|
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 30 2020 08:59 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:28 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I can understand why you feel that way but you also must see that this is literally something landlords can figure out themselves. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). The role you describe filling exists imo as a way to direct tenants anger at the rent-seeker they see rather than the rent seeker leeching off both of their (and other workers) labor and it gives the agent of the landlord a feeling of marginal social superiority over the tenants as well as practical control over others, vacillating them between petty nobility and freeman serf. How are you determining this distinction then? Most of the “landlords” you’re talking about probably have mortgages, so it’s a bank that really “owns” the property. If you’re calling for all mortgage payments to be cancelled, too, I can see a better argument for it; then it’s mostly the banks getting screwed. But if you’re just saying I’m not a “real landlord” so the policy wouldn’t apply to my situation (but would to the situation Emnjay is talking about), you’re gonna have to clarify how you’re making the distinction/what you’re actually advocating be done in such situations. You may have missed it (totally fair thread moves a lot) but I've expressed I support mortgage relief (not the government just paying banks off) on mortgages for houses where the person with the mortgage lives there. Your specific situation would fall under an "improving the land" category that would need to be handled slightly differently. But someone else paying the bill for the land you live on is what it is (if I understand your situation correctly). On March 30 2020 08:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). and Emnjay808's mom isn't how exactly? This whole rant seems rather silly after this statement. I'm not saying she's not, but land hoarder lackey isn't common parlance here (and might be taken personally rather than as descriptive of the relationship as I see it) so I eased into it. Plus it wasn't completely clear how much of the property is mortgaged in her case based on what I read. She could have 3k worth of mortgages and 12k in rent income which would be significantly different than what ChristianS describes. So what do you do with people that improved the land? Again, I hate to make it personal, so let’s move to a simpler example. A guy bought an empty lot, bought materials, and spent a year building a house on it. Now he’s renting it to a family. What should happen? The family no longer owes rent, and he’s not allowed to evict them. Does he get... anything? Not even reimbursed for his costs, let alone for a year of his labor?
If we agree that we shouldn't have land hoarders rent seeking and have to address it, is it fair to suggest the people in that hypothetical situation should be the first to offer up ideas on how they could/should be compensated under the agreed upon premise that we are reorganizing to rid ourselves of land hoarders? If not, I'd wonder why?
Because if they don't even have an idea to disagree with, then simply sharing the common man's equitable society is balanced enough for me with consideration for advantages granted them by domestic and foreign policy with horrific consequences.
I could come up with something that may or may not be satisfactory to you, but without your own proposal within the agreed premise of "no more land hoarders" (to be reductive), I don't see it as necessary.
Now if you are making your recognition that we shouldn't have land hoarders conditional on how this hypothetical person is compensated given their specific circumstances, I think we gotta go back to justifying land hoarders as desirable to make the conditional rational.
|
On March 30 2020 09:07 Sermokala wrote:
GH wouldn't believe that would be a problem because the person wouldn't be able to buy the lot or the materials. Private property is social theft after all. In order for apartments to be built the people who want to live in the apartment building would need to raise the money for the building and its construction amongst themselves and then would enjoy rent at cost as there would be no profit motive for housing.
Are you sure they wouldn't borrow it from the government at zero interest? Seems pretty unlikely that we'd get rid of land ownership and not banks as well. Grocery stores are just profiting off providing food. We should get rid of that too while we're at it.
|
Your argument is nonsense. The people with the land can and do agree on how they should be compensated. Its called the market value of the real estate. They disagree with people squatting and living in the properties rent-free. You then fall back on your common refrain of "we can't discuss until you agree with me" until you try and make the argument that we shouldn't have to compensate people for their private property.
Dressing up everything in confusing phrases and framing arguments doesn't hide the fact that you're up and advocating seizing people's stuff if you can't justify that society exists in its current state.
|
On March 30 2020 09:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 09:07 Sermokala wrote:
GH wouldn't believe that would be a problem because the person wouldn't be able to buy the lot or the materials. Private property is social theft after all. In order for apartments to be built the people who want to live in the apartment building would need to raise the money for the building and its construction amongst themselves and then would enjoy rent at cost as there would be no profit motive for housing. Are you sure they wouldn't borrow it from the government at zero interest? Seems pretty unlikely that we'd get rid of land ownership and not banks as well. Grocery stores are just profiting off providing food. We should get rid of that too while we're at it.
