Couldn’t the government just do that?
I missed a bet here.
Instead of taking this opportunity to try to teach this fool the difference between collateralize debt -vs- non, which is a patently pointless activity, and I really need to stop doing shiz like that… I should have just simply and directly replied to the actual Q at hand…
WTF, you don’t even know how credit cards work ???/?
They do, in small samples. For example NYCHA
It’s just too expensive to do this on national scale and multiple times over.
To do this in a downtown metropolitan city would require up to 100M$ to build just a few hundred rentals.
So, 1250 posts in, and we still haven’t settled down enough to even start in on the ‘arguing’. Sigh. OK, like Charlie Brown & the football, I’ll try once again to get things off dead center on this ‘arguing’ front.
Hypothetical A: The eviction moratorium ends.
Hypothetical B: The eviction moratorium extends indefinitely.
Metric #1: Less violence.
Metric #2: (tba)
| # | Metric | A | B | currently being ‘argued’ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Less Violence | X | ||
| #2 | (tba) |
OK, since our liberal friends seem to be quite bashful about getting started, I’ll kick things off.
Metric #1: I’ll make the positive argument that there is less violence under hypothetical B as compared to hypothetical A. That’s because everything is the same in both hypothetical, except B has no evictions. So pretty much by definition.
So liberals, the ball is in your court. You can (a) make a rebuttal to my above positive ‘argument’ regarding Metric #1. You can (b) nominate a metric for Metric #2. Let the ‘arguing’ begin !!!1!
I know you got the same interwebs as I do, so if you have Qs about how reality works… why don’t you go google that shiz yourself, instead of asking me to google that shiz for you.
This is IL, the first result the google gods served up to me, but I’m going to guess CA has the same status-quo.
EXECUTIVE ORDER IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19
(COVID-19 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 14)WHEREAS , I, JB Pritzker, Governor of Illinois, declared all counties in the State of Illinois as a disaster area on March 9, 2020 (“Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation”) in response to the outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”); and,
WHEREAS , in a short period of time, COVID-19 has rapidly spread throughout Illinois, necessitating updated and more stringent guidance from federal, state, and local public health officials; and,
WHEREAS , for the preservation of public health and safety throughout the entire State of Illinois, and to ensure that our healthcare delivery system is capable of serving those who are sick, I find it necessary to take additional measures consistent with public health guidance to slow and stop the spread of COVID-19; and,
WHEREAS , in communities with confirmed COVID-19 cases, the CDC currently recommends mitigation measures, including practicing social distancing, staying at home when sick, staying home when a household member is sick with respiratory disease symptoms or when instructed to do so by public health officials or a healthcare provider, and keeping away from others who are sick; and,
WHEREAS , social distancing, which consists of maintaining at least a six-foot distance between people, is the paramount strategy for minimizing the spread of COVID-19 in our communities; and,
WHEREAS , on March 20, 2020, I issued Executive Order 2020-10 to prohibit all travel except Essential Travel and Essential Activities, as those terms are defined in that Executive Order; and,
WHEREAS , Executive Order 2020-10 identified security staff as a critical trade within the category of Essential Businesses and Operations; and,
WHEREAS , COVID-19 has resulted in significant economic impact, including loss of income and wages, that threaten to undermine financial security; and,
WHEREAS , the repossession of vehicles is contrary to the interest of preserving public health and ensuring that individuals are able to engage in permitted travel while limiting their use of public transportation and maintaining social distancing;
THEREFORE , by the powers vested in me as the Governor of the State of Illinois, and pursuant to Sections 7(1), 7(8), and 7(12) of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, 20 ILCS 3305, I hereby Order the following:
Section 1. Beginning March 27, 2020 and continuing for the duration of the Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation, the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, 810 ILCS 5/9-609, regarding the possession or usability of a vehicle, and the provisions of the Illinois Vehicle Code, 625 ILCS 5/3-114, regarding the repossession of vehicles, are suspended. No provision contained in this Executive Order shall be construed as relieving any individual of the obligation to make payments or comply with any other obligation that an individual may have pursuant to a loan agreement or otherwise.
Section 2. During the duration of the Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation, the provisions of the Private Detective, Private Alarm, Private Security, Fingerprint Vendor, and Locksmith Act of 2004, 225 ILCS 447/20-20(a) and 225 ILCS 447/25-20(a), requiring training to be completed in the classroom, are suspended. Any training required pursuant to the Private Detective, Private Alarm, Private Security, Fingerprint Vendor, and Locksmith Act of 2004 may be completed through online instruction.
Issued by the Governor March 26, 2020
Filed by the Secretary of State March 26, 2020
{insert “liberals are lazy” meme here}
now that’s a good post
He didn’t make the thread.
