it's old, so maintenance takes extra work to make sure if a window breaks or needs to be replaced, that it looks exactly the same as it always has.

It's so stupid. The people opposed to building bigger are the same people who complain about prices. They'd likely be able to live in this neighborhood if they weren't so concerned that the neighborhood's appearance always remain stagnant.

I really have no sympathy for someone who insists that something be scarce and then cries when they can't afford it.

I want us ALL to have housing. I want there to be enough good housing for all of us. But if these people say there shouldn't be enough housing for all of us, that the most desirable housing *should* be rare? Then fine. We'll make it rare and I'll just outbid them and they will not be able to afford it.

I prefer fair terms for everyone but if someone else insists on unfairness then I will let them pay the price.

[Anonymous No.11735142]

>>11735079
I am 23, have an associate's degree in the electrical, and have a chance of joining a union that caps at 44 an hr and starts at 20.

You?
Also, retard, you are naive in thinking YOU choose your economic position in life. I can easily be rejected by that union if the interview goes off blah blah blah

Point is there is a 44% underemployement rate for 22-27 yr olds so even doing your part isn't enough. It's all luck.

Meaning even if you do your part, you can still be underemployed.

It's not 100% in your control to be making "good money".

[Anonymous No.11735147]

California has the most retarded building codes in the world. For example we cant collect rainwater. New buildings must have rainwater pumped into the basement and filtered and then pumped back up into the street to be washed away back into... the ocean. Not even kidding we have some serious fucked up codes

[Anonymous No.11735152]

>>11735142
22-27 yr old *college grads

[Anonymous No.11735165]

>>11733996
The wage workers are paid will always approach the cost of living. If housing gets cheap then workers will get fewer raises and lower statting salaries at least intil inflation catches up. Workers will still be working for close to nothing after living expenses and taxes get accounted for.

[Anonymous No.11735176]

>>11734372
>He's too stupid to imagine a new way so he just shits on something he knows nothing about

It's not that the government should own all the housing it's that the notion of ownership needs to be changed.
Once you shake the capitalist scales from your eyes you might start to find a new way.

>>11734492
Pricing people out is another way of distributing development.
There's no reason why SF needs all of that money while Fresno becomes a city of RV parks. It's a win-win all around when you distribute industry and ownership.

>>11734558
>He thinks econ 101 is anything more than brainwashing.

>>11734796
>He thinks the price of something is an indication of its value.
That's why you get housing bubbles, son.
A smart society would incentivize home ownership for each citizen instead of encouraging a speculative market.
Both luxury condos and tenments can exist in the same functioning city. Once housing is understood as an infrastructure, government's will sponsor work force housing that isn't driven by the profit motive. Payment will be extracted as a percentage of income.

The problem in your capitalist shit hole is that enough landowners have corrupted the politicians because they know that their real estate is mostly valuable for it's speculative value, basically extorting the future generations.

Control of the land is the control of politics. It is the most deeply seated issue in the history of humanity.

[Anonymous No.11735186]

>LA
Good thing LA imposed rent control ordinances to combat rising rent costs :):):):)

https://hcidla.lacity.org/RSO-Overview
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/lamc/municipalcode/chapterxvrentstabilizationordinance?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:lamc_ca$anc=JD_151.28..

[Anonymous No.11735200]

>>11735119
>But if these people say there shouldn't be enough housing for all of us, that the most desirable housing *should* be rare

People will say of course the west village is desirable and rare and expensive and they "just" want to live in some other neighborhood... They don't understand that just as the west village is desirable relative to the rest of NYC, almost *all* the neighborhoods of NYC are desirable relative to the rest of the country.

A nice, safe, city with friendly, young people and lots of jobs is actually fucking rare as hell. Rather than being willing to share it with others, they insist on onerous development regulations and hurdles and then complain when the entire city is expensive.

It's ridiculously entitled. They hate "greedy" developers and oppose development because muh gentrification and muh historic preservation and muh neighborhood charm and muh neighborhood character and then complain when prices go up up up.

[Anonymous No.11735201]

>>11734875
I'll check it out

[Anonymous No.11735215]

>>11734875
So basically only tax the haves and leave the havenots alone.

[Anonymous No.11735229]

>>11735176

>He thinks the price of something is an indication of its value.

No, no at all. But the worth of something IS determined by what someone is willing to pay for it.

>A smart society would incentivize home ownership for each citizen instead of encouraging a speculative market.

I agree, and such incentives do exist. but it isn't enough to determine speculative investment.

>The problem in your capitalist shit hole is that enough landowners have corrupted the politicians because they know that their real estate is mostly valuable for it's speculative value, basically extorting the future generations.

That goes both way. Lobby groups exist for both the developers and rent control tenant and their advocacy groups. Both of them perverse the system in the same manner.

[Anonymous No.11735230]

>>11734877
People rent because they don't know how long their jobs will last. If you owned your property, you would need to sell all the time.

