An important distinction between what is happening today versus what would happen in the long term is that people are essentially frozen in place today. Young graduates are not getting entry level jobs and moving out of their family’s house. Couples are not upgrading to bigger houses as babies come. Maybe people got a taste of not paying their rent but the negative effects are not yet seen due to the virus and the expectation that things will go back to the way they were.
Folks,
This isn’t all guesswork/Mr.Econ/ball scratching. It’s a big world, it’s been around awhile, and all sorts of things have happened during that time. Like… I heard a rumor that there are no evictions in Dublin. Maybe that might be of interest. In fact, IDK how common evictions are in the world. I doubt Dublin is unique.
Also, rent strikes weren’t invented by Covix. Rent strikes helped take down apartheid in South Africa, and segued immediately to defending renting folk from the ANC. Rent strikes and occupations continue today. Maybe check out that kinda history too.
They got a taste of not having a “lord” over them. Instead of being told what to do and meekly submitting… they decided what was going to be. It really doesn’t matter if they decided “good” or “bad” in some short run.
They got a taste, and they’ll remember what getting a taste felt like. They’ll want more tastes.
This calls for a story.
On November 30th, 1999 I had the worst flu of my life. The tear gas wafting from a block down wasn’t helping at all. I had never been in Seattle before, I can’t even tell you exactly where we were. But we participated in the damnest thing.
The intersection was packed with peeps just milling around. The robocops marched up, and announced they were going to cross the street. The people milling about called a meeting, had some votes, and said the cops could cross the street if they disarmed or went in pairs or something. The cops decided to go around the block,
I got a taste.
2 Likes
Not sure if this is just trolling.
If the tenant can name whatever price they want to relinquish possession, then they essentially own the property in any practical sense. Yes the landlord could buy it back from them but why would the tenant accept just a few months rent if there was no threat of eviction. And what if the landlord gives them the few months rent and then they change their mind and decide not to vacate? Can the Sheriff get involved then?
Obviously it does not cost the landlord nothing. Renting and then giving the rent back, having a property occupied but gaining no revenue creates costs. Whatever is put into maintenance, taxes, insurance, depreciation, etc. It costs the landlord their own time or the money they pay a manager to interact with the tenant. It costs the landlord an opportunity to use the property for other purposes during the time the renter is there. There are all sorts of costs
1 Like
Of course it does. If a robber takes $500 from a victim, and the victim later recovers $200, the robber didn’t “lose” $200. He’s up $300.
As long as the landlord has collected more rent than they give back (less maintenance) they didn’t lose a fucking penny. Gee, by that logic, if the landlord just didn’t rent the house out, he would have “lost” more than the house was even worth in about seven years… and he’d still own the same damn house.
I’d love to see you GAAT that up for me. In fact, standard accounting kills Mr.Econ smarty-pants way better than standard economics. The problem is, of course, Mr.Econ smarty-pants can’t even do bookkeeping, so he won’t believe it.
Bottom line: Forgone opportunity cost is not “losing”.
Here’s another think I love about capitalist propaganda. Only the capitalist has opportunity cost.
The renter forgoes no opportunity cost when he pays rent. The wage earner forgoes no opportunity cost when they go to the factory. A day off at home… worthless. All of our time is worthless… unless we’re somehow making some absentee capitalist richer.
Of course property owners are losing money by just owning the property and paying taxes, insurance, etc. Yes they still own it afterward, but they’ve paid the money in the meantime. This is offset by either getting to use the property themselves or collect an income stream from it. If you take both of those away then they just lose and “owning” becomes just a form of liability since the renter has all the control over the property but the owner still has obligations.
Of course all of these have opportunity cost, no one said otherwise, claiming anyonein this thread has the quoted view is another strawman.
In a world where leases are enforced, the renter is giving up his opportunity to spend the same money on a different residence or on substitute goods.and the landlord is giving up his opportunity to use the property himself or rent to someone else. A mutual exchange where each side gives up opportunity, no robbery involved.
In the last two posts you have decided to revert to calling landlords robbers for daring to expect any compensation for the use of their property and then made up some bullshit fake propaganda. I think you also misspelled GAAP or used some arcane acronym no one in the actual business world uses, while accusing me of not understanding accounting. Maybe you should slow down and think if you are really communicating the message you intend to.
If tenants don’t get evicted, why would any tenant ever pay rent?
So this nice 700k condo I live in I can defacto own it forever by stopping my rent payment and there is no recourse to removing me.
I don’t get it. This appeals to deadbeatism.
If a builder builds 200 apartment units and he can’t evict non payers, why would he ever build housing again? None of this makes sense.
Dude, I said less maintenance. And sure, I could have said maintenance/etc to include insurance, and in those jurisdictions that have property tax, property tax. But I figured anyone would assume that. Yes I know there’s insurance and taxes, and you really should know that i know. And I kinda feel you are doing a “gotcha” here.
The point remains you were counting opp costs as “losing”.
