It's great that votes don't change threads, otherwise you'd look like a real dumbass when that comment is buried beneath dozens of top level replies and doesn't even show up until you get to the bottom and click "load more comments".
It's "sorted by controversial", but certain phone apps don't respect the sort order specified in the link, and that's how you can tell smelly filthy phoneposters apart!
If the apparatchiks didn't report their quota of people every month for wrongthink they used to get taken away themselves. They also constantly reported each other in order to avoid being reported themselves. Statistically, low level party members were the most likely to get dragged off to the gulags. Most of them had severe mental health issues due to the stress of living hour by hour and never knowing when the knock would come on the door.
It's better for an average person to live in a ridiculously cramped apartment than for homeless people to exist. General population definitely won't resent this arrangement and the ideology that implemented it.
/s Looking back at the commieblocks that I have visited in Poland and the one I lived in before moving to USA there's no way that shit would have worked with American obesity rates. Unless they manage to run public housing efficiently (lol).
Its more basic than that; rent is their single largest recurring expense, and bad shit happens if they're late or short on it. Its only because they live in an advanced society where food and entertainment are so cheap that it doesn't really eat at their income in the way rent does, which of course, is all thanks to capitalism.
So in a way they're right; under socialism they wouldn't have to worry about paying rent, they would be far too busy worrying about getting enough to eat.
Yeah its actually pretty cool when landlords will buy a bunch of big empty houses and turn them into apartments so people can actually afford to live in them.
Housing is going to built anyways and construction will be paid upfront even if it is indirectly by the tenant through the landlord.
The only thing I think that is being produced is that it stimulates housing being built and allows people to move in and out more freely than by paying mortgage.
But that can maybe be done directly by the initial investors and capitalists to the tenant too anyways.
He used his CAPITAL to purchase the creation of housing.
He carries the risk for a CAPITAL INVESTMENT. If the property burns down, is destroyed or if it isn't kept up or if a new Hog Shit rendering plant opens up near by all his tenants can just up and move out. He is stuck with the loss.
Now, if a person in need of housing dealt directly with a lender themselves that is called a mortgage.
I'm not saying no investments are occurring and that risk is not involved. That's too obvious so I didn't mention it.
What I asked is what they produce?
All three of your points: Were always true in pre-Capitalist times even when land was owned by an aristocratic 1%, they did the financing, upkeep, and at one time bought it with their own capital. Most people rented.
You can risk a lot of money in investments with your own capital and still not produce anything. The only strong argument I heard is that it stimulates growth of construction.
Except that's concrete thinking of economics. A lot of services don't "produce" anything but we pay for them because they provide convenience or security.
Thats actually exactly how capitalism works. If you don't like it there are many communist countries you could move to. There you can pay the government for the convenience of not being stabbed, much more efficient.
The building itself is capital, because the landlord has to buy the materials and labor to build it. But the land itself isn't capital, because it has always exist.
Thus, it makes sense for a landlord to profit from how nice the facility is, but not from how close the building is to Amazon HQ2.
The amount that is built is proportional to the proffit in the endeavor. Some building projects are only funded on the assumption that they will be rented, allowing the business to take out a loan to build it that is based on the projected revenue from rent.
No renting = less housing. Simple as that.
construction will be paid upfront
Or carried on the books as debt and paid off over time. Seriously, center-right liberals like yourself could benefit from reading up on financial instruments and investments. You can't very well reform a system you don't understand.
But that can maybe be done directly by the initial investors and capitalists to the tenant too.
I feel like banning renting will create a situation like Islamic banking (they can't legally charge interest) where you have to pay rent anyway, but its called something different.
The rentals in my neighborhood are worth less than my home with smaller yards and slightly less square footage and rent is more than my mortgage was. Funny how people who cant afford a mortgage manage to pay a mortgage for someone else.
Serious post time: they deserve money for maintaining the property, but they don't deserve money from the value of the land itself.