The banks are also gone in his world so the state would be the bank and would be the one giving out small business loans. I don't think GH has ever advocated for the nationalization of agriculture ala the thing that everyone says is why socialism doesn't work but he could surprise me.
|
On March 30 2020 09:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 09:07 Sermokala wrote:
GH wouldn't believe that would be a problem because the person wouldn't be able to buy the lot or the materials. Private property is social theft after all. In order for apartments to be built the people who want to live in the apartment building would need to raise the money for the building and its construction amongst themselves and then would enjoy rent at cost as there would be no profit motive for housing. Are you sure they wouldn't borrow it from the government at zero interest? Seems pretty unlikely that we'd get rid of land ownership and not banks as well. Grocery stores are just profiting off providing food. We should get rid of that too while we're at it.
Yes, this is one of the weird objections from capitalists. As well as assuming markets/rental like housing don't exist under Marxist aligned worldviews.
Labor should be compensated and contingencies planned for (meaning resources reasonably stockpiled including financial ones). That's to address another common objection based on the mistaken assumption that everything must be performed at cost without consideration for future/contingency planning being a part of those costs.
As to state vs collective ownership, I think that's a matter of what kind of society and state you have but the goal is obviously that we live in an increasingly collective society. Not just be expecting working class people to act collectively
when wealthy people and their subordinates need them to or they won't have a business left to extract their productivity from when times are less dire.
Folks don't get to put instacart workers, child care providers, migrant agricultural workers etc. in harms way in this crisis just to go back to treating them as expendable when times are flush and they have less active leverage to bargain for humane treatment. Same dynamic for all the people living on the edges of society/political consideration and being desperately relied on right now.
|
On March 30 2020 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 08:59 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2020 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:28 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I can understand why you feel that way but you also must see that this is literally something landlords can figure out themselves. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). The role you describe filling exists imo as a way to direct tenants anger at the rent-seeker they see rather than the rent seeker leeching off both of their (and other workers) labor and it gives the agent of the landlord a feeling of marginal social superiority over the tenants as well as practical control over others, vacillating them between petty nobility and freeman serf. How are you determining this distinction then? Most of the “landlords” you’re talking about probably have mortgages, so it’s a bank that really “owns” the property. If you’re calling for all mortgage payments to be cancelled, too, I can see a better argument for it; then it’s mostly the banks getting screwed. But if you’re just saying I’m not a “real landlord” so the policy wouldn’t apply to my situation (but would to the situation Emnjay is talking about), you’re gonna have to clarify how you’re making the distinction/what you’re actually advocating be done in such situations. You may have missed it (totally fair thread moves a lot) but I've expressed I support mortgage relief (not the government just paying banks off) on mortgages for houses where the person with the mortgage lives there. Your specific situation would fall under an "improving the land" category that would need to be handled slightly differently. But someone else paying the bill for the land you live on is what it is (if I understand your situation correctly). On March 30 2020 08:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). and Emnjay808's mom isn't how exactly? This whole rant seems rather silly after this statement. I'm not saying she's not, but land hoarder lackey isn't common parlance here (and might be taken personally rather than as descriptive of the relationship as I see it) so I eased into it. Plus it wasn't completely clear how much of the property is mortgaged in her case based on what I read. She could have 3k worth of mortgages and 12k in rent income which would be significantly different than what ChristianS describes. So what do you do with people that improved the land? Again, I hate to make it personal, so let’s move to a simpler example. A guy bought an empty lot, bought materials, and spent a year building a house on it. Now he’s renting it to a family. What should happen? The family no longer owes rent, and he’s not allowed to evict them. Does he get... anything? Not even reimbursed for his costs, let alone for a year of his labor? If we agree that we shouldn't have land hoarders rent seeking and have to address it, is it fair to suggest the people in that hypothetical situation should be the first to offer up ideas on how they could/should be compensated under the agreed upon premise that we are reorganizing to rid ourselves of land hoarders? If not, I'd wonder why? Because if they don't even have an idea to disagree with, then simply sharing the common man's equitable society is balanced enough for me with consideration for advantages granted them by domestic and foreign policy with horrific consequences. I could come up with something that may or may not be satisfactory to you, but without your own proposal within the agreed premise of "no more land hoarders" (to be reductive), I don't see it as necessary. Now if you are making your recognition that we shouldn't have land hoarders conditional on how this hypothetical person is compensated given their specific circumstances, I think we gotta go back to justifying land hoarders as desirable to make the conditional rational.
