Abolishing landlords -- it's well past time

[Sabo]

[Sabo]

Dude, this is even below the level of Mr.Econ smarty-pants gibberish stupid.

If you don’t have any wealth you have to rent. And after a lifetime of renting you get… nothing. Paying rent always ‘creates’ exactly -zero- wealth for the renter.

[6ix]

@geewhysee

The people who want houses will buy them and they’ll pay what the houses are worth. Where does anyone get money? You want me to explain like where money comes from?

[6ix]

@geewhysee

Like I get that getting free money for no effort is cool. I like the fact that I get it from the house I own. I’m just saying it’s legalised theft.

So the new cliffs are basically,

Point: It’s legalized theft.

Counterpoint: It’s legalized theft!

?

[6ix]

@NotBruceZ

Maybe wealth creation should be less of a priority.

no way bro if i can’t get wealthy whilst people die in a gutter i’m just gonna lay down and die in a gutter myself

[bbb7979]

@microbet

The answer to that would be people want to own their home so they don’t pay rent and so they could do whatever they like - paint it whatever color - add on and such - be guaranteed to be able to stay.

If there are no evictions renters are guaranteed to be able to stay, right? Come to think of it, they don’t even have to pay their rent

[Sabo]

I think you might be confusing the discussion of Georgist systems (which have evictions) -vs- our status-quo in the US (which does not have evictions for non-payment).

Which is perfectly understandable, as several systems have been discussed ITT (OPPSQ, status-quo in the US, Georgist theory, status-quo in Singapore, etc/etc). And… the fact that a subset of the liberals have been trolling heavily, and I’ve been calling them out on it, certainly doesn’t help in keeping things straight either.

[geewhysee]

@6ix

So the new cliffs are basically,

Point: It’s legalized theft.

Counterpoint: It’s legalized theft!

fyp

[bbb7979]

It would be easy to keep things straight if you actually proposed a credible alternative to the current system that is the ‘better’ approach than reaching into some grab bag of ideas depending on what the objection is.

You want to abolish the current system and replace with what? Georgism? The current system property ownership and legal eviction process (in USA?) but the Sheriff is no longer willing to show up and remove evicted tenants? A centrally planned housing market?

I really don’t know becuase you change the subject in an attempt to score points or something. Seems like you only want to argue against things but don’t really have a credible position in mind despite making the thread

[danby]

bbb7979,

It’s not really an argument with an actual credible alternative. It’s more an airing of grievances against the current system.

The arguments break down the moment 1 counter argument is presented.

“Arbitrarily cap property values? Well what happens to the poor people that own equity in their homes and it evaporates?”

“Well gee, we never thought that far.”

[geewhysee]

You believe that’s an accurate recap of the last 100 posts or so? That exact question was literally asked and answered. Honestly @sabo I know you bring me into these threads for your own dark amusement but man it’s frustrating.

[Sabo]

@bbb7979

It would be easy to keep things straight if you actually proposed a credible alternative to the current system

• First, it’s not my OP. I’m just chatting along here like you or anyone else. Have you proposed a “better” approach to our status-quo in the US (without evictions for non-payment) yourself? If so, I missed it, my bad.

• Second, I’m not into fantasizing about the “sweet by and by”. Just not my style.

• Third, I am making a positive argument. I’m on the conservative (in the sense of preserving the status quo) side here. My ‘argument’ is simple to express: For now, let’s keep things just like they are.

becuase you change the subject in an attempt to score points or something

I’m not changing the subject at all. I’m not trying to ‘score points’ in the sense you mean. And once again, it’s not my OP.

What I’m attempting to do has nothing to do with the content ITT. Making a non-trivial ‘argument’ will necessarily be of the form: A, B, C, D => Z, where A,B,C,D are premises, and Z is the conclusion. What you perceive as “changing the subject” is addressing different As and Bs in parallel.

In this case I’ve been working on a A (driving a spike through Tina), and working on a B (driving a spike through Mr.Econ). Georgism is the perfect spike to do both, But that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m ‘arguing’ for Georgism. And, as I mentioned above, I am not.

It’s a complicated subject, some baked in ‘quirks’ in our language make it hard for some folks to follow along, and a lot of these concepts have been, and are, the subject of massive propaganda campaigns. It’s not, for example, the childish gibberish of Mr.Econ or the eternal “messaging wars” between the donkeys and elephants. It’s an actual adult conversation. Nobody said those were easy.

[anon10396289]

The conservative position is keeping the status quo, including violent evictions.