Imagine you own a useless, valueless strip of land. Suddenly, Amazon moves HQ3 right next to your property. Now your useless strip of land is worth millions, through no effort of your own.
Land isn't the same as capital. If I don't invest in a company, they don't have a money to buy the things they need. But if I don't buy a plot of land, the land is still there. All I've done is made a nice fence around it.
Property is an asset. If I buy any asset I take a risk in its ownership. That risk is what permits me to profit off it it.
Amazon might by the property next door to mine making my property worth millions overnight, but a sewage plant run by crackheads might also move in next door making my property lose value.
Property management is a job found in all societies that have large amounts of housing, communist or capitalist. It's hard to argue that landlords are more exploitive than say, stock investors, as landlords are responsible for properties not turning into shitholes....on paper.
Something is valuablefor trade because it is both useful and scarce.
Capital refers to productive resources themselves or things that can be readily exchanged (are fungible) for productive resources.
Productive resources are useful because they let you make (and consume or sell) more things than you could without the resource (an tractor lets you grow more wheat than you could plowing by hand).
Productive resources are scarce because they have to be made using labor and raw materials that are also scarce (labor to build the tractor is scarce because it is difficult and we are mortal, and iron is scarce because it requires scarce tools and labor to find and extract).
Therefore, productive resources aka capital, are valuable.
​
Dollars (or yen, or francs, with or without gold backing) are a very common form of capital (financial capital) because dollars are are useful for paying taxes.
Dollars are scarce because only the Federal Reserve can issue them (and counterfeiting is punishable by long imprisonment).
Therefore, dollars are valuable. Financial capital in the form of dollars is valuable
So, I can trade my valuable financial capital, for things like plant capital (a warehouse, farmland), machine capital (a steel furnace, a combine tractor), human capital (training that enables me to provide a valuable service with my time, such as accounting), or other types of productive resources. I could even buy part or whole of company that owns a good mixture of these resources.
Most popularly, I can invest a dollar into a large company (such as one listed on the S&P 500) and expect to make 7% profit per year subject to some risk.
If something (like producing a movie) is more risky than stocks, investors require a greater expected return to be worth investing instead of just buying big companies. If it is less risky than stocks (like building grocery stores) investors are willing to invest and create competition driving profits down to lower rates of return before they stop investing.
In the long run, every type of investment is priced according to it's risk adjusted return, that is, they all eventually line up along the Security Market Line. Anything overpriced (performing worse than expected) is sold until it falls to the line. Anything underpriced (performing better than expected) is bought up until the price rises to the line.
Any time I buy something for myself, I give up that chance to make 7% on the stock market. This is opportunity cost. I want some things more strongly and urgently than others so I buy the things I think are worth it and forgo consumption that is not.
I buy a house because I desire having a roof over my head more than I desire making 7% on those funds but living on the sidewalk.
Individuals and developers build houses as long they think the house will be worth +7% more than the cost of building by the end of the year. On average they will be right, because to undercutting to build and sell houses for the risk-equivalent 6% profit is dumb when they could make 7% just buying stocks (actually the level is more like +3% because houses are historically less risky than stocks).
Either way, houses are both useful (I want a roof over my head), and they are scarce (because you could build a factory or buy some other investment instead). Scarce and useful means houses are valuable. Aka people are willing to pay to live in one.
​
Most people pay to live in a house by buying the house with their own capital or with a bank's capital via a mortage.
They can do this because the bank has a huge number of customers (less risk). The bank will accept a 3% return on it's capital instead of getting 7% on the stock market because mortgages are a less risky investment.
And the borrower is willing to pay that 3% return to the bank to have a place to sleep.
However, not everyone has the finincial capital to buy a house, and if their credit is poor, the only rate of return justifying the risk could be quite high.
So instead of getting a loan and paying both interest to the bank (say the equivalent of 7 or 8%) and make payments on the principal at the same time, they can rent.
