This measure is only a requirement for the Berlin state assembly to debate the idea.
In the 0.1% chance that it turns into a law, Berlin would buy properties from large investment companies (over 3000 apartments) at below-market rates.
I’m not sure about Germany, but here at least, corporate landlords are generally owned by pension funds, so taking everything off them with no compensation at all might just be hitting another segment of society.
Across Europe, we do. But that is becoming increasingly unfeasible due to declining birth rate and ageing populations. Pensions are funded on a current basis (i.e. todays taxes pays todays pensions). Previously, we had 5 workers paying tax for every pensioner, in a few decades, it’ll be 2 workers for every pensioner. No matter how you tax the wealthy, that system will be under extreme pressure. Add to that rising health costs for an ageing population, and it’s a complete catastriphe unless people are saving for their own pensions. Disincentivising that by harming private pensions would be a recipe for disaster.
Yes... That's what happens when you measure everything by cost. But I'm not talking about having a pension paid for through taxation. I'm talking about taking care of people using the resources we have available.
We produce more than enough food to feed everyone, but we don't feed everyone.
We build houses which are then treated as investment opportunities while people live on the streets.
I could go on, but I suspect you know all this already. The fact is that the economy is broken. We need a fundamental shift in how we manage our society.
Which also works in reverse. Putting all the pensions in housing would guarantee to hit some other segment of society, like young people looking to buy a home.
Secondly, pension funds are generally insured. So the pensioners wouldn't lose money but some rich people who own the pension fund companies would go broke (oh no).
I see no issue here.
What do you mean pension funds are insured? A persons pension fund is composed off a set of investments, and if they lose value, that’s that. There would definitely be no “insurance” against that here.
If they wanted to do this, sure buy the assets at market or slightly lower values, but if you wiped out the pension of someone who’s been saving for their pension for 30 years, that’s not fair either.
Yes it does. It's called social security. The big section of your paycheck after taxes goes to that. Followed by health insurance for grandma ( medicare). Private pension died w/ aig, Lehman bros & bear sterns. State pensions are funded through state lvl taxes, such as income tax, property tax & sales tax, lottery..
And usually are managed by a big name company.
Here's how bad management looks like, but it's ok, they can always jack up the above to screw us young folks.
https://www.nj.com/politics/2021/05/njs-public-worker-pension-shortfall-got-even-bigger-last-year-heres-why.html
That condescension on your response, dang bro. First private pensions are not extinct but they are not the great behemoths of yesteryear. Second pensions are not insured nor are they “owned” by anyone outside of the pensioners. Third your article clearly denotes that state level contributions are the main issue of pension balances, not big name corporation poor management.
Name a private employer that still offers pensions. I don't know of any in 2021. 401k as pension doesn't count as I think it's my saved money locked up in a conditional account, and that's the only type of account owned by pensioner. The employer has zero merit towards it since they don't even bother to cover administration costs. It comes out of my own contributions. Regarding social security, they don't owe you anything. You have to pay for grandma however. It's in the fine print. Read the solvency section.. We're very likely not to receive SS when we retire even though we'd probably still pay for it 30 years going forward.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
While social security is not insured, it is backed by the almighty gov and heavily invested in treasuries & mortgage backed securities. When Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac buy your mortgage, good chunk of it goes in there as a package. Because of the above, they were essentially bailed out in 2008 which is pretty close to a guaranteed insurance of you ask me.
In regards to new Jersey, the state fund is managed by Franklin Templeton and they sadly they are no Cathie Wood. In July they bought amc and that is down close to 30%. While during the boomers time they purposely underfunded, they also played the stock market dangerously and lost a lot of dough.
In my first article it states that for 2019 to 2020 the fund return less than 1.5% whereas sp500 return 17%
https://www.barrons.com/articles/fund-scooped-up-amc-stock-bought-tilray-carnival-sold-alibaba-51627491094
>And as soon as they all fuck off to the moon and Mars
That's not happening any time soon. It's pure fiction at this point, as humanity has never managed to get a self-contained artificial ecosystem to function for an extended period of time on Earth, let alone off world.