2nd-- Do you expect old people to mow the lawn and take care of house work? Renting takes care of this.

If you really want to solve housing problems and land ownership here's how you'd solve it:

(1) Banks who hold on to foreclosed notes for more than 1.5 years will be subjected to 1000% property taxes on the home's assessed value. Major problem now is housing supply, guess who owns the most notes since they acquired them with tax payer money? The banks since 2008.

(2) anyone who tries to sell a house HAS to sell to people seeking to use the home as a primary resident for 3 years. Every time it gets removed from the MLS, this time resets.

Implement these two rules and see how fast you will reach a housing equilibrium.

[Anonymous No.11735242]

>>11734480
Back to ledit you go

[Anonymous No.11735342]

>>11735242
That dude is such a fucking disgrace.

[Anonymous No.11735397]

>>11735186
>Strawmanning LAs rent control measures
Blackstone and invitation housing has fucked the rental market there and no how to specifically walk around the rent control legislation to extract maximum value. If anything that's a case for wider reaching and more properly incentivize rent control measures.

>>11735229
>Still explicitly conflating value, worth, and price
Christ almighty, the absolute state of biz.
This is without a doubt why you guys get dumped on in these Ponzi schemes. Buy high sell low am I right.

>Both landowners and renters have equal lobbyist groups.
You really don't understand the basis for economy of scale either huh?
Those with capital have an advantage at maintaining their capital. Under corrupt capitalism renters advocacy groups will always be disadvantaged because their goals explicitly limit their ability to gather more capital, while simultaneously being positioned precariously, constantly balancing the risk of political engagement with existence.

If the infrastructure of housing can not be guaranteed for every citizen, neither can liberty or freedom.

[Anonymous No.11735402]

>>11733996
Good luck defining a luxury versus a necessity. Is owning a phone a luxury? Having access to the internet? A car? Maslows hierarchy of needs defines sex as a basic requirement. Should prostitutes be free?

Housing and food are commodities just like Rolexes - they don't just spring into existence, they're created through human planning, capital and labour.

[Anonymous No.11735407]

>>11735230

Its not quite as simple as that. Much like rent control regulation did, this kind of regulation will just push these houses into the black market and encourages nepotism.

Nobody will settle for less, if they think they can find someone who is willing to pay for more.

I personally think the simplest solution is to lax zoning regulation and just overall incentivise house building to meet demand.

Obviously, that is not possible in every area, especially in places with limited land, such as Manhattan.

[Anonymous No.11735413]

>>11733996

"free market" is a fucking meme

time to dump these thought process driven systems and build an emotional one.

capitalists have somehow radicalized that everything is the way it should be, competition is the best way to advance as humanity, privatizing industries and businesses will lead to "economic growth" (whatever the fuck that is).

https://askwonder.com/q/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-america-5704196284295a270012d1e3

there are 6 vacant houses per homeless person in the us right now.

i believe a quote from george carlin summarizes the situation wholeheartedly

"The table has tilted, folks. The game is rigged. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working people - white collar, blue collar, it doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue - these are people of modest means - Continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don't give a fuck about you. They don't give a fuck about you. They don't care about you at all. At all. At all. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care.

That's what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that's being jammed up their assholes every day, because the owners of this country know the truth: It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ

i need to get my hands on some psychedelic shrooms my depression starting to kick in again

[Anonymous No.11735450]

>>11735402
Use common sense. If you don't need it to live, it's a luxury. Last time I checked, your life wasn't dependent on some prostitute.

[Anonymous No.11735456]

i mean look at Tokyo. one of the most populated, dense cities in the world. and YET, rent is fucking dirt cheap compared to the west. a single person can easily rent for $500/month near the city center or less. you could live BIG on a "normal" US city rent amount of $2000/month. they have so many apartments, all the space is used efficiently. i'm sure they have regulations but apparently they're not entirely burdensome. the US just has too many fucking laws on the books that it stifles the supply of housing and drives prices WAY up.

[Anonymous No.11735484]

>>11735397

>Still explicitly conflating value, worth, and price

A house might be the most beaten down piece of shit, but if you can find a sucker to buy it for a million dollar, then that house is worth a million. There is a reason why most residential housing is priced through comparative method, rather than the expected income or value it can generate, unlike commercial housing units.

>their goals explicitly limit their ability to gather more capital

Their stated goal is a bunch of feel good bullshit to market to the masses. They're simply in it to exploit the system to make a quick buck, like everyone else.

[Anonymous No.11735499]

>>11735450
You've never met my mother, I see.

[Anonymous No.11735576]

>>11735484
>He doubles down on his ignorance of what creates value
Yeah, the tail wags the dog too.

[Anonymous No.11735615]

>>11733996
Supply and demand..
Monopolies and lack of competition.

[Anonymous No.11735724]

>>11734215
it'd be harder to name something govt does well