I admit I don’t have a good idea for the “right” way to reshape the financial system, and agree that as structured presently it’s deeply fucked. I also acknowledge that you’re basically being asked to design a reform that won’t unfairly rob anyone, even though their wealth was previously distributed by a system you consider unfair and immoral. That’s a big request, and probably impossible without retroactively going through everybody’s entire financial history and redistributing wealth based on how valuable their previous labor was to society. Without doing that, inevitably some people are going to either lose/gain unfairly, or be left with unfair gains/losses from the old system.
If you want to say people like our hypothetical housebuilder (and maybe myself, too) are regrettable casualties of the transition to a better and fairer system, fair enough. Any systemic change will create winners and losers, and you do what you can to mitigate the worst of it but if the change is better for society overall at some point you have to just go ahead with it. But it’s worth talking about those winners and losers, and acknowledging when you think those outcomes were regrettable.
As for ideas for reforming the system, I mentioned one the other day. I don’t think I support it myself, and Belisarius certainly didn’t like it, but I wonder what you’d think of it: a 100% tax on “unearned” increase in property value (that is, appreciation not due to land improvement). That way home ownership would be a way to have a place to live, but it wouldn’t be an investment. There’s a lot of negative side effects that I think probably outweigh the benefits, but it does negate the profitability of land hoarding, no?
|
On March 30 2020 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 09:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 09:07 Sermokala wrote:
GH wouldn't believe that would be a problem because the person wouldn't be able to buy the lot or the materials. Private property is social theft after all. In order for apartments to be built the people who want to live in the apartment building would need to raise the money for the building and its construction amongst themselves and then would enjoy rent at cost as there would be no profit motive for housing. Are you sure they wouldn't borrow it from the government at zero interest? Seems pretty unlikely that we'd get rid of land ownership and not banks as well. Grocery stores are just profiting off providing food. We should get rid of that too while we're at it. Yes, this is one of the weird objections from capitalists. As well as assuming markets/rental like housing don't exist under Marxist aligned worldviews. Labor should be compensated and contingencies planned for (meaning resources reasonably stockpiled including financial ones). That's to address another common objection based on the mistaken assumption that everything must be performed at cost without consideration for future/contingency planning being a part of those costs.
I merely jumped to the worst possible conclusion like you did to Emjay's mom.
|
On March 30 2020 09:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 09:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 09:07 Sermokala wrote:
GH wouldn't believe that would be a problem because the person wouldn't be able to buy the lot or the materials. Private property is social theft after all. In order for apartments to be built the people who want to live in the apartment building would need to raise the money for the building and its construction amongst themselves and then would enjoy rent at cost as there would be no profit motive for housing. Are you sure they wouldn't borrow it from the government at zero interest? Seems pretty unlikely that we'd get rid of land ownership and not banks as well. Grocery stores are just profiting off providing food. We should get rid of that too while we're at it. Yes, this is one of the weird objections from capitalists. As well as assuming markets/rental like housing don't exist under Marxist aligned worldviews. Labor should be compensated and contingencies planned for (meaning resources reasonably stockpiled including financial ones). That's to address another common objection based on the mistaken assumption that everything must be performed at cost without consideration for future/contingency planning being a part of those costs. I merely jumped to the worst possible conclusion...
What conclusion was that?
