|
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 August 16 2025 10:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 10:12 Razyda wrote:On August 16 2025 09:00 WombaT wrote:On August 16 2025 07:13 Razyda wrote:On August 16 2025 02:20 WombaT wrote:On August 15 2025 11:34 Razyda wrote:On August 15 2025 11:17 LightSpectra wrote:On August 15 2025 10:34 Razyda wrote:On August 15 2025 10:23 LightSpectra wrote:On August 15 2025 09:43 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Out of curiosity - what is your opinion on SC granting Trump immunity? Absurd when you compare the two. An MEP's immunity can be waived if they're caught in the act of committing a crime, or if a committee in the European Parliament finds that an indictment against them isn't blatantly politically motivated. Neither of these apply to POTUS. He can commit a crime, cover it up on live television, and no federal prosecutor can do a damn thing about it. You mean, like impeached??? How did that go? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2x7gzdr01o"landmark victory for transparency in the EU" https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-reviewed-von-der-leyens-pfizergate-texts-then-let-them-disappear/"The European Commission reviewed texts sent between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer’s chief executive officer and sought by journalists at the height of the pandemic — and allowed them to be lost." I'm sorry, were you under the impression that being less corrupt than the USA implies the EU is perfect? Dude you are literally the one who start comparison... On August 15 2025 11:21 WombaT wrote:On August 15 2025 11:13 Razyda wrote:On August 15 2025 10:56 WombaT wrote:On August 15 2025 10:44 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Dude it was Kwark who said that...
Sorry I forgot the thread rule that Kwark and I can’t have the same position on something. Indeed I had the page loaded on an old state for like an hour and responded to what I saw at the time when I got off work. Turns out Kwark beat me to the punch! I mean by all means tell me about how right wing politics are great as a counter Honestly? I am guilty of a lot of that myself. However with the rest of that post... just say I was meaning to post that. Disclaimer ( I dont think you and Kwark are the same person). On the other side of things: do you really have audacity to claim others arguing in bad faith, when you do that? You know whats funny? That somehow I expected from both you and Kwark to do better (like you know, valid argument, or such) I mean, at the very least you can quote me out of context, To be snide: we all know thats all left have  . On August 15 2025 09:59 Razyda wrote:On August 15 2025 09:49 WombaT wrote:On August 15 2025 02:11 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
I'm not a big supporter of the horse shoe theory myself. It has big issues of over simplification and ignores a lot of nuance. About the only part I agree with is that once you get way out to the extreme's they start to look and sound a lot alike. I would probably have the political spectrum more like a stick and a blob with the blob being the extremes. I don't think leftists and far right people have much in common at all, and much less then people in the center.
I think this has to do with the rejection of moderation, populism, a complete lack of trust in institutions and information. Once you believe that everything your hearing is a lie you have to believe in something and often this faith gets placed in demagogue style leaders who are up against a they or them of some sort (branded very different left or right). Some of these people are not even traditional political leaders but rather "influencers" who can then use this distrust in MSM and the general narrative for their own gains. Many have figured out how to brand their message to both extreme groups without reinventing the wheel.
You can go really far left and not do this, but it takes some hard work in critically analyzing your sources and all the information you take in, and it is a lot of heavy lifting. But if someone gets to the point where they believe no way China is perpetuating a cultural genocide because they are "socialists", in spite of the mountains of evidence even within the government documents. Or believes billionaire drug lord Maduro is actually fighting capitalists. Or that Andrew Tate is actually a good guy and all the bad stuff is made up by globalists. Or what Trump says today is for sure true even if it completely contradicts the completely true thing he said last week. You have left the traditional spectrum and entered this blob of extremism that is very similar, but with different branding. These figures can openly not follow the tenants and morals of their side and still be loved and trusted with a kind of zealously that allows them to manipulate basically any situation by blaming it on the nebulous group controlling things behind the scenes. That can be the capitalists, globalists, jews, deep state and so on.