When they rent, they are effectively just paying the interest and no principal. Assuming the average rental is about as risky as stocks, that interest rate is about 7%. They are paying the amount that makes it worthwhile for me to own (or build, because it is the same predicted rate of return in most years) a rental house instead of buying a factory or something else.
And they pay this amount again, because capital is valuable and they're tying it up.
​
Somtimes, say if a lot of people lose their jobs and move back with their parents or get roommates, there may be too many houses, and since houses can't be efficiently demolished to turn into other capital, owners will accept lower rents in the short term instead of selling the house at a loss just to switch to other investments.
But at the same time, no new houses will be built because investors don't want make less than what they could make in stocks.
When the population growth catches up (or people get rehired and move out again), there will again be enough demand for houses that the risk adjusted return on houses equals the risk adjusted return on stocks (or any other investment). And so houses will again earn about the same return as stocks. And if the return rises above stocks, investors will then switch to building houses until the return falls back to the equivalent of stocks.
And they they will stop building houses and buy stocks. Etc.
its similar to ticket scrapers who will buy up all the tickets to a concert and then resell them for profit. Except instead of concerts real estate investing does this with housing which is a bit more important
Scalpers take a product you would have bought anyway and simply make it more expensive, indeed adding no value.
Landlords on the other hand allow you temporary usage of a vastly more expensive product you would have needed years if not decades to pay back for had your only option been to purchase it.
Also, your states regulations that prevent and discourage construction of housing are why you are poor, not the landlord. What you are suffering from is actually a lack of capitalism.
Yeah, no, even with an engineer's salary you're not going to be buying shit in the non-crappy parts of LA. And to be fair LA landlords are really fucking sketchy.
.People should not be allowed to buy up houses just because they can afford to then rent then out to people who need them for a profit. Its a messed up system that is inherently exploitative
As a landlord, and in honor of the Chapos, I have decided to raise the rent of my tenants by $5 next month, so I can get more donation money like the Chapos do from their people
It just goes to show that they don't even understand the most basic idea of capitalism, which is the idea that when there is a demand for housing, a supply will spring up to meet it. But that's only true if the people on the supply side have an economic incentive to actually supply shit. There's no way banning renting wouldn't immediately result in a massive contraction of the housing supply.
They also are not at all thinking about the practical case, which is that some people move for work and absolutely need temporary lodging. If I go to some place for 1 year to work on a contract, I want a 1 year lease, not a fucking 30 year mortgage.
Plus, it would effectively make hotels illegal, or borderline illegal (you'd have to deal with constant linewalking on what constitutes a visit vs living there), so I have no idea where people are supposed to stay when they travel either.
As near as I can tell they think housing should be like power/water, but it has none of the qualities that make it a "natural monopoly". And can you imagine living in government housing? Your "landlord" would be a 30-years-in-the-job lifer who is effectively unfireable no matter what they do.
78 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-11-23
Buzzword is, itself, a buzzword now.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 CriticalConundrum 2018-11-23
It's a big one today
1 ConfuseTheJews 2018-11-23
The most capitalist and chud of the palsies
1 stalejokesunlimited 2018-11-23
1 gemininature 2018-11-23
I can now say I've seen a douchey-looking dudebro with cerebral palsy, wow
1 Vladith 2018-11-23
never watched breaking bad?
1 Therattlesnakemaster 2018-11-23
Virgin Uncle hank vs Chad Walt Jr
1 tron_funkin_blow 2018-11-23
Fucking Flynn. What an awful character.
1 pvijay187 2018-11-23
Do the work for me and show me the drama, I'm not wading in a front page comment section for the good parts
1 polddit 2018-11-23
Literally the first comment when clicking the link:
With 88 comments attached to that single comment thread you lazy cunt
1 ThePathToOne 2018-11-23
yeah it couldnt take anymore than 14 minutes to get through all the good comments in that thread
1 carthoris26 2018-11-23
It's great that votes don't change threads, otherwise you'd look like a real dumbass when that comment is buried beneath dozens of top level replies and doesn't even show up until you get to the bottom and click "load more comments".