@ChristianS, I wouldn't refer to them as "casualties", simply because they wouldn't maintain a position in a hierarchy that is being undone. Particularly when the status quo produces literal casualties by the millions. As to your idea it sounds like a logistical nightmare on its surface but I'd agree with the concept on principle at first glance.
|
On March 30 2020 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 09:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 09:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 09:07 Sermokala wrote:
GH wouldn't believe that would be a problem because the person wouldn't be able to buy the lot or the materials. Private property is social theft after all. In order for apartments to be built the people who want to live in the apartment building would need to raise the money for the building and its construction amongst themselves and then would enjoy rent at cost as there would be no profit motive for housing. Are you sure they wouldn't borrow it from the government at zero interest? Seems pretty unlikely that we'd get rid of land ownership and not banks as well. Grocery stores are just profiting off providing food. We should get rid of that too while we're at it. Yes, this is one of the weird objections from capitalists. As well as assuming markets/rental like housing don't exist under Marxist aligned worldviews. Labor should be compensated and contingencies planned for (meaning resources reasonably stockpiled including financial ones). That's to address another common objection based on the mistaken assumption that everything must be performed at cost without consideration for future/contingency planning being a part of those costs. I merely jumped to the worst possible conclusion... What conclusion was that?
Marxist theory would say that people should be properly compensated for their labor, but this conversation started from someone deciding not to pay rent for six months for no reason at all. Please explain how Emjay's mom is stealing labor value from tenants not paying any rent at all.
|
On March 30 2020 10:06 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 09:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 09:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 09:07 Sermokala wrote:
GH wouldn't believe that would be a problem because the person wouldn't be able to buy the lot or the materials. Private property is social theft after all. In order for apartments to be built the people who want to live in the apartment building would need to raise the money for the building and its construction amongst themselves and then would enjoy rent at cost as there would be no profit motive for housing. Are you sure they wouldn't borrow it from the government at zero interest? Seems pretty unlikely that we'd get rid of land ownership and not banks as well. Grocery stores are just profiting off providing food. We should get rid of that too while we're at it. Yes, this is one of the weird objections from capitalists. As well as assuming markets/rental like housing don't exist under Marxist aligned worldviews. Labor should be compensated and contingencies planned for (meaning resources reasonably stockpiled including financial ones). That's to address another common objection based on the mistaken assumption that everything must be performed at cost without consideration for future/contingency planning being a part of those costs. I merely jumped to the worst possible conclusion... What conclusion was that? Marxist theory would say that people should be properly compensated for their labor, but this conversation started from someone deciding not to pay rent for six months for no reason at all. Please explain how Emjay's mom is stealing labor value from tenants not paying any rent at all.
Its a little silly to say 'no reason at all' especially when we exclusively have one side of the story, and one that neglects to mention the employment status of the tenants. Right now youre assuming best case scenario for Emjay's mom, but I don't really see a reason to. Given the massive unemployment issues it seems fair to at least consider that the tenants are newly unemployed and that given how fucked the job market is probably going to look like expecting them to not pay rent while unemployed and then backpay 6 months rent out of nowhere after going a long time without work is just not doable.
Again though, this is all presumptuous because we don't actually know the full extent of this situation, but I'm always dubious of trusting what people with enough money (and taking out a bunch of mortgages on property sure makes it seem like you have money) to buy lots of property over people who don't have that money.
|
On March 30 2020 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 09:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 09:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 09:07 Sermokala wrote:
GH wouldn't believe that would be a problem because the person wouldn't be able to buy the lot or the materials. Private property is social theft after all. In order for apartments to be built the people who want to live in the apartment building would need to raise the money for the building and its construction amongst themselves and then would enjoy rent at cost as there would be no profit motive for housing. Are you sure they wouldn't borrow it from the government at zero interest? Seems pretty unlikely that we'd get rid of land ownership and not banks as well. Grocery stores are just profiting off providing food. We should get rid of that too while we're at it. Yes, this is one of the weird objections from capitalists. As well as assuming markets/rental like housing don't exist under Marxist aligned worldviews. Labor should be compensated and contingencies planned for (meaning resources reasonably stockpiled including financial ones). That's to address another common objection based on the mistaken assumption that everything must be performed at cost without consideration for future/contingency planning being a part of those costs. I merely jumped to the worst possible conclusion... What conclusion was that? @ChristianS, I wouldn't refer to them as "casualties", simply because they wouldn't maintain a position in a hierarchy that is being undone. Particularly when the status quo produces literal casualties by the millions. As to your idea it sounds like a logistical nightmare on its surface but I'd agree with the concept on principle at first glance.