The extra complicated part is these people are not completely wrong, we are getting misinformation even from trusted sources. Science is not always right, and there is truth to the old, he who paid the piper picks the tune. It is not surprising why so many people have turned to alternative sources of information when the traditional ones keep fucking up and straight up lying. The problem is these alternative sources are often worse, completely unchecked and there is tons of money and power in it. IT is easy to see these folks on the other side and much harder to see them on your side. Which is natural, but they do exist and it is important to recognize that and call them out. More important on your own side because they negatively effect your sides entire credibility. Fair, you make a lot of good points here! He literally didnt make a single point there. All he said is right bad, left not bad. Right stupid, left smart. I don’t think this is especially inaccurate. In the current epoch the right wing is neither particularly morally good, nor is it particularly smart. There have been prior periods where it maybe wasn’t especially moral, but at least was smart. I mean you might not like that assessment, but it is my assessment. Okay, now can you please honestly voice your opinion about what right thinks of the left? Way I see it: left is essentially speedrunning nick fuentes for president. Ok I was overly flippant before, I don’t think the right have no legitimate points or worldviews But what are the left doing that’s so bad that Nick Fuentes (or whoever comparable) is the better alternative in your hypothetical. Unlike other figures, I’d imagine saying Nick Fuentes is far right isn’t controversial, we can possibly all agree on that I assume! Obviously I’m generalising but ‘I wouldn’t vote/support the far right, but the establishment/the left are forcing me into a corner where I do’ isn’t an uncommon claim. However, if one is making such a claim, one does have to answer the question of what is so unpalatable about what those wings are doing, that you consider the far right the lesser evil? Not you personally, from your posting history I don’t think you’re talking about your own politics, but you perceive the left as pushing others to the far right I used Fuentes figuratively i forgot to add "someone like" before, and yes he is far right. Now I dont consider him lesser evil, I think that him, or someone like him coming into power is inevitable. This is not only US issue, same thing is going to happen in Europe. See what is happening is that left antagonized men with all the toxic masculinity, we dont need men, men have to change, men have to do better, I wont date anyone who doesnt make 6 figures, and so on. Admittedly not all the left, but thats what social media is for - selection bias. Right theoretically got it right: you are perfectly fine as you are, work on yourself, be provider for your family. Provider? like how? Can someone living in the US, let me know if guy on minimal wage or even average is able to buy a house and provide for his stay at home wife and few kids? I suspect not. And nothing Trump will do can change that. Yes deporting illegal immigrants will help, but it will help few from a lot. Now older men who have their life sorted dont exactly give a damn, as they are not affected that much. That leaves what? Young men, also called military age men and for a good reason, reason being that they are most dangerous creatures on the planet. Left hate them, right didnt really help them, so they will find someone else. Seen the Hesgeth tweet about church I posted few pages ago? This church will get massive. Doesnt Fuentes make people swear they will kill for him? He recently ratioed Musk on twitter. It is the very same mechanic every criminal organization used forever. The only people who think modern women don’t date people who don’t make six figures are either delusional, or so incompetent with women that they could make 7 figures and still be single. But yes, especially in young men there is something of a ‘crisis in masculinity’, and changing standards. I’d concede probably a rather confusing time for many folks in the generations proceeding mine. There’s sometimes a disconnect between what you’re being told to do and how to behave, and how it goes when you do behave thus. I think it’s silly to pretend this isn’t a thing, nor that some react badly, or feel the ‘left’ hate them (even though I think they’re massively wrong there). On the flipside, going back to my ‘why pick the alternative?’, people who gravitate to the far right on such topics are just abandoning attempts to have a more equal, less sexually violent society (with the growing pains that sometimes entails) for some fantasy where they have a subservient stay at home waifu. I had full post written down, but decided against it, because you clearly dont understand the issue. It doesnt matter whether they are right, or wrong, correct, or mistaken. It has literally 0 relevance to what I said. Only thing that matters is whether they are happy or not. If they are not, well you are f....ed.To reiterate my point: On August 16 2025 07:13 Razyda wrote:
See what is happening is that left antagonized men with all the toxic masculinity, we dont need men, men have to change, men have to do better, I wont date anyone who doesnt make 6 figures, and so on
"people who gravitate to the far right on such topics are just abandoning attempts to have a more equal, less sexually violent society" They wont care, of course they will abandon it, and create one where they are the kings, how is that even a question? They will do it, simply because they can. You are basically agreeing with me here. My contention is that people gravitate to far right politics, because they like far right politics. And not because they’re disenfranchised by the left, or the centre. You said it, not me: Show nested quote +They wont care, of course they will abandon it, and create one where they are the kings They don’t wanna live in an egalitarian, harmonious society, they want to be the kings, no matter how unearned that desire is. This isn’t a failure of left wing politics, such a thing is antithetical to left wing politics. One can say left wing politics has failed to deliver the egalitarian ideal, sure, but the one thing it’s never going to deliver is what people who gravitate to the far right want, and it never will. Left wing politics is not going to demonise foreigners for your benefit, or go against female emancipation, it’s not going to happen.
In a way I am agreeing with you. Issue is that you you dont seem to grasp what I am saying. Right/Left doesnt matter. Only difference is whether Stalin or Hitler shows up first.
"My contention is that people gravitate to far right politics, because they like far right politics. And not because they’re disenfranchised by the left, or the centre. " They gravitate to right, because left doesnt offer them anything, right pretend to do so.