1 zergling_Lester 2018-11-23
It's "sorted by controversial", but certain phone apps don't respect the sort order specified in the link, and that's how you can tell smelly filthy phoneposters apart!
1 yayaraptor 2018-11-23
This was pretty solid drama right here 👌🏿
1 Zacoftheaxes 2018-11-23
Communist hate landlords because they can enforce rules, which is the same problem they have with their parents.
1 bcat124 2018-11-23
Try saying that during the height of Stalinism lmao. God I wish I was alive during the cold war.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-11-23
They don't realize that in communist societies, the landlord behaves exactly the same or worse, except they're called "housing officers"
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-11-23
Oh to be a low-level apparatchik in post-Stalin Soviet Russia.
1 mohkohnsepicgun 2018-11-23
If the apparatchiks didn't report their quota of people every month for wrongthink they used to get taken away themselves. They also constantly reported each other in order to avoid being reported themselves. Statistically, low level party members were the most likely to get dragged off to the gulags. Most of them had severe mental health issues due to the stress of living hour by hour and never knowing when the knock would come on the door.
1 cimarafa 2018-11-23
Hence ‘post Stalin’, when the gulag population was much lower.
1 OscarGrey 2018-11-23
It's better for an average person to live in a ridiculously cramped apartment than for homeless people to exist. General population definitely won't resent this arrangement and the ideology that implemented it. /s Looking back at the commieblocks that I have visited in Poland and the one I lived in before moving to USA there's no way that shit would have worked with American obesity rates. Unless they manage to run public housing efficiently (lol).
1 PoopervilleRebelNews 2018-11-23
Wtf I love commieblocks now
1 SuperObviousShill 2018-11-23
Its more basic than that; rent is their single largest recurring expense, and bad shit happens if they're late or short on it. Its only because they live in an advanced society where food and entertainment are so cheap that it doesn't really eat at their income in the way rent does, which of course, is all thanks to capitalism.
So in a way they're right; under socialism they wouldn't have to worry about paying rent, they would be far too busy worrying about getting enough to eat.
1 DeadParacosms 2018-11-23
Unironically what do landlords produce in a market?
Completely honest question I don't know
1 IllegitimateLiteracy 2018-11-23
They produce housing that someone can live in without having to pay for its construction up front.
1 _ThtSounD 2018-11-23
Yeah its actually pretty cool when landlords will buy a bunch of big empty houses and turn them into apartments so people can actually afford to live in them.
1 DeadParacosms 2018-11-23
But isn't that what a middle man is?
Housing is going to built anyways and construction will be paid upfront even if it is indirectly by the tenant through the landlord.
The only thing I think that is being produced is that it stimulates housing being built and allows people to move in and out more freely than by paying mortgage.
But that can maybe be done directly by the initial investors and capitalists to the tenant too anyways.
1 IllegitimateLiteracy 2018-11-23
The landlord is the capitalist.
He used his CAPITAL to purchase the creation of housing.
He carries the risk for a CAPITAL INVESTMENT. If the property burns down, is destroyed or if it isn't kept up or if a new Hog Shit rendering plant opens up near by all his tenants can just up and move out. He is stuck with the loss.
Now, if a person in need of housing dealt directly with a lender themselves that is called a mortgage.
1 DeadParacosms 2018-11-23
I'm not saying no investments are occurring and that risk is not involved. That's too obvious so I didn't mention it.
What I asked is what they produce?
All three of your points: Were always true in pre-Capitalist times even when land was owned by an aristocratic 1%, they did the financing, upkeep, and at one time bought it with their own capital. Most people rented.
You can risk a lot of money in investments with your own capital and still not produce anything. The only strong argument I heard is that it stimulates growth of construction.
1 nithingpole 2018-11-23
Except that's concrete thinking of economics. A lot of services don't "produce" anything but we pay for them because they provide convenience or security.