Well I’d imagine both. Unlike the case with mortgages, a PMI like insurance would be a neutral to renters.
Renters becoming freeholders would be a great boon, the greatest boon of all boons possible.
Thanks, you just made my ‘argument’ for me !!!1!
lol you’re used to being respected huh?
This is called building a strawman.
I like how at no point did you consider listening to the other side and understanding how they explain their positions or their reasons for disagreeing. It’s already assumed you know everything they could have the same and just have to elighten their ignorance.
While nonpayment insurance might be neutral to renters as a whole if you assume that existing rental market is perfectly efficient (which I do not), it still would create a few issues.
1.) Renters who pay their rent on time each month and also pay the insurance will be subsidizing those who choose not to pay and also refuse to leave, freeloading off of others. So essentially rent + insurance would cost a lot more for most people in order for this to be a net neutral for all renters.
2.) The premiums would likely be based on credit ratings which means it will be a bigger burden for the poorest renters, or those people who do not already have credit.
You can say renters becoming owners en mass will be a boon, but you need to keep in mind
1.) Not all renters will qualify for mortgages, some might be left out. I think the idea that prices will just drop until these people can buy a home is not in line with reality. Reality is that housing prices are sticky and owners will just hold an empty house before selling it at significant loss.
2.) Home ownership comes with the burden of maintenance and unpredictable expenses, we have heard that 40% of people in USA today will struggle to handle an unexpected $400 expense, but this is a common thing for a homeowner.
3.) The transaction costs of moving when you are a homeowner are much higher than as a renter. This leads to a decrease in mobility of people which is likely to lead to higher unemployment.
LOL no. That’s not what ‘strawman’ even means. But, don’t bother your pretty little head over that entire post at all. It was simply my response to @geewhysee 's comment regarding frustration. Off topic, if you will.
Well, I can flowchart the liberals so-called “arguments” before they make them. It’s like I’m the Astros and somebody is banging that trash can. Or… is it magic? But LOL @ me trying to enlighten anyone’s ignorance. Why would I want to do that?
Now that’s just not fair. If my feelings were ever hurt while conspicuous wasting time here on Unstuck, they’d be hurt now.
I’ve made a positive ‘argument’ regarding M#1: that there is less violence in hypo-B than hypo-A. I’ve invited the liberals to nominate a M#2.
So far, no liberal has of yet disagreed with my ‘argument’ regarding M#1. If one were to, I’d happily listen to them explain their positions or their reasons for disagreeing. So far, no liberal has nominated a M#2. If one were to, I’d happily hear out the other “side” and I always chat in good faith.
But, I’m not going to ‘argue’ with myself ITT. SMH at that shiz. Some liberal has got to step up to the plate too.
When I said this was an adult conversation, I meant the subject matter. I certainly didn’t mean we were conducting this chat on the interwebs in an adult manner. Any chat with @DrChesspain trolling over there, @anon10396289 Semantiking™ over here, and @clovis8 & @boredsocial playing through with their special brand of idiocy & me reacting to it all with my special brand of derision… no, there’s nothing adult about that shiz at all.
The government could, but then you are essentially arguing for central planning of housing stock, and people like me will say that central planning leads to poor outcomes. You need independent actors on both the supply and demand side to have a well functioning market which is actually determining what type of housing people want relative to other goods and how much of society’s resources should be going into housing versus production of other goods. Then Sabo will call me Mr. Econ smartypants and ask whatabout Georgism, which has nothing to do with government supplying the housing, and 250 posts later we will end that sidetrack and circle back here all a little more mentally tired and annoyed at each other.
I was going to stay away from the violence argument because I don’t have a strong opinion, but I can’t really agree that permanent moratorium on evictions will be less violent. All ownership or right to exclusive use of real estate is back by implied violence. Whether the job of the men with guns is to evict renters who don’t pay or to keep away landlords who want to repossess their property when there is non payment, they are still there as an implied threat to someone.
OK VG. And when I said that I can flowchart these chats… I meant, of course, that I usually know what’s coming up next. But not always. Not this time.
So now i’m going to ask you a buncha Qs that you most likely will find annoying. But, I will lay off making fun of the liberals. I promise you that I’m not messing with you. But you’ll really just need to trust me on that, at least at first.
So, the “men with guns” are the cops ?
Yes in most cases men with guns would be cops. In some cases it could be the property owner or renter themselves or private security.
OK VG.
What would be the different pairs of antagonists in these various armed confrontation scenarios?
From { cop-cop, cop-security, cop-owner, cop-renter, security-security, security-owner, security-renter, owner-renter}.
Where would these armed confrontations take place?
From {renters homes, owners homes, security company owners homes, security guards homes, cops homes, security company offices, cop stations, elsewhere in public}.