"They don’t wanna live in an egalitarian, harmonious society, they want to be the kings, no matter how unearned that desire is." - I think this is the part you dont understand. It doesnt have to be earned, it merely have to be enforced.
"One can say left wing politics has failed to deliver the egalitarian ideal, sure, but the one thing it’s never going to deliver is what people who gravitate to the far right want, and it never will.
Left wing politics is not going to demonise foreigners for your benefit, or go against female emancipation, it’s not going to happen."
And how is the left wing politics doing? Where does the vote of young males go?
Issue left has is that by creating opportunities to everyone, but young men, it effectively excludes young men.
I think, that my point you seem to be missing, is that there is loads of unclaimed soldiers, eventually someone is going to claim them, doesnt matter if someone is left or right, only thing that matters is putting them first.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On August 16 2025 11:30 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 10:48 WombaT wrote:On August 16 2025 10:12 Razyda wrote:On August 16 2025 09:00 WombaT wrote:On August 16 2025 07:13 Razyda wrote:On August 16 2025 02:20 WombaT wrote:On August 15 2025 11:34 Razyda wrote:On August 15 2025 11:17 LightSpectra wrote:On August 15 2025 10:34 Razyda wrote:On August 15 2025 10:23 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Absurd when you compare the two. An MEP's immunity can be waived if they're caught in the act of committing a crime, or if a committee in the European Parliament finds that an indictment against them isn't blatantly politically motivated. Neither of these apply to POTUS. He can commit a crime, cover it up on live television, and no federal prosecutor can do a damn thing about it. You mean, like impeached??? How did that go? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2x7gzdr01o"landmark victory for transparency in the EU" https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-reviewed-von-der-leyens-pfizergate-texts-then-let-them-disappear/"The European Commission reviewed texts sent between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer’s chief executive officer and sought by journalists at the height of the pandemic — and allowed them to be lost." I'm sorry, were you under the impression that being less corrupt than the USA implies the EU is perfect? Dude you are literally the one who start comparison... On August 15 2025 11:21 WombaT wrote:On August 15 2025 11:13 Razyda wrote:On August 15 2025 10:56 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Sorry I forgot the thread rule that Kwark and I can’t have the same position on something.
Indeed I had the page loaded on an old state for like an hour and responded to what I saw at the time when I got off work.
Turns out Kwark beat me to the punch!
I mean by all means tell me about how right wing politics are great as a counter Honestly? I am guilty of a lot of that myself. However with the rest of that post... just say I was meaning to post that. Disclaimer ( I dont think you and Kwark are the same person). On the other side of things: do you really have audacity to claim others arguing in bad faith, when you do that? You know whats funny? That somehow I expected from both you and Kwark to do better (like you know, valid argument, or such) I mean, at the very least you can quote me out of context, To be snide: we all know thats all left have . On August 15 2025 09:59 Razyda wrote:On August 15 2025 09:49 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Fair, you make a lot of good points here! He literally didnt make a single point there. All he said is right bad, left not bad. Right stupid, left smart. I don’t think this is especially inaccurate. In the current epoch the right wing is neither particularly morally good, nor is it particularly smart. There have been prior periods where it maybe wasn’t especially moral, but at least was smart. I mean you might not like that assessment, but it is my assessment. Okay, now can you please honestly voice your opinion about what right thinks of the left? Way I see it: left is essentially speedrunning nick fuentes for president. Ok I was overly flippant before, I don’t think the right have no legitimate points or worldviews But what are the left doing that’s so bad that Nick Fuentes (or whoever comparable) is the better alternative in your hypothetical. Unlike other figures, I’d imagine saying Nick Fuentes is far right isn’t controversial, we can possibly all agree on that I assume! Obviously I’m generalising but ‘I wouldn’t vote/support the far right, but the establishment/the left are forcing me into a corner where I do’ isn’t an uncommon claim. However, if one is making such a claim, one does have to answer the question of what is so unpalatable about what those wings are doing, that you consider the far right the lesser evil? Not you personally, from your posting history I don’t think you’re talking about your own politics, but you perceive the left as pushing others to the far right I used Fuentes figuratively i forgot to add "someone like" before, and yes he is far right. Now I dont consider him lesser evil, I think that him, or someone like him coming into power is inevitable. This is not only US issue, same thing is going to happen in Europe. See what is happening is that left antagonized men with all the toxic masculinity, we dont need men, men have to change, men have to do better, I wont date anyone who doesnt make 6 figures, and so on. Admittedly not all the left, but thats what social media is for - selection bias. Right theoretically got