|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 24 2020 02:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2020 02:13 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 24 2020 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2020 01:37 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 24 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2020 01:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 24 2020 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2020 00:49 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 24 2020 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Just wanted to zero-in on this. The first sentence is 100% correct imo, the second isn't. Every report I've seen says there is ample housing ( several times more housing than houseless people). So the lack of supply in affordable housing is a direct result of hoarding and gouging by landlords, not a physical shortage. Sure. Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless. It isn't true that they would have to move away from where they live either. The crashing of the air bnb market and desperation of the city/desirable property hoarders is laying that bare imo. Austin Mao, who hosts 2,000 guests a month in his Las Vegas network of mansions, has slashed prices on the properties by 10 percent and plans to keep cutting as visitors dwindle.
And Tracey Northcott and her husband, who manage 12 vacation apartments in Tokyo, said the occupancy rate had gone from 80 percent to zero since January.
“I’ve got to keep paying my mortgage somehow,” www.nytimes.com An anecdote about a couple people being over leveraged during a market crash isn't very convincing either. The anecdote is an example, airbnb is imploding because its revenue comes from property hoarders renting desirable locations (cities being a major one) to luxury tourists. It speaks to a larger trend of people hoarding vacant luxury housing while it supplants affordable housing for the people that actually live/work in the city. Approximately half of the luxury-condo units in Manhattan that have come onto the market in the past five years are still unsold. www.theatlantic.com Your article says that the housing was built for foreigners to park their oil money or hide it from the Chinese government. Those economies hit a speed bump and the housing has gone vacant. Yes, my argument is that property hoarders are supplanting affordable housing in populous areas to serve industries like airbnb as well as act as tokens of value for the ultra wealthy. Also that your position that the lack of housing is a physical issue is unsupported by the available information. As another example we have San Francisco and the Bay Area: the best available public figures, variable though they may be, do support the four-to-one claim. In fact, the entire Bay Area has far more empty houses than people without homes in 2019. sf.curbed.comWhat makes you so confident that there isn't enough housing rather than people hoarding it? I'd draw more attention to my desire/ability to maintain part of my statement. I can agree that there are more vacant houses than homeless, but I'd still consider it a meaningless fact until you can substantiate it in some way. I do like you quoting the absolute worst statement possible in every article you post though. It makes reading them far more interesting please continue with your hyperbole as you do. My question is/was what data do you use to substantiate your position that there aren't more vacancies than homeless where the homeless are as originally stated: Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless. Or am I misunderstanding your position? My Main point is that the 'housing shortage' is driven by property hoarders, not a lack of physical properties to house people where they live. People don't have to be priced out of affordable city housing by property hoarders is what I'm getting at, it's not that there aren't properties for people to live in. I cited Japan's situation originally which doesn't seem to be that different from what you're talking about. Of course you deleted it to score some points that there are in fact more homeless people than houses. Congrats.
I can't speak to the situation in Japan but if we agreed all along that there isn't a physical shortage of housing (though updating and re-purposing could be useful of course) and it is instead a problem of property hoarders leaving places vacant while gouging people to the point of homelessness I apologize.
I thought you were arguing you would have to move homeless people away from where they are to find them housing.
|
On March 24 2020 02:22 JohnDelaney wrote:The US president, who has no medical background, continues to promote an anti-malarial drug on Twitter citing a tabloid called New York PostMeanwhile in Nigeria, Show nested quote +Nigeria records chloroquine poisoning after Trump endorses it for coronavirus treatmenthttps://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/africa/chloroquine-trump-nigeria-intl/index.htmlHealth officials in Nigeria have issued a warning over chloroquine after they said three people in the country overdosed on the drug, in the wake of President Trump's comments about using it to treat coronavirus. A Lagos state official told CNN that three people were hospitalized in the city after taking the drug. Officials later issued a statement cautioning against using chloroquine for Covid-19 treatment. US President Donald Trump claimed at a White House briefing last week that the Food and Drug Administration had approved the "very powerful" drug chloroquine to treat coronavirus. Trump's endorsement of the drug led to a surge of interest among Nigerians keen to stock up on the medication, which has led to inevitable price hikes in the megacity of around 20 million inhabitants. One man told CNN that in a pharmacy near his home on the Lagos mainland, he witnessed the price rise by more than 400% in a matter of minutes. Kayode Fabunmi, a Lagos-based lawyer, said: "The pharmacist knew the market and was saying to every incoming customer, 'You know Donald Trump has said this thing cures coronavirus,' and the price kept changing.
