I guess you missed the several posts above where I mentioned tension.
LOL why would I want to stop that. I’d offer you mutual aid if you did. I’m in favor of squatting. The fact that the status-quo might not be viable for the landlord class is not a bug, it’s a feature. The fact that the status-quo could destabilize the whole damn system is a not a bug, it’s a feature.
It’s real simple. This is the “good”…
This is the “bad”…
They don’t teach this in ECON 101.
I live in a 700K condo that I rent. It’s not 1 million but it should exist because I am willing to pay to live in it?
Ok, fair enough. Thanks for the reply. I think much of your reply is not really about the substantive argument, it’s just a criticism of my writing. I’m happy to concede that I don’t write as well as could be desired.
One thing I didn’t understand:
Both of these statements seem obviously false to me. So much so, that I’m wondering if maybe I misunderstood you. But I’m also curious, would you say this is the crux of why it’s a “so what” for you? I’m wondering if it’s worth pursuing this disagreement or not.
As to this question:
The outlined argument was already an attempt to answer the question. The answer was, in a nutshell, that it seems to me that there are better ways to solve the problems identified (particularly gratuitious homelessness and exploitative landlord/tenant relationships backed by state violence) than banning evictions. Particularly within the real-world parameters that we’re starting with. That last sentence also seems very important to me, but I’m not sure how useful it really is to argue with you about it. It seems like you are interpreting this point as merely a rhetorical device aimed at deflecting a burden of proof, but I don’t think that’s right.
You want all tenants to become squatters and not pay rent. You want the entire system to be destabilized. Those are Sabo admissions we got here.
So, again, why would anybody pay rent if they get to squat for free forever. The answer is they won’t pay rent in Sabo world. I’m glad we have that settled.
Now, why would any builder (from private or public funds) build housing if nobody pays rent?
Why would banks lend money to build housing if tenants don’t pay rent?
No your writing is fine. I was making fun of our language itself, and how it is used.
Building and cars and farm fields naturally degrade unless maintained. So the count of useful buildings and cars and farm fields, if left to themselves, will decline over time.
The violence and cruel gratuitous homelessness are not the disease, they are the symptom. The disease is what standard economics calls rent-seeking, K,Marx called exploitation, and the rest of us call profit. Cure the disease, and the symptoms go away.
OTOH Section 8 schemes are subsidies to the landlord class. It’s like “solving” rape by paying rapists not to rape.
The real world parameters are very different than they were back in the bad old days when there used to be evictions. For everyone alive, this is a once in a lifetime situation. All hands really need to be on deck.
Mess it up now, and we might have to wait for the next time capitalism fails. Like the next factory-farming pandemic, or stock-market crash, environmental collapse, or war, or ethnic cleansing, or… OK, it might not be that long of a wait, I guess.
The only reasonable approach is to introduce rent control nationally. Make it so landlords can only increase rent by 1% per year to match expense increases, and tenants can renew leases as long as they pay.
These eviction permanent moratoriums crosses the bridge where you take the entire system down, and create more harm to the entire economy than any good you try to do.
If your argument is that you want to see the entire system crash and burn like Sabo, that’s a completely fringe extremist position.
Uh, freeholders don’t pay rent.
OK, now I understand the reference to entropy. I agree with the general statement, but I don’t see the relevance. Human activity (in creating but also in maintaining durable goods) is pretty central to the idea of “supply” here. Hence I would not say that “supply is always decreasing.” There are a lot more goods (and a lot greater amount of most goods) now than at any time in history. Not just in total, but also per person.
I tried to work in an appeal to this sort of anti-capitalist view (although I am not really as anti-capitalist as you). That’s why I framed it as there being better ways to reduce the amount of rent-seeking for-profit housing. So I think I’ve tried to cover both symptoms and causes from that perspective.
Yeah… you’re reinforcing my view that it might not be worth discussing this particular point. I’ll just say this: earlier you asked if someone could predict the future. My answer is: yes, sometimes. For example, I very confidently predict that the moratoriums on eviction will end in the next 12 months (and probably much sooner; probably too soon really). But I’ll just let this part of the argument go.