it right: you are perfectly fine as you are, work on yourself, be provider for your family. Provider? like how? Can someone living in the US, let me know if guy on minimal wage or even average is able to buy a house and provide for his stay at home wife and few kids? I suspect not. And nothing Trump will do can change that. Yes deporting illegal immigrants will help, but it will help few from a lot. Now older men who have their life sorted dont exactly give a damn, as they are not affected that much. That leaves what? Young men, also called military age men and for a good reason, reason being that they are most dangerous creatures on the planet. Left hate them, right didnt really help them, so they will find someone else. Seen the Hesgeth tweet about church I posted few pages ago? This church will get massive. Doesnt Fuentes make people swear they will kill for him? He recently ratioed Musk on twitter. It is the very same mechanic every criminal organization used forever. The only people who think modern women don’t date people who don’t make six figures are either delusional, or so incompetent with women that they could make 7 figures and still be single. But yes, especially in young men there is something of a ‘crisis in masculinity’, and changing standards. I’d concede probably a rather confusing time for many folks in the generations proceeding mine. There’s sometimes a disconnect between what you’re being told to do and how to behave, and how it goes when you do behave thus. I think it’s silly to pretend this isn’t a thing, nor that some react badly, or feel the ‘left’ hate them (even though I think they’re massively wrong there). On the flipside, going back to my ‘why pick the alternative?’, people who gravitate to the far right on such topics are just abandoning attempts to have a more equal, less sexually violent society (with the growing pains that sometimes entails) for some fantasy where they have a subservient stay at home waifu. I had full post written down, but decided against it, because you clearly dont understand the issue. It doesnt matter whether they are right, or wrong, correct, or mistaken. It has literally 0 relevance to what I said. Only thing that matters is whether they are happy or not. If they are not, well you are f....ed.To reiterate my point: On August 16 2025 07:13 Razyda wrote:
See what is happening is that left antagonized men with all the toxic masculinity, we dont need men, men have to change, men have to do better, I wont date anyone who doesnt make 6 figures, and so on
"people who gravitate to the far right on such topics are just abandoning attempts to have a more equal, less sexually violent society" They wont care, of course they will abandon it, and create one where they are the kings, how is that even a question? They will do it, simply because they can. You are basically agreeing with me here. My contention is that people gravitate to far right politics, because they like far right politics. And not because they’re disenfranchised by the left, or the centre. You said it, not me: They wont care, of course they will abandon it, and create one where they are the kings They don’t wanna live in an egalitarian, harmonious society, they want to be the kings, no matter how unearned that desire is. This isn’t a failure of left wing politics, such a thing is antithetical to left wing politics. One can say left wing politics has failed to deliver the egalitarian ideal, sure, but the one thing it’s never going to deliver is what people who gravitate to the far right want, and it never will. Left wing politics is not going to demonise foreigners for your benefit, or go against female emancipation, it’s not going to happen. In a way I am agreeing with you. Issue is that you you dont seem to grasp what I am saying. Right/Left doesnt matter. Only difference is whether Stalin or Hitler shows up first. "My contention is that people gravitate to far right politics, because they like far right politics. And not because they’re disenfranchised by the left, or the centre. " They gravitate to right, because left doesnt offer them anything, right pretend to do so. "They don’t wanna live in an egalitarian, harmonious society, they want to be the kings, no matter how unearned that desire is." - I think this is the part you dont understand. It doesnt have to be earned, it merely have to be enforced. "One can say left wing politics has failed to deliver the egalitarian ideal, sure, but the one thing it’s never going to deliver is what people who gravitate to the far right want, and it never will. Left wing politics is not going to demonise foreigners for your benefit, or go against female emancipation, it’s not going to happen." And how is the left wing politics doing? Where does the vote of young males go? Issue left has is that by creating opportunities to everyone, but young men, it effectively excludes young men. I think, that my point you seem to be missing, is that there is loads of unclaimed soldiers, eventually someone is going to claim them, doesnt matter if someone is left or right, only thing that matters is putting them first.
How do you put them first?
If some ‘unclaimed soldier’ thinks society has failed them by not giving them a pliant waifu, or that they shouldn’t have to compete with immigrants, how does left wing politics dovetail with that?
It doesn’t, people just have to deal with it.
Or not, and gravitate to whatever.
But there’s no way for the left to placate such people without well, not being left wing.
And it’s pointless to even try.
Now to clarify, I’m not talking about the left’s failings in perhaps coming to some middle ground on immigration, or gender relations or whatever.