How is that legal?
Can anyone just give medical advice nowadays? It sounds very dangerous to tell people false stuff about what medication can cure and what it cannot. (I am going of the very reasonable assumption that Trump has no clue what he is talking about)
Also, who wants to take a bet that either Trump or some of his family/friends own a lot of stock in the company that produces that stuff?
|
On March 24 2020 02:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 02:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 24 2020 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2020 02:13 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 24 2020 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2020 01:37 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 24 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2020 01:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 24 2020 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2020 00:49 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
Sure. Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless. It isn't true that they would have to move away from where they live either. The crashing of the air bnb market and desperation of the city/desirable property hoarders is laying that bare imo. Austin Mao, who hosts 2,000 guests a month in his Las Vegas network of mansions, has slashed prices on the properties by 10 percent and plans to keep cutting as visitors dwindle.
And Tracey Northcott and her husband, who manage 12 vacation apartments in Tokyo, said the occupancy rate had gone from 80 percent to zero since January.
“I’ve got to keep paying my mortgage somehow,” www.nytimes.com An anecdote about a couple people being over leveraged during a market crash isn't very convincing either. The anecdote is an example, airbnb is imploding because its revenue comes from property hoarders renting desirable locations (cities being a major one) to luxury tourists. It speaks to a larger trend of people hoarding vacant luxury housing while it supplants affordable housing for the people that actually live/work in the city. Approximately half of the luxury-condo units in Manhattan that have come onto the market in the past five years are still unsold. www.theatlantic.com Your article says that the housing was built for foreigners to park their oil money or hide it from the Chinese government. Those economies hit a speed bump and the housing has gone vacant. Yes, my argument is that property hoarders are supplanting affordable housing in populous areas to serve industries like airbnb as well as act as tokens of value for the ultra wealthy. Also that your position that the lack of housing is a physical issue is unsupported by the available information. As another example we have San Francisco and the Bay Area: the best available public figures, variable though they may be, do support the four-to-one claim. In fact, the entire Bay Area has far more empty houses than people without homes in 2019. sf.curbed.comWhat makes you so confident that there isn't enough housing rather than people hoarding it? I'd draw more attention to my desire/ability to maintain part of my statement. I can agree that there are more vacant houses than homeless, but I'd still consider it a meaningless fact until you can substantiate it in some way. I do like you quoting the absolute worst statement possible in every article you post though. It makes reading them far more interesting please continue with your hyperbole as you do. My question is/was what data do you use to substantiate your position that there aren't more vacancies than homeless where the homeless are as originally stated: Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless. Or am I misunderstanding your position? My Main point is that the 'housing shortage' is driven by property hoarders, not a lack of physical properties to house people where they live. People don't have to be priced out of affordable city housing by property hoarders is what I'm getting at, it's not that there aren't properties for people to live in. I cited Japan's situation originally which doesn't seem to be that different from what you're talking about. Of course you deleted it to score some points that there are in fact more homeless people than houses. Congrats. I can't speak to the situation in Japan but if we agreed all along that there isn't a physical shortage of housing (though updating and re-purposing could be useful of course) and it is instead a problem of property hoarders leaving places vacant while gouging people to the point of homelessness I apologize. I thought you were arguing you would have to move homeless people away from where they are to find them housing.
This isn't really a debate, there is a housing shortage in large American cities and quite a severe one, which is to say population growth outstrips supply of housing units, driving prices up. It's estimated the state of California lacks about 3 million housing units or about 30% of their current housing stock. Vacancy rates in the state appear to be 1% or less than that. So the idea of property hoarding isn't born out by the data and the idea that people don't rent out their unused property and forego money is kind of silly to begin with.