[Crunchyblack]

He’s saying that isn’t the current status quo, which I think is mostly accurate.

[bbb7979]

I will apologze for saying it was your OP. At some point one of your posts drew me into the thread and I really forgot that wasn’t where it started.

Anyway I think if you don’t have a better plan that you are willing to stand up for, then you haven’t driven a spike through anything. You’ve just proposed alternative ideas that may have some advantages but also may come with their own issues, which you do not want to discuss because you are not here to defend ideas, only attack.

[anon10396289]

Oh man. The month-old pandemic-induced emergency moratorium on evictions cannot be reasonably described as the status quo, and maintaining it cannot be described as the conservative position. Just dishonest nonsense.

[Crunchyblack]

Seems like the dictionary definition of the current status quo 🤷

ETA this seems like the potential beginning of a classic semantikes derail that we should just skip

[Sabo]

@bbb7979

I think if you don’t have a better plan that you are willing to stand up for

Uh, I do have a plan. Conserving our post-pandemic status-quo. If any of the liberals wanna make a positive argument to, say, how we should meekly go back to the pre-pandemic status-quo for our own good, they’re welcome to do so. Then we could commence with the ‘arguing’.

What I * feel * you want me to do instead, is come up with some science fiction like fantasy on the spur of the moment, so you can nit-pick a hypothetical. Well I’m not going to write any The Dispossessed fan fiction for you ITT. Sorry to disappoint.

@bbb7979

issues, which you do not want to discuss because you are not here to defend ideas, only attack.

I’m happy to discuss any issues that conserving the post-pandemic status-quo may have. If the issue is Tina, I feel like I’ve already addressed that. If the issue is Mr.Econ, I feel like I’ve already addressed that too. I haven’t noticed any of the liberals bringing up any other issues besides Tina & Mr.Econ. Maybe I missed something. If so, my bad.

And as I’ve mentioned above ITT, making fun of the liberals (which you lol-tastically characterized as “attack”… lighten up Charlie !!!1!) is not mutually exclusive with making a point. I can, and do, regularly accomplish both in the same post.

[bbb7979]

@Sabo

I’m not changing the subject at all. I’m not trying to ‘score points’ in the sense you mean. And once again, it’s not my OP.

You literally posted a fake scoreboard less than 100 posts ago

@Sabo

It’s an actual adult conversation. Nobody said those were easy.

Go back and read your posts. You post nonsenical memes, call people stupid or their posts childish gibberish then say things like ‘have they given up and stuffed their liberal pie-holes with towels?’

Nothing you put into this thread is adult, 80% of your work is like a monkey flinging poop and laughing about it.

[boredsocial]

I really really really do not get the desire among leftists to have the state micro manage the economy. It’s like you guys have never dealt with government employees or something. Some of them are great sure, but some of them are terrible.

You want the wealth of society distributed more fairly. You want the gini coefficient to go down.

The right way to go about that isn’t to create a powerful class of government bureaucrats who make decisions about who owns what… the right way to go about that is to tax the shit out of whoever wins the game.

Like there’s recent work that’s been done on this. Go read the two most recent Piketty books instead of bringing in 19th century ideas that have already been tried and failed at least as hard as capitalism.

The governments role is to set the rules and enforce those rules. Property ownership works fine as is, what doesn’t work is the tax avoidance in real estate. The source of every single bad thing you guys describe in the landlord/tenant relationship is the power imbalance between rich people and poor people. There’s absolutely nothing abusive or wrong going on between me a upper middle class guy and my probably extremely wealthy real estate investor landlord… because he has absolutely no leverage over me and I can pay as agreed without any hiccups.

All of the anti landlord points in this thread assume that there will always be poor people. I reject that totally. The crime here is that our society still has poor people. Why? Why should some people be poor? That’s the problem we should be working on.

The issues with slumlords aren’t more pressing in my mind than the issues with payday lenders, bail bondsmen, buy-here-pay-here car lots, or any of the other symptoms of some people living in poverty in the richest country in the world. All of these businesses will go away when there’s no demand for their services. Until the demand goes away they will just reconfigure to skirt around any rule you put in place. The poor will always be targeted by predators until they stop being poor.

Let’s attack this problem at its source. It’s a hard problem, but ironically it’s simpler to fix than fucking real estate law, and it won’t involve pissing off every homeowner in America. Like when you talk about things to build a movement around reforming real estate to gain small marginal improvements for poor renters… this is not an argument that does anything but repel tons of people.

Like shit I’m pretty far left and I’m hugely turned off. Consider that might mean you’re doing it wrong.