1 IllegitimateLiteracy 2018-11-23
Just like you pay GM for the convenience of not having to design and build your own car.
You can pay a land lord for the convenience of not having to build and maintain a property.
1 ligga4nife 2018-11-23
Just like how I can pay a mugger for the convenience of not being stabbed.
1 _ThtSounD 2018-11-23
Thats actually exactly how capitalism works. If you don't like it there are many communist countries you could move to. There you can pay the government for the convenience of not being stabbed, much more efficient.
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-11-23
The building itself is capital, because the landlord has to buy the materials and labor to build it. But the land itself isn't capital, because it has always exist.
Thus, it makes sense for a landlord to profit from how nice the facility is, but not from how close the building is to Amazon HQ2.
1 SuperObviousShill 2018-11-23
The amount that is built is proportional to the proffit in the endeavor. Some building projects are only funded on the assumption that they will be rented, allowing the business to take out a loan to build it that is based on the projected revenue from rent.
No renting = less housing. Simple as that.
Or carried on the books as debt and paid off over time. Seriously, center-right liberals like yourself could benefit from reading up on financial instruments and investments. You can't very well reform a system you don't understand.
I feel like banning renting will create a situation like Islamic banking (they can't legally charge interest) where you have to pay rent anyway, but its called something different.
1 grep_var_log 2018-11-23
They take out the loan on the property your broke ass can't afford.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2018-11-23
Judging by the farm I bet that dude has never paid rent in his life
1 DeadParacosms 2018-11-23
Guys chill I'm just asking. And I have been paying rent when I was in college and now that I'm out working.
1 degorius 2018-11-23
The rentals in my neighborhood are worth less than my home with smaller yards and slightly less square footage and rent is more than my mortgage was. Funny how people who cant afford a mortgage manage to pay a mortgage for someone else.
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-11-23
Serious post time: they deserve money for maintaining the property, but they don't deserve money from the value of the land itself.
Imagine you own a useless, valueless strip of land. Suddenly, Amazon moves HQ3 right next to your property. Now your useless strip of land is worth millions, through no effort of your own.
Land isn't the same as capital. If I don't invest in a company, they don't have a money to buy the things they need. But if I don't buy a plot of land, the land is still there. All I've done is made a nice fence around it.
1 HaydenMcM 2018-11-23
Property is an asset. If I buy any asset I take a risk in its ownership. That risk is what permits me to profit off it it.
Amazon might by the property next door to mine making my property worth millions overnight, but a sewage plant run by crackheads might also move in next door making my property lose value.
1 100_Percent_not_homo 2018-11-23
...what?
1 RollBread 2018-11-23
They buy housing and rent it out at rates which someone with limited spending power can afford.
The problem is that in shitholes they aren't properly regulated and tend to end up being run like serf lands from medieval times.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-11-23
Property management is a job found in all societies that have large amounts of housing, communist or capitalist. It's hard to argue that landlords are more exploitive than say, stock investors, as landlords are responsible for properties not turning into shitholes....on paper.
1 SaIadcream 2018-11-23
Something is valuable for trade because it is both useful and scarce.
Capital refers to productive resources themselves or things that can be readily exchanged (are fungible) for productive resources.
Productive resources are useful because they let you make (and consume or sell) more things than you could without the resource (an tractor lets you grow more wheat than you could plowing by hand).
Productive resources are scarce because they have to be made using labor and raw materials that are also scarce (labor to build the tractor is scarce because it is difficult and we are mortal, and iron is scarce because it requires scarce tools and labor to find and extract).
Therefore, productive resources aka capital, are valuable.
​
Dollars (or yen, or francs, with or without gold backing) are a very common form of capital (financial capital) because dollars are are useful for paying taxes.
Dollars are scarce because only the Federal Reserve can issue them (and counterfeiting is punishable by long imprisonment).