The problem with the housing market in the US is lack of density on the one hand because of single-family homes, culture of litigation and overregulation and zoning that makes building hard, and rent-seeking on the local level from people who don't want to see their inflated property values fall.
|
On March 24 2020 03:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 02:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2020 02:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 24 2020 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2020 02:13 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 24 2020 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2020 01:37 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 24 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2020 01:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 24 2020 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] It isn't true that they would have to move away from where they live either. The crashing of the air bnb market and desperation of the city/desirable property hoarders is laying that bare imo. [quote] www.nytimes.com An anecdote about a couple people being over leveraged during a market crash isn't very convincing either. The anecdote is an example, airbnb is imploding because its revenue comes from property hoarders renting desirable locations (cities being a major one) to luxury tourists. It speaks to a larger trend of people hoarding vacant luxury housing while it supplants affordable housing for the people that actually live/work in the city. Approximately half of the luxury-condo units in Manhattan that have come onto the market in the past five years are still unsold. www.theatlantic.com Your article says that the housing was built for foreigners to park their oil money or hide it from the Chinese government. Those economies hit a speed bump and the housing has gone vacant. Yes, my argument is that property hoarders are supplanting affordable housing in populous areas to serve industries like airbnb as well as act as tokens of value for the ultra wealthy. Also that your position that the lack of housing is a physical issue is unsupported by the available information. As another example we have San Francisco and the Bay Area: the best available public figures, variable though they may be, do support the four-to-one claim. In fact, the entire Bay Area has far more empty houses than people without homes in 2019. sf.curbed.comWhat makes you so confident that there isn't enough housing rather than people hoarding it? I'd draw more attention to my desire/ability to maintain part of my statement. I can agree that there are more vacant houses than homeless, but I'd still consider it a meaningless fact until you can substantiate it in some way. I do like you quoting the absolute worst statement possible in every article you post though. It makes reading them far more interesting please continue with your hyperbole as you do. My question is/was what data do you use to substantiate your position that there aren't more vacancies than homeless where the homeless are as originally stated: Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless. Or am I misunderstanding your position? My Main point is that the 'housing shortage' is driven by property hoarders, not a lack of physical properties to house people where they live. People don't have to be priced out of affordable city housing by property hoarders is what I'm getting at, it's not that there aren't properties for people to live in. I cited Japan's situation originally which doesn't seem to be that different from what you're talking about. Of course you deleted it to score some points that there are in fact more homeless people than houses. Congrats. I can't speak to the situation in Japan but if we agreed all along that there isn't a physical shortage of housing (though updating and re-purposing could be useful of course) and it is instead a problem of property hoarders leaving places vacant while gouging people to the point of homelessness I apologize. I thought you were arguing you would have to move homeless people away from where they are to find them housing. This isn't really a debate, there is a housing shortage in large American cities and quite a severe one, which is to say population growth outstrips supply of housing units, driving prices up. It's estimated the state of California lacks about 3 million housing units or about 30% of their current housing stock. Vacancy rates in the state appear to be 1% or less than that. So the idea of property hoarding isn't born out by the data and the idea that people don't rent out their unused property and forego money is kind of silly to begin with. The problem with the housing market in the US is lack of density on the one hand because of single-family homes, culture of litigation and overregulation and zoning that makes building hard, and rent-seeking on the local level from people who don't want to see their inflated property values fall.
Not sure where you're pulling those numbers or how you're calculating them so I'd need to see that to give them value and consider them a refutation of the provided data about property hoarders driving up prices while leaving the property vacant or used for airbnb style occupation.
I don't think I would use phrases like "culture of litigation" or republican arguments about overregulation and zoning laws (which are usually followed by something about saving some endangered animal we shouldn't care about), but I can agree that there are compounding factors at play for sure.
|
|
|
Personally I think homes should depreciate in value and actually devlaue the land its on after awhile.
I find the idea that you can buy a home rent it out for money then resell it for more than you bought it for absurd. A 30 year old home should not be worth pretty much the same as a newly built one. That's absurd as the old homes are not as good. A home should be a place to live not an investment.
|
On March 24 2020 03:04 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 02:22 JohnDelaney wrote:The US president, who has no medical background, continues to promote an anti-malarial drug on Twitter citing a tabloid called New York Posthttps://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1242120391054757900Meanwhile in Nigeria, Nigeria records chloroquine poisoning after Trump endorses it for coronavirus treatmenthttps://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/africa/chloroquine-trump-nigeria-intl/index.htmlHealth officials in Nigeria have issued a warning over chloroquine after they said three people in the country overdosed on the drug, in the wake of President Trump's comments about using it to treat coronavirus. A Lagos state official told CNN that three people were hospitalized in the city after taking the drug. Officials later issued a statement cautioning against using chloroquine for Covid-19 treatment. US President Donald Trump claimed at a White House briefing last week that the Food and Drug Administration had approved the "very powerful" drug chloroquine to treat coronavirus. Trump's endorsement of the drug led to a surge of interest among Nigerians keen to stock up on the medication, which has led to inevitable price hikes in the megacity of around 20 million inhabitants. One man told CNN that in a pharmacy near his home on the Lagos mainland, he witnessed the price rise by more than 400% in a matter of minutes. Kayode Fabunmi, a Lagos-based lawyer, said: "The pharmacist knew the market and was saying to every incoming customer, 'You know Donald Trump has said this thing cures coronavirus,' and the price kept changing. How is that legal? Can anyone just give medical advice nowadays? It sounds very dangerous to tell people false stuff about what medication can cure and what it cannot. (I am going of the very reasonable assumption that Trump has no clue what he is talking about) Also, who wants to take a bet that either Trump or some of his family/friends own a lot of stock in the company that produces that stuff?
