vacuumflower @ vacuumflower @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

0

Comments

624

Joined

2 yr. ago

It wouldn't, because a landlord proxies tenants' bidding.

It's funny, I had some course (or maybe it was after class activity) for one year called don't remember what in school (2 different things, one kinda economics, one kinda sociology), we'd basically roleplay political systems and economic systems.

It'd give you the correct answer very quickly. Only you need a group of 20+ who are not all friends (like in a class).

And how are they treated by them, exactly? Asked to pay for the space provided?

corporate landlords

OK, maybe I was too quick to judge. See, in my country most landlords own 1-3 apartments which they rent out. That includes new construction. The idea of "corporate landlords" is not very common here.

If there's no way a person willing to be such a 1-3 apartments' landlord can buy realty to rent out in USA - then you may be right.

If there is, then my position doesn't change.

We are talking about 100x profit vs 10x profit for developers.

You are saying that rent a landlord collects from an apartment in 10 years (you may make it 5 years or 20 years, should be the span of time in which landlord's investment should return) is 10x the price for which the landlord buys it? That is, what you pay to a landlord in 1 year is the cost of the apartment plus utilities plus decoration plus furniture? I suspect this is not true.

You're the only one being aggressive in this thread ; I'm being deliberately insensitive to worthless arguments and emotions from worthless people. OK, now you are not the only one anymore, maybe.

You are the one responsible for carrying through your own point. Your failure to do that is not my problem.

So you are saying they are some secret club, and without joining it you can't buy a house for the same price a landlord does?

Except highers supply doesn’t bring prices to same level.

If there are no artificial limitations to supply, and no demand growth, it eventually will. Eventually as in time of regulation.

The only reason prices are 10 times bigger is because landlords ready to pay those prices.

They are ready to pay those prices because their tenants are ready to pay the prices they, in turn, offer. Which means that they don't inflate demand.

Hahahahahhaaha. I’m not sure if you really think that way or only pretending.

You are illiterate in economics. I really don't get why do you think putting "laugh" in text would negate that.

So what prevents you from buying directly from developers?

You mean you'd pay the same amount for a house as a landlord pays? But you can do that now, why don't you?

Has nobody ever informed you that growing demand leads to price growth only if supply grows slower? But if prices grow, then supply does also grow faster. These are feedback loops.

Which means that what a house costs now it would cost still, after a short transient process.

"Suck all supply", my ass. You mean that you'd buy that house for 1/10 of what the landlord has paid for it, because it'd just be there, like a mushroom after rain? It wouldn't get built, dummy, cause it wouldn't be worth the money.

It's funny, somehow I managed to understand this before any college. Because supply and demand are supposedly quite intuitive.

You mean, worse than you speak of landlords?

this is why they are always supportive of “small government” it’s just a dog whistle for unregulated market.

A "dog whistle" is something disguising the true message, while there's no attempt to hide it here.

(I am in support of an unregulated market, but also of trade unions and consumer unions and anarcho-syndicalism, which are natural parts of it)

Actually yes.

In my childhood it wasn't very easy to find a licensed copy (TBF, even pirate copy sometimes), but demos would be distributed with magazines etc.

And after playing a demo which you like a licensed honestly bought copy becomes emotionally much better than piracy.

It was a working mechanism. For games which are not crap anyway.

Trying on 6GB. As a Linux user I usually don't need more RAM, so haven't added any yet.

and even years after AOL had its market share siphoned off by ISPs like Earthlink, those users continued to use AOL Instant Messenger (AIM). I didn’t retire my handle until the late 2000s.

In Russia ICQ played the same role for an IM (it's the same OSCAR protocol), but it (I think owned by AOL too) killed itself by trying to lose alternative clients.

I used the official one for Windows only, but it was a more civilized age, and what they were breaking included clients for Java phones (it was not so rare to hear the ICQ notification sound in public transport), clients like QIP, Miranda, Trillian which were used by many people, clients for Linux and so on.

Then everybody moved on to Skype. It happened very fast, in a couple of months my buddy list went mostly red from mostly green.

1. About rogue member states not being thought of when NATO was being created - when NATO was being created, even France and UK were more likely to behave like "rogue member states" and they did in some little known cases (Biafra, for example, or the Suez crisis). And Turkey was full-blown fascist (well, it didn't stop being that at any point since then till now, just Westerners conveniently assumed that it changed like Japan, say, one my relative in the US from Jewish side is just in complete denial that it hasn't as it wasn't civilized by bombs, while at the same time uneasy with my cousins going to Germany).
2. About NATO having its hands tied against Turkey due to Ukraine - if A happened before B, you can't justify A with B. So you can't justify Turkey getting away with everything it does by Russia vs Ukraine taking all the attention.

Russia's military budget in size is sufficient for anything Russia would need defense-wise (and even aggression-wise, TBF) to a full extent. It's just that most of the money was being stolen through all these years. It's rotten to the bone.

About glory days - USSR's military was really something "second best" somewhere in the 50s, when it was a system built for some actual overarching doctrine.

With every year passing Soviet bureaucracy was more and more entangling itself into a knot of financing and prestige and cabinet power struggles, so by 80s it would have like 4-8 simultaneously produced and operated models of tanks, with similar technology and details etc, but similar wouldn't mean interchangeable, in fact there would be almost no interchangeable details between them. It was similar in any other area. Standardization (which Commies love to present as planned economy's advantage) was a farce.

The bureaucratic system responsible for every part of the system would fight tooth and nail for some external benefits and provide some external service, soldiers and students would be used on harvest campaigns and housing construction, and the main purpose would be cemented, never reevaluated (I mean, everything changes in 5 years in real world in any area, and the Soviet doctrine has not evolved much between Korea and Afghanistan), and in fact lost.

Which is why, say, Soviet personnel carriers wouldn't protect against anything. Their purpose was to move fast, be amphibious, be hermetic, be cheap to produce. Cause the plan was that after all the boom-boom stops in the Global Thermonuclear War, one would need to move infantry over burnt irradiated land, fast.

It really was in planning and function a bit like the Galactic Empire, be it the Azimov's one or the Star Wars one.

Just give them guns. I mean, guns are primitive by today's measure to manufacture. A sufficient in scale production would make them cheap.

Though arming everybody in India would mean at least one gun for every teen and adult in 1.4bln population, and also ammo.

Widespread gun ownership, please. Gun ownership, not knife ownership.

Yeah, I meant that it's a truism, it's not adding new information. I'm clumsy with words, sorry.

One person (similar for me to the one described as "hell on earth" in the Disco Elysium game) also advised me long ago to read "Homo Ludens" by Johan Huizinga, it approaches (not as the main subject, just in the end a bit, it was written in the 30s) the similarity between various fascist (including Stalin's) regimes from another direction - sublimation of games, as in imagining and playing and then abandoning games which involve fighting and loss. In addition to manifestations of the 30s noted by the author, one can also look at today's more militant and generally inhumane societies and see that they have consistent traits in relation to fantasy and sci-fi literature, and fairy tales, and anime and so on, and also that their representatives are often unable to honorably accept defeat in sports.

I feel that there's truth to that criterion.

You know, one can inflict trauma that won't be forgotten in 10+ years without any rape. Which wouldn't be a cause for even a fine, or a day behind bars, or lower social prestige of the person doing it.

While with rape - I'm all in support of killing attackers in self-defense, it's justified.

But if the crime is already done, and if you have them behind bars, and the facts are established, then every hour and every day their personality changes, and becomes further and further from the one that committed that crime.

And the purpose of the system in theory is not to punish or destroy. It's to redeem. You are nobody to attempt anything else.