I’m talking if you think Nick Fuentes is palatable. If you’re at that point, the left were never going to reach you no matter what they do
|
On August 16 2025 12:18 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 11:30 Razyda wrote:On August 16 2025 10:48 WombaT wrote:On August 16 2025 10:12 Razyda wrote:On August 16 2025 09:00 WombaT wrote:On August 16 2025 07:13 Razyda wrote:On August 16 2025 02:20 WombaT wrote:On August 15 2025 11:34 Razyda wrote:On August 15 2025 11:17 LightSpectra wrote:I'm sorry, were you under the impression that being less corrupt than the USA implies the EU is perfect? Dude you are literally the one who start comparison... On August 15 2025 11:21 WombaT wrote:On August 15 2025 11:13 Razyda wrote:[quote] Honestly? I am guilty of a lot of that myself. However with the rest of that post... just say I was meaning to post that. Disclaimer ( I dont think you and Kwark are the same person). On the other side of things: do you really have audacity to claim others arguing in bad faith, when you do that? You know whats funny? That somehow I expected from both you and Kwark to do better (like you know, valid argument, or such) I mean, at the very least you can quote me out of context, To be snide: we all know thats all left have . On August 15 2025 09:59 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
He literally didnt make a single point there. All he said is right bad, left not bad. Right stupid, left smart. I don’t think this is especially inaccurate. In the current epoch the right wing is neither particularly morally good, nor is it particularly smart. There have been prior periods where it maybe wasn’t especially moral, but at least was smart. I mean you might not like that assessment, but it is my assessment. Okay, now can you please honestly voice your opinion about what right thinks of the left? Way I see it: left is essentially speedrunning nick fuentes for president. Ok I was overly flippant before, I don’t think the right have no legitimate points or worldviews But what are the left doing that’s so bad that Nick Fuentes (or whoever comparable) is the better alternative in your hypothetical. Unlike other figures, I’d imagine saying Nick Fuentes is far right isn’t controversial, we can possibly all agree on that I assume! Obviously I’m generalising but ‘I wouldn’t vote/support the far right, but the establishment/the left are forcing me into a corner where I do’ isn’t an uncommon claim. However, if one is making such a claim, one does have to answer the question of what is so unpalatable about what those wings are doing, that you consider the far right the lesser evil? Not you personally, from your posting history I don’t think you’re talking about your own politics, but you perceive the left as pushing others to the far right I used Fuentes figuratively i forgot to add "someone like" before, and yes he is far right. Now I dont consider him lesser evil, I think that him, or someone like him coming into power is inevitable. This is not only US issue, same thing is going to happen in Europe. See what is happening is that left antagonized men with all the toxic masculinity, we dont need men, men have to change, men have to do better, I wont date anyone who doesnt make 6 figures, and so on. Admittedly not all the left, but thats what social media is for - selection bias. Right theoretically got it right: you are perfectly fine as you are, work on yourself, be provider for your family. Provider? like how? Can someone living in the US, let me know if guy on minimal wage or even average is able to buy a house and provide for his stay at home wife and few kids? I suspect not. And nothing Trump will do can change that. Yes deporting illegal immigrants will help, but it will help few from a lot. Now older men who have their life sorted dont exactly give a damn, as they are not affected that much. That leaves what? Young men, also called military age men and for a good reason, reason being that they are most dangerous creatures on the planet. Left hate them, right didnt really help them, so they will find someone else. Seen the Hesgeth tweet about church I posted few pages ago? This church will get massive. Doesnt Fuentes make people swear they will kill for him? He recently ratioed Musk on twitter. It is the very same mechanic every criminal organization used forever. The only people who think modern women don’t date people who don’t make six figures are either delusional, or so incompetent with women that they could make 7 figures and still be single. But yes, especially in young men there is something of a ‘crisis in masculinity’, and changing standards. I’d concede probably a rather confusing time for many folks in the generations proceeding mine. There’s sometimes a disconnect between what you’re being told to do and how to behave, and how it goes when you do behave thus. I think it’s silly to pretend this isn’t a thing, nor that some react badly, or feel the ‘left’ hate them (even though I think they’re massively wrong there). On the flipside, going back to my ‘why pick the alternative?’, people who gravitate to the far right on such topics are just abandoning attempts to have a more equal, less sexually violent society (with the growing pains that sometimes entails) for some fantasy where they have a subservient stay at home waifu. I had full post written down, but decided against it, because you clearly dont understand the issue. It doesnt matter whether they are right, or wrong, correct, or mistaken. It has literally 0 relevance to what I said. Only thing that matters is whether they are happy or not. If they are not, well you are f....ed.To reiterate my point: On August 16 2025 07:13 Razyda wrote:
See what is happening is that left antagonized men with all the toxic masculinity, we dont need men, men have to change, men have to do better, I wont date anyone who doesnt make 6 figures, and so on
"people who gravitate to the far right on such topics are just abandoning attempts to have a more equal, less sexually violent society" They wont care, of course they will abandon it, and create one where they are the kings, how is that even a question? They will do it, simply because they can. You are basically agreeing with me here. My contention is that people gravitate to far right politics, because they like far right politics. And not because they’re disenfranchised by the left, or the centre. You said it, not me: They wont care, of course they will abandon it, and create one where they are the kings They don’t wanna live in an egalitarian, harmonious society, they want to be the kings, no matter how unearned that desire is. This isn’t a failure of left wing politics, such a thing is antithetical to left wing politics. One can say left wing politics has failed to deliver the egalitarian ideal, sure, but the one thing it’s never going to deliver is what people who gravitate to the far right want, and it never will. Left wing politics is not going to demonise foreigners for your benefit, or go against female emancipation, it’s not going to happen. In a way I am agreeing with you. Issue is that you you dont seem to grasp what I am saying. Right/Left doesnt matter. Only difference is whether Stalin or Hitler shows up first. "My contention is that people gravitate to far right politics, because they like far right politics. And not because they’re disenfranchised by the left, or the centre. " They gravitate to right, because left doesnt offer them anything, right pretend to do so. "They don’t wanna live in an egalitarian, harmonious society, they want to be the kings, no matter how unearned that desire is." - I think this is the part you dont understand. It doesnt have to be earned, it merely have to be enforced. "One can say left wing politics has failed to deliver the egalitarian ideal, sure, but the one thing it’s never going to deliver is what people who gravitate to the far right want, and it never will. Left wing politics is not going to demonise foreigners for your benefit, or go against female emancipation, it’s not going to happen." And how is the left wing politics doing? Where does the vote of young males go? Issue left has is that by creating opportunities to everyone, but young men, it effectively excludes young men. I think, that my point you seem to be missing, is that there is loads of unclaimed soldiers, eventually someone is going to claim them, doesnt matter if someone is left or right, only thing that matters is putting them first. How do you put them first? If some ‘unclaimed soldier’ thinks society has failed them by not giving them a pliant waifu, or that they shouldn’t have to compete with immigrants, how does left wing politics dovetail with that? It doesn’t, people just have to deal with it. Or not, and gravitate to whatever. But there’s no way for the left to placate such people without well, not being left wing. And it’s pointless to even try. Now to clarify, I’m not talking about the left’s failings in perhaps coming to some middle ground on immigration, or gender relations or whatever. I’m talking if you think Nick Fuentes is palatable. If you’re at that point, the left were never going to reach you no matter what they do
Okay your post makes it easy to clarify. ( I hope)
On August 16 2025 12:18 WombaT wrote:
It doesn’t, people just have to deal with it.
My entire post explains that they dont.
On August 16 2025 12:18 WombaT wrote:
But there’s no way for the left to placate such people without well, not being left wing.
And it’s pointless to even try.
Which is pretty much what I said.
On August 16 2025 12:18 WombaT wrote:
I’m talking if you think Nick Fuentes is palatable. If you’re at that point, the left were never going to reach you no matter what they do
He isn't. I said he is "inevitable" this is different thing. Personally I think that the person coming will make Fuentes look like someone between Jesus and Mother Theresa.
Wombat I am not telling you that you get to judge angry mob, I am telling you that if you dont join angry mob, you will understand how Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy felt,
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On August 16 2025 12:44 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 12:18 WombaT wrote:On August 16 2025 11:30 Razyda wrote:On August 16 2025 10:48 WombaT wrote:On August 16 2025 10:12 Razyda wrote:On August 16 2025 09:00 WombaT wrote:On August 16 2025 07:13 Razyda wrote:On August 16 2025 02:20 WombaT wrote:On August 15 2025 11:34 Razyda wrote:On August 15 2025 11:17 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
I'm sorry, were you under the impression that being less corrupt than the USA implies the EU is perfect? Dude you are literally the one who start comparison... On August 15 2025 11:21 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
I don’t think this is especially inaccurate.
In the current epoch the right wing is neither particularly morally good, nor is it particularly smart. There have been prior periods where it maybe wasn’t especially moral, but at least was smart.