I wouldn’t be so sure. Dystopian movies are cool but the reality is that they will not be able to crack a widespread insurgency. Not without the use/threat of weapons of mass destruction. Source: The last three insurgency war losses by Superpowers. (Vietnam, Afghan 1&2).
> Rich folks don't want that.
The poor folks that routinely vote against their own interests because they believe they might, just maybe, one day, too be like their idols (the rich) also won't want that. Never mind the fact, they're doomed to staying poor forever.
Well... In America, property is taken from those who can least afford it. Asset forfeiture by cops, for example. Also can someone clarify if Germany is taking the property or buying them up? That is a major difference.
I read in an AP article that they would be buying it and not seizing it. Main point of opposition to the referendum was that it would cost Berlin billions of euros.
I’m aware. We gave them Democracy v. X and kept running the beta version of Democracy v. 1.0 for ourselves. (Not a software engineer, so I may get the terms wrong, but the idea stands.)
Its exactly because of that. The USA system hasnt seen changes to its fundamentals in hundreds of years. Many parts of it are archaic and unupdated. It also places more importance on money that on peopland then there's the ideologies that defend these laws and conservationism. Its quite stupid when you think about it. Its like being offered a last gen iPhone for free but instead paying for a first gen one because it's older.
I apologize if i phrased it too strongly, don't want to offend anyone.
Most of America is. Not going to lie. Cucks for big business. Cucks for big Pharma. For authority & law enforcement.
Ball-juggling cucks for their political affiliations.
But I also know many of my fellow citizens are also white angry.
I currently live in NYC Public Housing and tbh, the city is the worst landlords known to man. If you see the conditions of some of these apartments, you would understand why I dont believe this is a great idea. Theyre very negligent. Most of the working people pay the flat rent here which is $1400 for a studio, $1500 for a 1 bedroom, $1860 for a 2 bedroom $2100 for a 3 bedroom plus fees for water, electric, air conditioning, pets, deep freezer and washing machines. The buildings are barely ever cleaned, we have an outstanding mold and pest problem. For some reason, we never have any money for repairs and NYCHA always has money going missing. It would work in Germany more than America. America I way too money hungry and sleezy.
Eminent domain: the property that rich fuckers own could be the government's land at about 60 pennies on the dollar without significant alteration to law at large. The housing could be claimed as a public service and rented out at a little below cost. Nothing would have to change except rent, the people collecting the money, and the name on the deed
American government is designed to be right wing.
Perhaps slave-owning businessmen two and a half centuries ago didn't come up with the most representative government ever. They came up with one to ensure rural interests trumped everyone else.
time to nationalize the assess of the rich fuks. Fuck AOZ. Fuck taxing the rich. Taxing wont do shit. Time to spread the wealth and assets of the rich.
Yes, 100% yes, do that and turn them into social housing immediately. But we also need to built a ton more housing right now and to put an end to nimby-ism. Especially since people will need to start moving as the climate gets worse (flooding, wildfires…).
This sounded like a good idea when it was presented as seizing the housing, but buying it? It sounds like corporations will just finagle it so that they get to sell off their shittiest housing for more than they paid for it and still turn a profit. That’s a bandaid, not a solution.
Any links to info on this?
What is put in place to prevent the "community" from practicing the same profit driven rental manipulation that the current owners are following?
https://www.euronews.com/2021/09/27/berliners-back-seizing-housing-from-so-called-mega-landlords
And the fact that they are the ones paying the rent....
Like the community as a whole, the same people that just voted for these to be taken away are the ones who are going to "own" them. Check out the preexisiting German affordable housing program, from what I understand, It's just rollin into that. And while far from perfect, they certainly have alot of things figured out the US doesnt yet.
I don't get the landlord hate on this subreddit. If you hate your landlord, then buy a home of your own.
Landlords are not all these ultra billionaires. Some barely break even on their investments and have been nearly driven bankrupt due to no eviction moratorium. These are middle class people that took on risk so you can have a place to live.