I should note: I did not try to answer the question about why “should rental folks permit any of this to happen?” I’m sure our general disagreement about both the “status quo” (forgive me) and the “should” hinges on some larger philosophical disagreements related to capitalism. And I think you’re right that it’s hard to argue some very large disagreements like that here. But as far as predictions go, I don’t think it really matters whether they should or not, or even whether they will or will not “permit” it. My doubt that it matters is closely related to my confidence in predicting the future, and my assessment of what the “real-world parameters” are.
Doesn’t seem like the right way to set up the problem to me.
“What’s the average effective interest rate that renting folks pay via their rent?”
I don’t know that this has a good definition, but if it did, it would be the formula and I’d obviously accept the definition.
Effective interest rate on what? On the rent? As if the rent is an investment? On what the tenant is borrowing? Which would be the house. I set the problem up with the understanding that the renter is borrowing the house and pays interest on that loan.
I get your point. If you loan me your $100 bike for a year and it’s now worth $90 and I give you the bike back plus $10, we’re even. If I paid you rent on top of that, it’s probably a really shitty investment I made. Whatever I paid, I did it all for $10. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s the point.
I dunno, I’ll think about it. Got other stuff to do.
No. My point is make a suggestion that renting folk would agree to if left to themselves. Phrase it as… “it’s in the best interests of renting folk to do ____ as say opposed to ___”. We’ve heard so-called arguments about the “economy” /etc/etc.
I mean, if we could cure covid by reducing all the hot daughters of the richest 0.1% to sex slaves… would we be hearing so-called arguments of what is good for the “economy” now would we? We wouldn’t hear how that violence ‘creates’ urban planning, now would we? We wouldn’t be hearing any of that crap.
Make an argument how it is in the best interest of those 0.1% families, especially the hot daughters, to let this happen to them.
Well sure, maybe resistance is futile is actually true. Maybe Tina tells the truth. But if that’s the case… there is no ‘argument’ to be had, If there’s only one option, we don’t need to waste our time at all discussing it.
Within some limits, that’s already what I tried to do. I think they are likely to be better off supporting political action along the lines I suggested both because that political action would have fewer unintended consequences (re: supply) and also because it’s more likely to be effective (re: real-world parameters).
I say the argument only operates within “some limits” in relation to “best interests”, and referred to the larger philosophical differences, because it seems clear to me that there’s more at stake than just the immediate interests of renters from their current perspective. That is, from the perspective of renting folk, I expect that the things you’re calling symptoms (homelessness, exploitive landlords) probably seem more pressing than rent-seeking in the abstract or within a Marxist view of political economy. But, I understand you might also see that as a matter of false consciousness, or as being too short-sighted. Hence the reference to the larger philosophical context…
A landlord will sell Joe a house to live in, or will rent it to him. If Joe buys, he pays no interest. If Joe rents, he is effectively paying interest. What is the effective interest rate Joe would be paying?
FYI: We can made the same kind of calculations at the point of production.
No. As I mentioned before, that’s a different problem. FYI: the effective interest rate will be above the loan rate, otherwise it wouldn’t make sense to accept the loan.
Of course, like duh. That’s what renting is by definition. That’s how standard accounting works too.
No, that’s not what I’m talking about. If renting folk were given a choice would they (a) want to continue living under the boot of the landlord, or would they (b) rather not.
Clearly (b), but that’s also not very relevant given that I was proposing an alternative means of achieving that same goal.
OK, that’s what I was confused about. Regarding the means you suggest, we might want to save that ‘argument’ for another thread.
This is a real good summary of what these bad faith posters are trying to do. They are really only interested in finding a fool who will “guess at a world” so they can troll.
I know nothing about formal debate because LOL @ Debate Club. Obviously, down at the factory we’re going to be using planning process and not be having debates. But for the purpose of pwning the liberals, it could well be Debate Club >>>> Argue Dome. Maybe I’ll check it out.