I didn’t mean “casualty” in the sense of literal death, but fine, call them what you want. But to be clear, I’m not concerned about a loss of “position in a hierarchy.” This isn’t about status. In the hypothetical, the housebuilder is robbed of a year of his labor, plus what he spent on land and materials. I don’t think you disagree that robbing someone of the value of their labor is an unjust outcome, so are we just saying his likely financial ruin is an unfortunate consequence of a transition to a better system?
|
On March 30 2020 11:03 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 10:06 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 09:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 09:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 09:07 Sermokala wrote:
GH wouldn't believe that would be a problem because the person wouldn't be able to buy the lot or the materials. Private property is social theft after all. In order for apartments to be built the people who want to live in the apartment building would need to raise the money for the building and its construction amongst themselves and then would enjoy rent at cost as there would be no profit motive for housing. Are you sure they wouldn't borrow it from the government at zero interest? Seems pretty unlikely that we'd get rid of land ownership and not banks as well. Grocery stores are just profiting off providing food. We should get rid of that too while we're at it. Yes, this is one of the weird objections from capitalists. As well as assuming markets/rental like housing don't exist under Marxist aligned worldviews. Labor should be compensated and contingencies planned for (meaning resources reasonably stockpiled including financial ones). That's to address another common objection based on the mistaken assumption that everything must be performed at cost without consideration for future/contingency planning being a part of those costs. I merely jumped to the worst possible conclusion... What conclusion was that? Marxist theory would say that people should be properly compensated for their labor, but this conversation started from someone deciding not to pay rent for six months for no reason at all. Please explain how Emjay's mom is stealing labor value from tenants not paying any rent at all. Its a little silly to say 'no reason at all' especially when we exclusively have one side of the story, and one that neglects to mention the employment status of the tenants. Right now youre assuming best case scenario for Emjay's mom, but I don't really see a reason to. Given the massive unemployment issues it seems fair to at least consider that the tenants are newly unemployed and that given how fucked the job market is probably going to look like expecting them to not pay rent while unemployed and then backpay 6 months rent out of nowhere after going a long time without work is just not doable.
On March 30 2020 07:01 Emnjay808 wrote:
My parents are having an open, transparent dialogue with their tenants and one of them straight up said that they don’t intend to pay any accrued rent once the 6-month period is up.
If this person did lose their job and is unemployed for the next six months I may have some sympathy for the situation, but that is clearly not what happened unless you start from the premise from that Emnjay decided to lie about the facts.
Again though, this is all presumptuous because we don't actually know the full extent of this situation, but I'm always dubious of trusting what people with enough money (and taking out a bunch of mortgages on property sure makes it seem like you have money) to buy lots of property over people who don't have that money.
Having multiple mortgages doesn't make one rich. If you read GreenHorizon's bullshit about 3k in payments 12k in rent then you should do a quick search on how much real estate costs in Hawaii.
|
again, he doesnt actually mention their employment status, being two months behind on rent, lets say, and then being employed for four months is STILL not likely to give you that extra rent money, and thats charitably assuming they find employment that may not even EXIST two months in. When people are forced to live paycheck to paycheck missing one or two large payments and owing 1,000USD or likely much more isnt something you can easily just pull out of your ass in bad economic times.
Even if they found employment again it may very well be paying a lot less than they were seeing before the virus hit.
Lets not just assume these people have lots of saved money, and are employed at good paying jobs with no gaps during a time with record unemployment and the general paycheck to paycheck state of American living.
EDIT: well, if someone cant AFFORD to have lots and lots of mortgages maybe one shouldnt HAVE lots and lots of mortgages if they require others to pay those mortgages for them (which it sure sounds like Emjay's mom is doing.) Its not like shes a tenant who has the one place that they have so that they can live in it. If you take out lots of mortgages in order to have tenants pay your mortgage so that one day you will make lots and lots of money, I have very little sympathy for you past a certain point, and I think owning commercial property and multiple houses is past my certain point.
|
On March 30 2020 11:16 Zambrah wrote:
again, he doesnt actually mention their employment status, being two months behind on rent, lets say, and then being employed for four months is STILL not likely to give you that extra rent money, and thats charitably assuming they find employment that may not even EXIST two months in. When people are forced to live paycheck to paycheck missing one or two large payments and owing 1,000USD or likely much more isnt something you can easily just pull out of your ass in bad economic times.
Even if they found employment again it may very well be paying a lot less than they were seeing before the virus hit.