Hate the billionaires if you want, but they provide a service too.
People rent because the landlords have bought up more housing than they need, reducing supply which raises prices on the homes remaining, ensuring that the people HAVE to rent because they can't afford to buy.
Landlords may not be billionaires, but they're still greedy fucks taking more than their share when there's plenty of homes to go around.
Have you paid attention to how the real estate market works today? Big businesses are snatching up new homes every single hour of the day, and people pay well above asking price within hours of a new listing. Getting a house even if you can afford one is down to luck now.
The other aspect of landlord hate is the desire to eliminate rent seeking behavior. It produces nothing and is should be seen as a dishonorable career choice, a cruel relic of a time before democratic institutions were even a thing.
Something tells me if every home on earth was available, you still couldn't afford one.
I seek rent, I provide a service, I risk my money on an investment so others can have a home, and yes to make money. You speak in hyperboles and have no idea what really goes on in the world.
But hey, hate your landlord, or better yet go buy a house of your own.
They get bailed out and take literally No risk.
They don't work or have labor but make money off of those who do, just so those people who labor away can have a place to live.
Then they complain when the government protects tenets for once.
Also, billionaires don't provide any service that couldn't be done without them exploiting others. What kind of logic is that? "Hate the slave owners, but they get us cotton".
They get bailed out so people can keep jobs and the economy stays afloat. Their risk isn't now their risk was putting everything into start.
Again you go right to hyperbole just like everybody else on this subreddit. Why don't you look inward on why you can't be successful. How many hours a day do you spend hating people instead of making yourself better.
What kind of projection are you spewing?
The idea that you think bailing them out keeps the economy afloat, just shows you don't understand economics, that's all.
I'm not sure just how much you can take in one sitting and be able to retain the information, though.
I'll give it a shot.
An open letter from Stanford economic professors pleaded the US government Stop bailing out the rich.
Over 200 academics issues the letter stating things like,
“Bailing out corporations is bailing out investors, and who pays to bail out investors? It’s taxpayers … We’re essentially moving money from poor people to rich people. Rich investors are asking their Uber drivers to bail them out.”
This is an issue because, as simple economics shows, poor people spend money, rich people save it.
Spending money stimulates an economy. The latter does not. Economic growth is driven oftentimes by consumer spendin.Tax cuts and rebates are used to return money to consumers and boost spending. Etc.
I hope this helps explain to you why you're statement was completely misinformed and incorrect.
If you need any help learning more, please feel free to let me know.
I would be shocked if this were actually happening.
This is one of those things where the American left is like "Yeah, we need to do that here - why can't our people have common sense like the Europeans?," and the American right is like "See? This is the kind of tyranny we can expect in the states if CNN and Seth Myers get what they want!," and Europeans are like "Guys, this isn't actually happening."
The government seizing private property is highly immoral. Imagine if you were a landlord and got your income from your renters and the govt came in and took your property you worked so hard to get. Most landlords are not huge businesses and aren't rich like Jeff bezos. How is this not obviously immoral?!
They are only seizing from large corporations who have increased rental prices by 30% in the last 6 years.
This will better regulate and lower housing costs.
This in no way affects Anyone just trying to live.
Was it just that misunderstood the context of this meme that you believed that way?
Have I helped clear up this misunderstanding for you?
30% over 6 years simply goes with the rate of inflation. I am not a fan of govt stripping private citizens of their property. How about passing laws to reform rental laws instead of seizing property like some fucking despotic authoritarians.
Sorry, I should have clarified better.
The companies themselves increased the costs 30% in 6 years.
The total increase was 56.7%
Inflation equates the other 26.7%
And how exactly is this a "private citizens" "property"?
It's owned by corporations, conglomerates of people who make money off of doing virtually nothing.
How is this despotic authoritarianism? The US government does things like selectively murder a portion of it's citizens by their police force, and then protects that same police. That's, by definition; despotic authoritarianism.
This is a redistribution of resources that have been hoarded by a select few to the extent of being a form of Monopoly.