Therefore, dollars are valuable. Financial capital in the form of dollars is valuable
So, I can trade my valuable financial capital, for things like plant capital (a warehouse, farmland), machine capital (a steel furnace, a combine tractor), human capital (training that enables me to provide a valuable service with my time, such as accounting), or other types of productive resources. I could even buy part or whole of company that owns a good mixture of these resources.
Most popularly, I can invest a dollar into a large company (such as one listed on the S&P 500) and expect to make 7% profit per year subject to some risk.
If something (like producing a movie) is more risky than stocks, investors require a greater expected return to be worth investing instead of just buying big companies. If it is less risky than stocks (like building grocery stores) investors are willing to invest and create competition driving profits down to lower rates of return before they stop investing.
In the long run, every type of investment is priced according to it's risk adjusted return, that is, they all eventually line up along the Security Market Line. Anything overpriced (performing worse than expected) is sold until it falls to the line. Anything underpriced (performing better than expected) is bought up until the price rises to the line.
Any time I buy something for myself, I give up that chance to make 7% on the stock market. This is opportunity cost. I want some things more strongly and urgently than others so I buy the things I think are worth it and forgo consumption that is not.
I buy a house because I desire having a roof over my head more than I desire making 7% on those funds but living on the sidewalk.
Individuals and developers build houses as long they think the house will be worth +7% more than the cost of building by the end of the year. On average they will be right, because to undercutting to build and sell houses for the risk-equivalent 6% profit is dumb when they could make 7% just buying stocks (actually the level is more like +3% because houses are historically less risky than stocks).
Either way, houses are both useful (I want a roof over my head), and they are scarce (because you could build a factory or buy some other investment instead). Scarce and useful means houses are valuable. Aka people are willing to pay to live in one.
​
Most people pay to live in a house by buying the house with their own capital or with a bank's capital via a mortage.
They can do this because the bank has a huge number of customers (less risk). The bank will accept a 3% return on it's capital instead of getting 7% on the stock market because mortgages are a less risky investment.
And the borrower is willing to pay that 3% return to the bank to have a place to sleep.
However, not everyone has the finincial capital to buy a house, and if their credit is poor, the only rate of return justifying the risk could be quite high.
So instead of getting a loan and paying both interest to the bank (say the equivalent of 7 or 8%) and make payments on the principal at the same time, they can rent.
When they rent, they are effectively just paying the interest and no principal. Assuming the average rental is about as risky as stocks, that interest rate is about 7%. They are paying the amount that makes it worthwhile for me to own (or build, because it is the same predicted rate of return in most years) a rental house instead of buying a factory or something else.
And they pay this amount again, because capital is valuable and they're tying it up.
​
Somtimes, say if a lot of people lose their jobs and move back with their parents or get roommates, there may be too many houses, and since houses can't be efficiently demolished to turn into other capital, owners will accept lower rents in the short term instead of selling the house at a loss just to switch to other investments.
But at the same time, no new houses will be built because investors don't want make less than what they could make in stocks.
When the population growth catches up (or people get rehired and move out again), there will again be enough demand for houses that the risk adjusted return on houses equals the risk adjusted return on stocks (or any other investment). And so houses will again earn about the same return as stocks. And if the return rises above stocks, investors will then switch to building houses until the return falls back to the equivalent of stocks.
And they they will stop building houses and buy stocks. Etc.
​
​
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-23
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/038/094/0a1.jpg
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 100_Percent_not_homo 2018-11-23
The ability for retards who destroyed their credit with payday loans to live somewhere by taking on the risk of dealing with them
1 ligga4nife 2018-11-23
I mean to be fair landlords are parasites.
1 -Steve_French- 2018-11-23
Why can't I live somewhere for free like at mommy's house ☹️☹️☹️
1 ligga4nife 2018-11-23
I dont want people to let me live in their property for free, what I want is for people to not buy up property just so they can collect rent on it.