It actually goes much deeper than that. Excuse my for going all Sartre ITT.
These fools can’t imagine a world without evictions. Literally. In-a-world-without-evictions-how-do-I-tie-my-shoes literally. Loving their capitalist overlords is part of their identity. And… all of a sudden, they are thrust into a world without evictions.
They are in a very bad place existentially. Everyone should go see Get Out. Having an existential crisis can be likened to being in the sunken place.
Sartre gave a canonical example of suddenly losing your religion. The former believer used to believe god kept landlords from morphing into gangs of home invasion robbers. But now, since he no longer believes in god, he figures there is nothing keeping the landlords from going rogue. So he fears rogue landlords.
Continuing on with the examination of the behaviors of bad faith posters…
We’re in a world without evictions. The liberals kept pestering me with stupid Qs like this: “In your imaginary Communist paradise, where landlords can’t bring the violence, how can they collect the rent?”. What strange Qs. Let’s count the ways…
What the liberals are saying/asking is: “If the landlords can’t bring the violence, how are they going to extract a profit?” Or more simply, without the violence the landlord system is not viable. But of course, because they are liberals… they can’t just make a positive assertion like that. That’s something that could be ‘argued’ in good faith, and as we know the liberals are having none of that. Instead, and as always, the liberals went with their usual bad faith Qs.
What happens if we answer the liberals dishonest Q honestly?
None of these honest answers work for the liberals. The liberals are going to call all these honest answers trolling. To the liberals any of these honest answers are more ‘proof’ that “no questions are being answered”.
But, on to the May Day news…
With nearly 200,000 tenants stopping rent payments nationally and demanding rent forgiveness given the coronavirus crisis, it is likely the biggest rent strike in American history.
On Friday, Gov. Andrew Cuomo acknowledged the May Day protesters and their cause, but offered no solution
This source claims this might be the biggest rent strike ever. And importantly, a leader on the other side as taken notice.
Remember I was talking how ‘tension’ can summoning a party to the table who refused to negotiate before? How direct action gets the goods? Well here we have the direct action… and here we have other other side… well, if not yet negotiating, at least acknowledging that the table is there, and their seat is awaiting.
Yeah right, remember when I answered the question right after he posted it, but you just skipped over it because you want to pretend the other side is posting in bad faith. LOL at “guess at a world”, as if people should buy into drastic policy changes without examination of the potential consequences.
Every time you have brought this up someone has responded and it somehow goes over your head that the two things are not the same at all. The credit card company’s risk is much more similar to the risk of the landlord with eviction, not without eviction. When a borrower stops paying, the credit card lender can just close the line of credit and prevent future purchases. Maybe they are at a loss for what was already purchased, but they can prevent further losses. The equivalent for a landlord would be to evict the tenant, write off the several months of unpaid rent but at least prevent the tenant from further occupying the property without paying.
This was also discussed. Without threat of violence all systems of private property are impossible. Tenant refusing to leave the house is no different than anything else being borrowed or rented and not returned. They are claiming possession of something that is not theirs.
I believe the Sabo response to that is somewhere between “So What” and “That’s the point”
You would like to pretend every landlord is some faceless REIT that is only driven by immoral greed, but this could not be further from the truth. If I think back to the landlords I have had in my life. One of them was a dentist who rented me the apartment above his office, another was a family who bought a duplex and lived in one half and rented the other, another was a city bus driver who owned a single rental property (house split into 2 units), another one was a bigger company represented by a property manager (bigger apartment building), and the guy in Germany is admittedly pretty rich but he lives in my building, is a nice guy and is not really taking advantage of me in any way.
These people would have been somewhere between set back significantly and completely fucked if I had just stopped paying rent and stayed in those apartments indefinitely. The idea that they were somehow robbing me or that I should be entitled to just stay there as long as I want without paying until they bribe me out just causes cognitive dissonance. It’s not bad faith or trolling trying to get you to put together a coherent picture of how this leads to a better society, or is a moral good. It’s really just trying to engage with your idea.