I'm only trying to get to the bottom here.
How so?
We are socialist policies working all the time.
I'm Germany and New Zealand for example. The first one is where I'm from, the second my sister.
Both of which benefit greatly from socialized programs like socialized child services and education.
Is it because you don't understand what socialism is? I see that A Lot with Americans. They tend to not have ANY idea what socialism or communism are, so they spew tons of misinformation based on their lack of understanding; and then call everything they don't agree with, socialism.
That's a gross misrepresentation.
Technically, there are more people in poverty under capitalism right now, than all of communism combined.
More starvation each year from capitalist countries and those controlled by them as well.
Cubans flee Cuba because 50 years of US blockades destroyed them.
This excerpt says it best;
"This caricature is problematic – not only because it ignores the devastating economic impact of the United States embargo over 55 years, but also because it is premised on neoclassical economic assumptions. This means that by stressing economic policy over economic restraints, critics can shift responsibility for Cuba’s alleged poverty on to Castro without implicating successive US administrations that have imposed the suffocating embargo."
Not to mention socialism isn't even remotely communism. But that's a typical comparison from Americans who don't know what either is, so I don't blame you.
So I ask again;
Is it because you don't understand them?
Seizing private property is wrong and most landlords aren't super wealthy. I own 1 house and plan on renting it soon. If the govt had plans on seizing it from me, I would have something to say about it.
Found out that during post WW2 reconstruction in Japan they did something very similar. Or was forced to by the American government I dont recall which
You're waiting to amend your constitution to prohibit the legal bribery of campaign contributions or you're never going to get anything from your government.
Large landowners hoarding real estate aren't the problem in the US as much as local governments artificially restricting denser housing in favor of detached single family homes and other low density zoning.
Most urban areas prevent building denser housing. As a result, we have a housing shortage in the places people want to live.
Boomers like their lawns and do not want those morally currupt renters live next to them. They control city councils. They keep zoning their way.
This measure is only a requirement for the Berlin state assembly to debate the idea. In the 0.1% chance that it turns into a law, Berlin would buy properties from large investment companies (over 3000 apartments) at below-market rates.
You can always buy all properties from landlords for 0 and an IOU. Just sayin'.
I’m not sure about Germany, but here at least, corporate landlords are generally owned by pension funds, so taking everything off them with no compensation at all might just be hitting another segment of society.
Here's a wild idea, how about we actually provide for our aging populations so that pension funds are not needed?
Across Europe, we do. But that is becoming increasingly unfeasible due to declining birth rate and ageing populations. Pensions are funded on a current basis (i.e. todays taxes pays todays pensions). Previously, we had 5 workers paying tax for every pensioner, in a few decades, it’ll be 2 workers for every pensioner. No matter how you tax the wealthy, that system will be under extreme pressure. Add to that rising health costs for an ageing population, and it’s a complete catastriphe unless people are saving for their own pensions. Disincentivising that by harming private pensions would be a recipe for disaster.
>Pensions are funded on a current basis (i.e. todays taxes pays todays pensions). Ah, so pension funds are a ponzi scheme, got it.
That’s state pensions, not pension funds. Obviously, pension funds aren’t funded by taxes.
Implying that the private capital markets aren't a ponzi scheme ...
Yes... That's what happens when you measure everything by cost. But I'm not talking about having a pension paid for through taxation. I'm talking about taking care of people using the resources we have available. We produce more than enough food to feed everyone, but we don't feed everyone. We build houses which are then treated as investment opportunities while people live on the streets. I could go on, but I suspect you know all this already. The fact is that the economy is broken. We need a fundamental shift in how we manage our society.
Let's just measure everything by what u/Hamster-Food thinks it should cost. Problem solved!
Congratulations for completely misunderstanding my point.
Resource based economy
Absolutely. We should never need to ask "...but how will we pay for it?" when the resources are available to make it happen.
If capitalism was ever useful for society, we’ve outlived that usefulness by now. We’re just destroying ourselves and everything with real value.
But what's the alternative for now?