1 crudehumourisdivine 2018-11-23
if they aren't paying rent they are in fact living there for free
1 Subbs 2018-11-23
Why?
1 ligga4nife 2018-11-23
Because it adds no value to society.
its similar to ticket scrapers who will buy up all the tickets to a concert and then resell them for profit. Except instead of concerts real estate investing does this with housing which is a bit more important
1 Subbs 2018-11-23
The possibility to pay for a temporary residence without having to massively invest into buying property adds no value to society?
1 ligga4nife 2018-11-23
I guess they do provide value then, just like ticket scalpers provide value by giving people access to sold out concerts
1 Subbs 2018-11-23
Scalpers take a product you would have bought anyway and simply make it more expensive, indeed adding no value.
Landlords on the other hand allow you temporary usage of a vastly more expensive product you would have needed years if not decades to pay back for had your only option been to purchase it.
1 ligga4nife 2018-11-23
would it take me years or decades to buy a house if landlords werent buying them all up and then making me pay 40% of my salary to them?
1 Subbs 2018-11-23
Yes. Yes it would.
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-11-23
Yes. Also, your "salary" sounds like $8 an hour at a part time job.
1 ligga4nife 2018-11-23
I live in Los Angeles
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-11-23
just move lol.
Also, your states regulations that prevent and discourage construction of housing are why you are poor, not the landlord. What you are suffering from is actually a lack of capitalism.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-11-23
Yeah, no, even with an engineer's salary you're not going to be buying shit in the non-crappy parts of LA. And to be fair LA landlords are really fucking sketchy.
1 FieldMarshalHaig 2018-11-23
WTF?
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-11-23
I agree. It's absurd we allow it.
1 PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 2018-11-23
What do you suggest as an alternative?
1 TheBlightStar 2018-11-23
Everybody gets a house and a white picket fence.
1 hitlerallyliteral 2018-11-23
more👏disabled👏landlords
1 bcat124 2018-11-23
redundant
1 ConfuseTheJews 2018-11-23
As a landlord, and in honor of the Chapos, I have decided to raise the rent of my tenants by $5 next month, so I can get more donation money like the Chapos do from their people
1 tron_funkin_blow 2018-11-23
r/pics is the worst.
1 mohkohnsepicgun 2018-11-23
Drinking when read this. Came out of my nose.
1 SuperObviousShill 2018-11-23
It just goes to show that they don't even understand the most basic idea of capitalism, which is the idea that when there is a demand for housing, a supply will spring up to meet it. But that's only true if the people on the supply side have an economic incentive to actually supply shit. There's no way banning renting wouldn't immediately result in a massive contraction of the housing supply.
They also are not at all thinking about the practical case, which is that some people move for work and absolutely need temporary lodging. If I go to some place for 1 year to work on a contract, I want a 1 year lease, not a fucking 30 year mortgage.
Plus, it would effectively make hotels illegal, or borderline illegal (you'd have to deal with constant linewalking on what constitutes a visit vs living there), so I have no idea where people are supposed to stay when they travel either.
As near as I can tell they think housing should be like power/water, but it has none of the qualities that make it a "natural monopoly". And can you imagine living in government housing? Your "landlord" would be a 30-years-in-the-job lifer who is effectively unfireable no matter what they do.
1 MoonCricketJamFace 2018-11-23
Holy shit, not real communism in Cuba or Venezuela 😂😂😂
1 -Steve_French- 2018-11-23
Replace landlord with parents and you've solved Reddit communism.
1 I-hate-trump 2018-11-23
Fags
1 Cholestorol-kun 2018-11-23
Tankies attacking my fellow Texans smh
Once we get our oil money flowing full rate we will make Saudi Arabia look like a preschool
1 onenight1234 2018-11-23
That really should prove to everyone being a landlord is just “I had rich parents and I’m a retard” though
1 cruelandusual 2018-11-23
That's the sob story they enforce the rules on? Sounds like the /r/pics mod team has a commie infestation.