Second, a lot of this so-called objections are just whining about the poor, poor, poor landlord not making as much profit as back in the bad old days when there used to be evictions. Of course there will be less rent-seeking (aka landlord profit) if there is less rent-seeking (aka landlord profit). That just makes me laugh. Decreasing rent-seeking is the #1 goal, for goodness sake. Remember what standard economics says happens when we decrease rent seeking (aka landlord profits)… we get more wealth creation. That’s a good thing? Right ??? ? ??? ???
It’s like bailing a boat, and complaining about all that water we are tossing overboard. That’s the whole flipping point.
Seriously, what makes you folks so paranoid. I never said anyone ITT said that. I said capitalist propaganda. I’m assuming no Unstuckers write text books and such. SMH. My point is look at any undergrad Econ textbook.
That’s not what robbery means. Robbery isn’t about “feelings” or whatever this gibberish of yours was supposed to be trying to say. What the fuck does “daring” have to with anything. How do you folks even come up with this shit? It’s so bizarre. And stupid… it takes a lot of daring to be a stickup robber. Buying REIT stock doesn’t take any daring at all. According to the TV commercials, a baby can do it from their crib. Do you even know what “daring” even means? WTF BBQ ???/? Once again, were all you folks raised by wolfs. SMH.
The “daring landlord”… a baby with a cell phone hiding behind the Sheriff. LMFAO. I’d love to see a statue of this. Like I said… where do you folks even come up with this shiz? It’s hilarious.
Look above several times ITT where I explained that the landlord racket is exactly the same as the protection racket. Exactly the same, except one is legal, and the other is not.
And LOL @ all this whining that landlords are being called names. Why do you think scolding me about calling landlord names isn’t going to do anything but make me laugh. And seriously, if landlords don’t like being called thieves and robbers… well that just puts them in the same boat as the other thieves and robbers, now doesn’t it. Nobody “forces” anyone to become a thieve or robber or landlord. If they don’t care to be called those things, they can always stop doing them. Maybe landlords could learn to code, do the landlords really need to go to Starbucks, why didn’t the landlord save some money?
I’m sure shoplifters don’t care to be called names either. How come you aren’t whining about shoplifters being called thieves too ???/? Why the double standard ???/?
-
Well, credit card debtors don’t get evicted. Why would any credit card debtor pay their bills?
-
I heard a rumor they don’t have evictions in Dublin. Do you imagine nobody in Dublin ever pays any rent?
I’ll be repeating this same exact post back to you in about 24 hours… now won’t I?
I didn’t realize banks let you continue using their credit card after you stop making payments.
GTFO and STOP TROLLING!!!666
1 Like
The average credit card interest rate is 19% while the average car loan interest rate is 5%.
This is exactly what I was talking about. The desperate desire to make this argument was the reason for the 500 post derail about quatus stos.
(There are evictions in Dublin.)
The point of the locks question which wasn’t trolling or bad faith you couch-fainters, was to show that this debate isn’t about swat teams or violence or stick-ups or whatever fearmongering was taking place earlier. Changing locks doesn’t require any of those.
This is really about collateralized vs. uncollateralized debt. Not surprising that many in the “Mr. Econ hankypants” crowd have trouble seeing why one results in much higher rates and less credit access than the other.
This has already been asked and answered above ITT. Multiple times IIRC. Read the fucking thread, troll !!!1!
I’m calling BS on your alleged realization. I think you are just making shit up to troll again. But sure… go ahead and give us all a cite that shows “banks let you continue using their credit card after you stop making payments.” You said it… prove it. Or STFU.
If this was 2+2, I’d be calling “cite or ban” on your trolling ass. Stop trolling asshole !!!1!
No
[quote=“DrChesspain, post:1551, topic:1424, full:true”]
Stop trolling asshole !!!1!
So, what have we seen this morning…
Well, a very emotional plea, I guess. A peep was very upset that landlords were being called names. Some lol-tastical super emotional gibberish about daring… that didn’t make a lick-o-sense. And a whole lotta whining about landlords not making as much profit as they used to do back in the bad old days when there were evictions.
LOL, there’s no crying in the “free” market. At one point the absentee owners of the buggy-whip factories were raking in their unearned cash. Then the car happened. But did the buggy-whip makers cry? Well sure they did, but everyone else laughed at them. They gambled, and they didn’t win as much as they’d have liked to. Just like when I bet on my Patriots vs the Eagles in that Superb Owl. Did I cry? No. Why? Because there is no crying in the “free” market.
LOL, there’s no crying in the “free” market. At one point the landlords could use the threat of violence, and cruel gratuitous homelessness to artificially inflate their profits. Then the Covix happened. But did the landlords cry? Well sure they did, but everyone else laughed at them. They gambled, and they didn’t win as much as they’d have liked to. Just like when I bet on my Red Sox vs the Mets in that World Series. Did I cry? Well no, but damn it, Buckner usually gets to that ball. Why? Because there is no crying in the “free” market.
The world doesn’t owe the REIT shareholders a living. The REIT shareholders could learn to code, do the REIT shareholders really need to go to Starbucks, maybe the REIT shareholders should have saved some money.