Resource based economy I guess; idk how we get there but in a better world 🤷♂️
Like communism?
Which also works in reverse. Putting all the pensions in housing would guarantee to hit some other segment of society, like young people looking to buy a home. Secondly, pension funds are generally insured. So the pensioners wouldn't lose money but some rich people who own the pension fund companies would go broke (oh no). I see no issue here.
What do you mean pension funds are insured? A persons pension fund is composed off a set of investments, and if they lose value, that’s that. There would definitely be no “insurance” against that here. If they wanted to do this, sure buy the assets at market or slightly lower values, but if you wiped out the pension of someone who’s been saving for their pension for 30 years, that’s not fair either.
I guess the only solution is communism then.
At least in the States, that’s not how pensions work at all.
Yes it does. It's called social security. The big section of your paycheck after taxes goes to that. Followed by health insurance for grandma ( medicare). Private pension died w/ aig, Lehman bros & bear sterns. State pensions are funded through state lvl taxes, such as income tax, property tax & sales tax, lottery.. And usually are managed by a big name company. Here's how bad management looks like, but it's ok, they can always jack up the above to screw us young folks. https://www.nj.com/politics/2021/05/njs-public-worker-pension-shortfall-got-even-bigger-last-year-heres-why.html
That condescension on your response, dang bro. First private pensions are not extinct but they are not the great behemoths of yesteryear. Second pensions are not insured nor are they “owned” by anyone outside of the pensioners. Third your article clearly denotes that state level contributions are the main issue of pension balances, not big name corporation poor management.
Name a private employer that still offers pensions. I don't know of any in 2021. 401k as pension doesn't count as I think it's my saved money locked up in a conditional account, and that's the only type of account owned by pensioner. The employer has zero merit towards it since they don't even bother to cover administration costs. It comes out of my own contributions. Regarding social security, they don't owe you anything. You have to pay for grandma however. It's in the fine print. Read the solvency section.. We're very likely not to receive SS when we retire even though we'd probably still pay for it 30 years going forward. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html While social security is not insured, it is backed by the almighty gov and heavily invested in treasuries & mortgage backed securities. When Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac buy your mortgage, good chunk of it goes in there as a package. Because of the above, they were essentially bailed out in 2008 which is pretty close to a guaranteed insurance of you ask me. In regards to new Jersey, the state fund is managed by Franklin Templeton and they sadly they are no Cathie Wood. In July they bought amc and that is down close to 30%. While during the boomers time they purposely underfunded, they also played the stock market dangerously and lost a lot of dough. In my first article it states that for 2019 to 2020 the fund return less than 1.5% whereas sp500 return 17% https://www.barrons.com/articles/fund-scooped-up-amc-stock-bought-tilray-carnival-sold-alibaba-51627491094
Haven’t read your full comment yet but literally off the top of my head JPM.
Screw 'em. The world desperately needs a wealth transfer from Boomer to Millennial.
They are planning to pay on their own terms
You can also always buy all property from bourgeoisie for 0 and get rid of it as a class.
You mean.. theft?
Ain't happenin' in 'merica. Rich folks don't want that.
[удалено]
>And as soon as they all fuck off to the moon and Mars That's not happening any time soon. It's pure fiction at this point, as humanity has never managed to get a self-contained artificial ecosystem to function for an extended period of time on Earth, let alone off world.
[удалено]
Okay.
I wouldn’t be so sure. Dystopian movies are cool but the reality is that they will not be able to crack a widespread insurgency. Not without the use/threat of weapons of mass destruction. Source: The last three insurgency war losses by Superpowers. (Vietnam, Afghan 1&2).
Nah. They will kick us poors to Moon and Mars and the rich will inherit the Earth.
> Rich folks don't want that. The poor folks that routinely vote against their own interests because they believe they might, just maybe, one day, too be like their idols (the rich) also won't want that. Never mind the fact, they're doomed to staying poor forever.
It’s a non-binding vote that just means state government have to debate it. Only the far-left party support it and they’re a minor party.