I mean you might not like that assessment, but it is my assessment. Okay, now can you please honestly voice your opinion about what right thinks of the left? Way I see it: left is essentially speedrunning nick fuentes for president. Ok I was overly flippant before, I don’t think the right have no legitimate points or worldviews But what are the left doing that’s so bad that Nick Fuentes (or whoever comparable) is the better alternative in your hypothetical. Unlike other figures, I’d imagine saying Nick Fuentes is far right isn’t controversial, we can possibly all agree on that I assume! Obviously I’m generalising but ‘I wouldn’t vote/support the far right, but the establishment/the left are forcing me into a corner where I do’ isn’t an uncommon claim. However, if one is making such a claim, one does have to answer the question of what is so unpalatable about what those wings are doing, that you consider the far right the lesser evil? Not you personally, from your posting history I don’t think you’re talking about your own politics, but you perceive the left as pushing others to the far right I used Fuentes figuratively i forgot to add "someone like" before, and yes he is far right. Now I dont consider him lesser evil, I think that him, or someone like him coming into power is inevitable. This is not only US issue, same thing is going to happen in Europe. See what is happening is that left antagonized men with all the toxic masculinity, we dont need men, men have to change, men have to do better, I wont date anyone who doesnt make 6 figures, and so on. Admittedly not all the left, but thats what social media is for - selection bias. Right theoretically got it right: you are perfectly fine as you are, work on yourself, be provider for your family. Provider? like how? Can someone living in the US, let me know if guy on minimal wage or even average is able to buy a house and provide for his stay at home wife and few kids? I suspect not. And nothing Trump will do can change that. Yes deporting illegal immigrants will help, but it will help few from a lot. Now older men who have their life sorted dont exactly give a damn, as they are not affected that much. That leaves what? Young men, also called military age men and for a good reason, reason being that they are most dangerous creatures on the planet. Left hate them, right didnt really help them, so they will find someone else. Seen the Hesgeth tweet about church I posted few pages ago? This church will get massive. Doesnt Fuentes make people swear they will kill for him? He recently ratioed Musk on twitter. It is the very same mechanic every criminal organization used forever. The only people who think modern women don’t date people who don’t make six figures are either delusional, or so incompetent with women that they could make 7 figures and still be single. But yes, especially in young men there is something of a ‘crisis in masculinity’, and changing standards. I’d concede probably a rather confusing time for many folks in the generations proceeding mine. There’s sometimes a disconnect between what you’re being told to do and how to behave, and how it goes when you do behave thus. I think it’s silly to pretend this isn’t a thing, nor that some react badly, or feel the ‘left’ hate them (even though I think they’re massively wrong there). On the flipside, going back to my ‘why pick the alternative?’, people who gravitate to the far right on such topics are just abandoning attempts to have a more equal, less sexually violent society (with the growing pains that sometimes entails) for some fantasy where they have a subservient stay at home waifu. I had full post written down, but decided against it, because you clearly dont understand the issue. It doesnt matter whether they are right, or wrong, correct, or mistaken. It has literally 0 relevance to what I said. Only thing that matters is whether they are happy or not. If they are not, well you are f....ed.To reiterate my point: On August 16 2025 07:13 Razyda wrote:
See what is happening is that left antagonized men with all the toxic masculinity, we dont need men, men have to change, men have to do better, I wont date anyone who doesnt make 6 figures, and so on
"people who gravitate to the far right on such topics are just abandoning attempts to have a more equal, less sexually violent society" They wont care, of course they will abandon it, and create one where they are the kings, how is that even a question? They will do it, simply because they can. You are basically agreeing with me here. My contention is that people gravitate to far right politics, because they like far right politics. And not because they’re disenfranchised by the left, or the centre. You said it, not me: They wont care, of course they will abandon it, and create one where they are the kings They don’t wanna live in an egalitarian, harmonious society, they want to be the kings, no matter how unearned that desire is. This isn’t a failure of left wing politics, such a thing is antithetical to left wing politics. One can say left wing politics has failed to deliver the egalitarian ideal, sure, but the one thing it’s never going to deliver is what people who gravitate to the far right want, and it never will. Left wing politics is not going to demonise foreigners for your benefit, or go against female emancipation, it’s not going to happen. In a way I am agreeing with you. Issue is that you you dont seem to grasp what I am saying. Right/Left doesnt matter. Only difference is whether Stalin or Hitler shows up first. "My contention is that people gravitate to far right politics, because they like far right politics. And not because they’re disenfranchised by the left, or the centre. " They gravitate to right, because left doesnt offer them anything, right pretend to do so. "They don’t wanna live in an egalitarian, harmonious society, they want to be the kings, no matter how unearned that desire is." - I think this is the part you dont understand. It doesnt have to be earned, it merely have to be enforced. "One can say left wing politics has failed to deliver the egalitarian ideal, sure, but the one thing it’s never going to deliver is what people who gravitate to the far right want, and it never will. Left wing politics is not going to demonise foreigners for your benefit, or go against female emancipation, it’s not going to happen." And how is the left wing politics doing? Where does the vote of young males go? Issue left has is that by creating opportunities to everyone, but young men, it effectively excludes young men. I think, that my point you seem to be missing, is that there is loads of unclaimed soldiers, eventually someone is going to claim them, doesnt matter if someone is left or right, only thing that matters is putting them first. How do you put them first? If some ‘unclaimed soldier’ thinks society has failed them by not giving them a pliant waifu, or that they shouldn’t have to compete with immigrants, how does left wing politics dovetail with that? It doesn’t, people just have to deal with it. Or not, and gravitate to whatever. But there’s no way for the left to placate such people without well, not being left wing. And it’s pointless to even try. Now to clarify, I’m not talking about the left’s failings in perhaps coming to some middle ground on immigration, or gender relations or whatever. I’m talking if you think Nick Fuentes is palatable. If you’re at that point, the left were never going to reach you no matter what they do Okay your post makes it easy to clarify. ( I hope) Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 12:18 WombaT wrote:
It doesn’t, people just have to deal with it.