Lets not just assume these people have lots of saved money, and are employed at good paying jobs with no gaps during a time with record unemployment and the general paycheck to paycheck state of American living.
Lets say hypothetically you got laid off due to coronavirus. Please pick the option that makes the most sense.
Option A
Hi. I lost my job due to the virus and won't be able to make rent. I'm looking for a job and would like to continue living here, but we'll need to work out a plan.
Option B
one of them straight up said that they don’t intend to pay any accrued rent once the 6-month period is up.
You don't need to have saved money to have a better response than option B. Keep in mind that's a direct quote of what happened.
|
Thats a direct quote from someone who basically represents the landlord in this situation.
So long as youre going to assume all of this good faith on the part of the landlord here, I'll take the opposite role, whats more likely,
Option A; A landlord who has more mortgages than they can handle is willing to take less money from their tenants out of the goodness of their lil ol landowning hearts
Option B: A landlord is going to expect all of that money regardless of the situation happening around their tenants because their primary driver is paying those mortgages which they need their tenant's money to do
I know which situation Im seeing more of in this country, but again, we hardly know the entirety of this particular situation, so we really can't know. Historically when I've been in situations where people want to "work out a plan" with the person in power, that usually hasn't meant anything particularly decent. Usually more of a "you can pay online instead!" compared to a "pay me half instead."
|
On March 30 2020 11:30 Zambrah wrote:
Thats a direct quote from someone who basically represents the landlord in this situation.
So long as youre going to assume all of this good faith on the part of the landlord here, I'll take the opposite role, whats more likely,
Option A; A landlord who has more mortgages than they can handle is willing to take less money from their tenants out of the goodness of their lil ol landowning hearts
Option B: A landlord is going to expect all of that money regardless of the situation happening around their tenants because their primary driver is paying those mortgages which they need their tenant's money to do
I know which situation Im seeing more of in this country, but again, we hardly know the entirety of this particular situation, so we really can't know. Historically when I've been in situations where people want to "work out a plan" with the person in power, that usually hasn't meant anything particularly decent. Usually more of a "you can pay online instead!" compared to a "pay me half instead."
My parents are having an open, transparent dialogue with their tenants
I'm feeling option A here for some reason. Even if we presume the absolute worst happened to this person and they deserve to pay no rent. Do you think there would be a better way to phrase their need? If you can't even admit that part I don't see a point to this conversation.
|
Youre right there isnt any point, you're willing to operate on information entirely from the side of the child of a landlord and make any and all assumptions about the other side from their information, there is precisely no point to us talking about this.
|
On March 30 2020 11:41 Zambrah wrote:
Youre right there isnt any point, you're willing to operate on information entirely from the side of the child of a landlord and make any and all assumptions about the other side from their information, there is precisely no point to us talking about this.
It's pretty easy to access credibility this way when we're talking about a rant post on an internet forum and not a deposition at an eviction trial. Why do you feel that Emnjay must be biased and misrepresenting his parent's situation?
|
I think Emjay is biased because his mother is biased as someone who owns more mortgages than they can handle.
|
So, re: Biden and Bernie and DNC favorability. Most of the moves regarding Bernie have been a lot more even this time, up until he was the front runner and appeared to be actually about to win. At that point, every moderate dropped out of the race and endorsed Biden. That was the big "establishment" move. Once that was done, the voters decided to trust the overall view of party leadership. That's not unusual.
Biden, in my view, was tied for the 2nd worst candidate on stage (my bottom 3 were Bloomberg, Klobuchar/Biden. Republican, abusive boss, and outdated/creepy videos). The more voters came to knew him, the worse he performed in a state. So I think it was a bad move (the establishment picking him). With a credible rape accusation I wish even more he wasn't the candidate, but there are about 17 more for Trump. So yes, once again, quite literally, "lesser of two evils". If his opponent was not Trump I would not vote for him.
Reporting that Buttigieg won Iowa instead of Bernie was more about awful/lazy/biased reporting than any overt DNC fingers on the scale. He won by the traditional measure (delegates), albeit not in any actual way - his win was fractional and I don't think you can send 1/4 of a person as a delegate. He lost by the ones that were newly available in a meaningful way, but none of the news media seemed willing to alter their ways (and also, more focus was on just how bad Iowa was)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