It's not legal to edit weather report data either but Trump did it without any blowback.
'legal' and 'illegal' are basically meaningless where the President is concerned.
|
On March 24 2020 04:32 semantics wrote:
Personally I think homes should depreciate in value and actually devlaue the land its on after awhile.
I find the idea that you can buy a home rent it out for money then resell it for more than you bought it for absurd. A 30 year old home should not be worth pretty much the same as a newly built one. That's absurd as the old homes are not as good. A home should be a place to live not an investment.
Why not? If a home loses value in 30 years then its not well build nor well maintained.
A well build and maintained house can last for centurys. Why would that have to depreciate in value while there is a constant monetary inflation? Older homes also often have better location then newly build developments,the best locations they build first and after that it flows out further and further away. You can see this in many areas in the usa.
The usa has no problems building houses,plenty of space for new developments and easy regulation as long as you dont want to live in a prime location. The price of those go up overtime mostly because of monetary inflation.
In the city they go up more,everyone wants to live in manhattan and that space is limited.
Still no deal,i dont get the democrats in this tbh. Now they risk taking the blame,cant they come with their own stimulus package and get it through the house, leave it to the republicans to accept or deny it?
|
On March 24 2020 05:23 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 04:32 semantics wrote:
Personally I think homes should depreciate in value and actually devlaue the land its on after awhile.
I find the idea that you can buy a home rent it out for money then resell it for more than you bought it for absurd. A 30 year old home should not be worth pretty much the same as a newly built one. That's absurd as the old homes are not as good. A home should be a place to live not an investment. Why not? If a home loses value in 30 years then its not well build nor well maintained. A well build and maintained house can last for centurys. Why would that have to depreciate in value while there is a constant monetary inflation? Older homes also often have better location then newly build developments,the best locations they build first and after that it flows out further and further away. You can see this in many areas in the usa. The usa has no problems building houses,plenty of space for new developments and easy regulation as long as you dont want to live in a prime location. The price of those go up overtime mostly because of monetary inflation. In the city they go up more,everyone wants to live in manhattan and that space is limited. Still no deal,i dont get the democrats in this tbh. Now they risk taking the blame,cant they come with their own stimulus package and get it through the house, leave it to the republicans to accept or deny it?
The Republicans don't have to accept or deny it because Moscow Mitch can just say "Nah, we're not voting on that."
|
On March 24 2020 04:32 semantics wrote:
Personally I think homes should depreciate in value and actually devlaue the land its on after awhile.
I find the idea that you can buy a home rent it out for money then resell it for more than you bought it for absurd. A 30 year old home should not be worth pretty much the same as a newly built one. That's absurd as the old homes are not as good. A home should be a place to live not an investment.
Regarding the bolded: they’re not? Condition of the home is one of the things appraisers use to assess value, with “new” > “like new” >> “used, good condition” etc. (those aren’t official terms, I think they give it a number C1 - C6) if you’re saying you think that term should count for more in an appraisal, I mean, I guess, but appraisers judge that relative to real sales to estimate what real people were willing to pay for. I.e., if an appraiser gives a C3 home $30,000 more than a C4 home that’s (at least in theory) because homebuyers are willing to pay $30,000 more for it.
There’s a broader point, though, I’d probably agree with (although this change would hurt me personally, having bought a home a couple years ago): homeowners automatically getting the money from their property going up in value, even when it’s not because of any improvements they made, doesn’t seem like a great system. Even in free market terms, it doesn’t really create good incentives. The alternative is non-obvious, though. I’ve heard a 100% tax on unearned property value increase proposed, but that would probably create a kind of turbo-charged gentrification problem, and make value assessment an extremely fraught process. People also tend to like homes to act as investments because it’s more broadly accessible than some other forms of investment, so it promotes social mobility.