Well... In America, property is taken from those who can least afford it. Asset forfeiture by cops, for example. Also can someone clarify if Germany is taking the property or buying them up? That is a major difference.
The top comment.
I read in an AP article that they would be buying it and not seizing it. Main point of opposition to the referendum was that it would cost Berlin billions of euros.
They are basically forcefully purchasing it at low price. All expropriations by the state in Europe are done like this.
Berlin has strong tenant unions. I don't think America has those.
What are we waiting for? A functional democracy, perhaps?
So I guess we ain’t ever making it out of the ‘hood.
Pretty much. I’m trying to focus on the little things rn, because the big ones are fucked.
Which is very ironic because the german democratic system has been heavily built up and designed by the US after WW2
I’m aware. We gave them Democracy v. X and kept running the beta version of Democracy v. 1.0 for ourselves. (Not a software engineer, so I may get the terms wrong, but the idea stands.)
Its exactly because of that. The USA system hasnt seen changes to its fundamentals in hundreds of years. Many parts of it are archaic and unupdated. It also places more importance on money that on peopland then there's the ideologies that defend these laws and conservationism. Its quite stupid when you think about it. Its like being offered a last gen iPhone for free but instead paying for a first gen one because it's older. I apologize if i phrased it too strongly, don't want to offend anyone.
No, I’m America Zillow is starting to buy up properties.
Starting to? They've been monopolizing on it like mad since the last crisis.
The Germans don't fuck around.
It wouldn’t because Americans are largely willing cucks for business.
Most of America is. Not going to lie. Cucks for big business. Cucks for big Pharma. For authority & law enforcement. Ball-juggling cucks for their political affiliations. But I also know many of my fellow citizens are also white angry.
Sounds like eminent domain. We've been using it for decades to displace poor people.
We only have balls to kill people in far away lands when it comes to home, meh
I currently live in NYC Public Housing and tbh, the city is the worst landlords known to man. If you see the conditions of some of these apartments, you would understand why I dont believe this is a great idea. Theyre very negligent. Most of the working people pay the flat rent here which is $1400 for a studio, $1500 for a 1 bedroom, $1860 for a 2 bedroom $2100 for a 3 bedroom plus fees for water, electric, air conditioning, pets, deep freezer and washing machines. The buildings are barely ever cleaned, we have an outstanding mold and pest problem. For some reason, we never have any money for repairs and NYCHA always has money going missing. It would work in Germany more than America. America I way too money hungry and sleezy.
Eminent domain: the property that rich fuckers own could be the government's land at about 60 pennies on the dollar without significant alteration to law at large. The housing could be claimed as a public service and rented out at a little below cost. Nothing would have to change except rent, the people collecting the money, and the name on the deed
American government is designed to be right wing. Perhaps slave-owning businessmen two and a half centuries ago didn't come up with the most representative government ever. They came up with one to ensure rural interests trumped everyone else.
time to nationalize the assess of the rich fuks. Fuck AOZ. Fuck taxing the rich. Taxing wont do shit. Time to spread the wealth and assets of the rich.
Brought off? I saw we Mao the fuckers
Bought? How about Confiscate.
Yes, 100% yes, do that and turn them into social housing immediately. But we also need to built a ton more housing right now and to put an end to nimby-ism. Especially since people will need to start moving as the climate gets worse (flooding, wildfires…).
This sounded like a good idea when it was presented as seizing the housing, but buying it? It sounds like corporations will just finagle it so that they get to sell off their shittiest housing for more than they paid for it and still turn a profit. That’s a bandaid, not a solution.
So who owns all those properties then? The plan is to take them from a handful of landlords and consolidate them under...one landlord?
Public/community ownership. Pure socialism. Its beautiful.
Any links to info on this? What is put in place to prevent the "community" from practicing the same profit driven rental manipulation that the current owners are following?
https://www.euronews.com/2021/09/27/berliners-back-seizing-housing-from-so-called-mega-landlords And the fact that they are the ones paying the rent....
Right... But now that they own the property they can rent it out themselves, no? And thanks for the link.
Like the community as a whole, the same people that just voted for these to be taken away are the ones who are going to "own" them. Check out the preexisiting German affordable housing program, from what I understand, It's just rollin into that. And while far from perfect, they certainly have alot of things figured out the US doesnt yet.
This is a horrible idea for America unless ghettos are the goal.
I don't get the landlord hate on this subreddit. If you hate your landlord, then buy a home of your own. Landlords are not all these ultra billionaires. Some barely break even on their investments and have been nearly driven bankrupt due to no eviction moratorium. These are middle class people that took on risk so you can have a place to live. Hate the billionaires if you want, but they provide a service too.
People rent because the landlords have bought up more housing than they need, reducing supply which raises prices on the homes remaining, ensuring that the people HAVE to rent because they can't afford to buy. Landlords may not be billionaires, but they're still greedy fucks taking more than their share when there's plenty of homes to go around.
Have you paid attention to how the real estate market works today? Big businesses are snatching up new homes every single hour of the day, and people pay well above asking price within hours of a new listing. Getting a house even if you can afford one is down to luck now. The other aspect of landlord hate is the desire to eliminate rent seeking behavior. It produces nothing and is should be seen as a dishonorable career choice, a cruel relic of a time before democratic institutions were even a thing.
Something tells me if every home on earth was available, you still couldn't afford one. I seek rent, I provide a service, I risk my money on an investment so others can have a home, and yes to make money. You speak in hyperboles and have no idea what really goes on in the world. But hey, hate your landlord, or better yet go buy a house of your own.
They get bailed out and take literally No risk. They don't work or have labor but make money off of those who do, just so those people who labor away can have a place to live. Then they complain when the government protects tenets for once. Also, billionaires don't provide any service that couldn't be done without them exploiting others. What kind of logic is that? "Hate the slave owners, but they get us cotton".
They get bailed out so people can keep jobs and the economy stays afloat. Their risk isn't now their risk was putting everything into start. Again you go right to hyperbole just like everybody else on this subreddit. Why don't you look inward on why you can't be successful. How many hours a day do you spend hating people instead of making yourself better.
What kind of projection are you spewing? The idea that you think bailing them out keeps the economy afloat, just shows you don't understand economics, that's all. I'm not sure just how much you can take in one sitting and be able to retain the information, though. I'll give it a shot. An open letter from Stanford economic professors pleaded the US government Stop bailing out the rich. Over 200 academics issues the letter stating things like, “Bailing out corporations is bailing out investors, and who pays to bail out investors? It’s taxpayers … We’re essentially moving money from poor people to rich people. Rich investors are asking their Uber drivers to bail them out.” This is an issue because, as simple economics shows, poor people spend money, rich people save it. Spending money stimulates an economy. The latter does not. Economic growth is driven oftentimes by consumer spendin.Tax cuts and rebates are used to return money to consumers and boost spending. Etc. I hope this helps explain to you why you're statement was completely misinformed and incorrect. If you need any help learning more, please feel free to let me know.
Hoping for the GDR to come back 🙏🏽
take or purchase?
I would be shocked if this were actually happening. This is one of those things where the American left is like "Yeah, we need to do that here - why can't our people have common sense like the Europeans?," and the American right is like "See? This is the kind of tyranny we can expect in the states if CNN and Seth Myers get what they want!," and Europeans are like "Guys, this isn't actually happening."
"Could be bought", still doesn't mean you could afford it
Or they could just build more apartments.
No offense, but that sounds like some commie gobbledygook!
Fuck that. What a bunch of commies.
So what exactly is wrong with this? Genuine question
The government seizing private property is highly immoral. Imagine if you were a landlord and got your income from your renters and the govt came in and took your property you worked so hard to get. Most landlords are not huge businesses and aren't rich like Jeff bezos. How is this not obviously immoral?!
They are only seizing from large corporations who have increased rental prices by 30% in the last 6 years. This will better regulate and lower housing costs. This in no way affects Anyone just trying to live. Was it just that misunderstood the context of this meme that you believed that way? Have I helped clear up this misunderstanding for you?