But if someone had a good scheme to divorce homes-as-dwellings from homes-as-investments, it would probably do a lot to reduce NIMBYism, too.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 24 2020 04:32 semantics wrote:
Personally I think homes should depreciate in value and actually devlaue the land its on after awhile.
I find the idea that you can buy a home rent it out for money then resell it for more than you bought it for absurd. A 30 year old home should not be worth pretty much the same as a newly built one. That's absurd as the old homes are not as good. A home should be a place to live not an investment.
Well historically, the house depreciates, the land appreciates, and it ends up just more or less tracking inflation. The problem seems to be the last 20 or so years where in the bigger, more desirable cities, prices have started to become so detached from income that most everyone has been priced out of ownership. That’s probably at the root of the actual problem people have with housing and rent.
|
Summary-Via a thenation reporter. Likely to be a controversial request, but this is pretty plain language reporting it and providing the text of the request. ICE has asked for 45k masks for their deportation officers. Not a hugely important amount supply wise, I don't think? But messaging wise it might be.
My take-
This seems... dumb. Even if you're a fan of ICE I don't see the point in giving them any masks right now. They're lowest on the priority list for LEO for me, since the supply is too limited for even all healthcare professionals. Some LEO definitely need them though, to enforce shelter in place and for basic public safety (there should be less need for this though since people won't be congregating).
|
If you want to avoid spreading a deadly disease among vulnerable refugee populations sitting cramped up in some camp at the border I would very much consider them a priority
|
On March 24 2020 07:19 Nyxisto wrote:
If you want to avoid spreading a deadly disease among vulnerable refugee populations sitting cramped up in some camp at the border I would very much consider them a priority
ICE is the one raiding homes, hospitals, and workplaces, Border Patrol runs the prison camps on the border.
|
On March 24 2020 07:19 Nyxisto wrote:
If you want to avoid spreading a deadly disease among vulnerable refugee populations sitting cramped up in some camp at the border I would very much consider them a priority
Or, and I'm just spitballing here, not have them in concentration camps.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On March 24 2020 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 07:19 Nyxisto wrote:
If you want to avoid spreading a deadly disease among vulnerable refugee populations sitting cramped up in some camp at the border I would very much consider them a priority ICE is the one raiding homes, hospitals, and workplaces, Border Patrol runs the prison camps on the border.
Both essential services
|
Canada8989 Posts
On March 24 2020 04:32 semantics wrote:
Personally I think homes should depreciate in value and actually devlaue the land its on after awhile.
I find the idea that you can buy a home rent it out for money then resell it for more than you bought it for absurd. A 30 year old home should not be worth pretty much the same as a newly built one. That's absurd as the old homes are not as good. A home should be a place to live not an investment.
I mean I sure want to buy a 30 years old home more then a newly build one, even more a 100 years old home, be it only because they aren't build in the middle of nowhere at 40 minutes in car from downtown.
Houses don't really lose value, if you do the necessary work on them a 100 years old home is not more fragile or less pleasurable to live in then a newly build one, usually they even more interesting since the previous owner probably did some work on them to make it better/prettier/give it some personality.
|
On March 24 2020 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 07:19 Nyxisto wrote:
If you want to avoid spreading a deadly disease among vulnerable refugee populations sitting cramped up in some camp at the border I would very much consider them a priority ICE is the one raiding homes, hospitals, and workplaces, Border Patrol runs the prison camps on the border.
well okay either way they're probably dealing with undocumented people without healthcare in close physical contact so definitely give them masks. This should go for anyone in a security-related job. A prison outbreak would be a nightmare as well.
|
With how cringeworthy these WH press briefings are with Trump, and how he continually downplays the severity of the outbreak, is there any chance at all people will starting thinking about the 25th Amendment? Any chance....?
EDIT - I just saw someone mention this on twitter: what happens if Trump fires Dr. Fauci? can he do that, is that even possible?
|
Trump gearing up to not extend the CDC recommended quarantine when it expires March 30th.
People are going to be forced to go back to work even when its not safe. Employers will say they are following CDC guidelines as people go back to work.
This is going to be fucked. I wonder if hell try to force states hands to cancel their lockdowns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