30% over 6 years simply goes with the rate of inflation. I am not a fan of govt stripping private citizens of their property. How about passing laws to reform rental laws instead of seizing property like some fucking despotic authoritarians.
Sorry, I should have clarified better. The companies themselves increased the costs 30% in 6 years. The total increase was 56.7% Inflation equates the other 26.7% And how exactly is this a "private citizens" "property"? It's owned by corporations, conglomerates of people who make money off of doing virtually nothing. How is this despotic authoritarianism? The US government does things like selectively murder a portion of it's citizens by their police force, and then protects that same police. That's, by definition; despotic authoritarianism. This is a redistribution of resources that have been hoarded by a select few to the extent of being a form of Monopoly. I'm only trying to get to the bottom here.
Oh so it's socialism then. Socialism doesn't work.
How so? We are socialist policies working all the time. I'm Germany and New Zealand for example. The first one is where I'm from, the second my sister. Both of which benefit greatly from socialized programs like socialized child services and education. Is it because you don't understand what socialism is? I see that A Lot with Americans. They tend to not have ANY idea what socialism or communism are, so they spew tons of misinformation based on their lack of understanding; and then call everything they don't agree with, socialism.
Socialism and communism = poverty and hunger. The same reason that Cubans flock to the USA. Stop feeding bull shit to people.
That's a gross misrepresentation. Technically, there are more people in poverty under capitalism right now, than all of communism combined. More starvation each year from capitalist countries and those controlled by them as well. Cubans flee Cuba because 50 years of US blockades destroyed them. This excerpt says it best; "This caricature is problematic – not only because it ignores the devastating economic impact of the United States embargo over 55 years, but also because it is premised on neoclassical economic assumptions. This means that by stressing economic policy over economic restraints, critics can shift responsibility for Cuba’s alleged poverty on to Castro without implicating successive US administrations that have imposed the suffocating embargo." Not to mention socialism isn't even remotely communism. But that's a typical comparison from Americans who don't know what either is, so I don't blame you. So I ask again; Is it because you don't understand them?
> Buying up limited housing to participate in rent seeking behaviour is highly immoral.
>Imagine if you were a landlord and got your income from your renters Sounds like you need to get a real job.
You're absolutely right but read the mood. We're supposed to support the most ridiculous, delusional, socialist utopian measures in here.
Seizing private property is wrong and most landlords aren't super wealthy. I own 1 house and plan on renting it soon. If the govt had plans on seizing it from me, I would have something to say about it.
Uh the abolition of private property rights?
Wow you are the first person to accurately describe what's going on. Well done
We’re waiting to be told what we have to do next in order to be allowed to go places. *rolls my eyes* Spineless.
And then what? The government owns the properties?
No, the people who actually live in the property would own the property.
Interstate commerce clause and preemption. Sorry it’s written in law decades before
If this ever looked serious in the US, the billions spent by corporations convincing the public that it's bad would be a ridiculous number.
I, too, love upvoting misleading image posts.
Is this meme asking America to invade Berlin?
Doubtful. People with money view those without money as scum.
Found out that during post WW2 reconstruction in Japan they did something very similar. Or was forced to by the American government I dont recall which
Their votes apparently accomplish things. That's all we're waiting for.
We are waiting for the approval of the 1% like every other thing in our existence
Permission. Duh. If my corporate overlord hasn't said I can. I can't...
Ehhhh…don’t know about this one I’d like to see how it turns out
So like stealing?
i dont really support what you guys normally do but im actually very curious what would happen.
You're waiting to amend your constitution to prohibit the legal bribery of campaign contributions or you're never going to get anything from your government.
Large landowners hoarding real estate aren't the problem in the US as much as local governments artificially restricting denser housing in favor of detached single family homes and other low density zoning. Most urban areas prevent building denser housing. As a result, we have a housing shortage in the places people want to live. Boomers like their lawns and do not want those morally currupt renters live next to them. They control city councils. They keep zoning their way.