My entire post explains that they dont. Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 12:18 WombaT wrote:
But there’s no way for the left to placate such people without well, not being left wing.
And it’s pointless to even try.
Which is pretty much what I said. Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 12:18 WombaT wrote:
I’m talking if you think Nick Fuentes is palatable. If you’re at that point, the left were never going to reach you no matter what they do He isn't. I said he is "inevitable" this is different thing. Personally I think that the person coming will make Fuentes look like someone between Jesus and Mother Theresa. Wombat I am not telling you that you get to judge angry mob, I am telling you that if you dont join angry mob, you will understand how Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy felt,
Ok but then you can’t criticise the left for tactics.
If people are on some inevitable course towards Hitler 2.0 then like, they’re already too far gone for left wing politics to reach.
Your views really don’t make much sense in combination.
Either it’s ‘the left has gone too far’, in which case if they hypothetically didn’t go too far, they’d become palatable again to some people.
Or, it’s some inevitable thing and dudes angry they don’t have their stay at home waifu (that nobody can deliver) will carry the day
|
I guess we are looking at a few alternatives to this.
1. Automated soldiers become a thing fast enough that normal people can't compete any longer. (Unlikely.)
2. The % that feels disenfranchised enough to do something is lower than you think. Basically people silently quitting instead of taking up arms. (Most likely to me.)
3. The other side of the question actually takes up arms to protect their rights. Women soldiers are slowly gaining traction and plenty of males aren't disenfranchised.
4. Social media usage changes, which would reduce radicalization. This is probably the one easiest to implement, excluding lobbying.
5. Sexual maid bots becomes an actual thing, so enough people get roughly what they want anyhow.
5.1. VR combined with masturbation tools become better than the real thing. Would probably strip out a large portion of people. Tying into silently quitting society.
6. People worried about population collapse urges Razyda's suggested outcome on as a solution on how to get babies again and you get a wider front for some type of female disenfranchisement.
|
Looks like Trump accomplished nothing with Putin, other than to give Putin more limelight:
"No ceasefire, no deal. What summit means for Trump, Putin and Ukraine ...
US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin have left Alaska without reaching an agreement for a ceasefire in Ukraine. ...
For the man who likes to tout himself as a peacemaker and a dealmaker, it appears that Trump will leave Alaska with neither. ...
What's more, the president had to suffer the apparent indignity of standing silent as Putin started off the press-conference-that-wasn't with extensive opening remarks. It was a marked difference than the normal routine in the Oval Office, when the US president typically holds court while his foreign counterpart looks on without comment."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyvd3gkg1po
|
On August 16 2025 07:13 Yurie wrote:
Isn't the problem with most mega cities the rules? All the best land is taken and it is VERY hard to buy, tear down and build something larger on a lot. Or even building something new in an area that doesn't have a building on it already.
So you end up with areas far out that are worth less, where you have to extend the public transport network and it thus becomes a mega project. And people don't want to live that far out of the city, meaning rent can't be high enough to finance the project. Perhaps letting the public transport network finance it as a total project might work, kind of how Japanese train networks are just enablers for their land ownership (a bit exaggerated).
This leaves you with a few options I can think of directly, likely there are more.
1- Assume that with the rules you have rents will never get high enough to fix the problem. This doesn't seem very nice to somebody living there since costs will keep climbing until rent is 50%+ of income. Thus a popular politician imposes rent control sooner or later.
2- Assume rent can climb high enough that it is worth it for people to add to the city housing. In that case doing nothing likely works out better.
3- Change the rules so the cost of a new project decreases and 2 becomes more likely.
4- Do it as the city, as you control the rules and have the problem you finance more housing until you hit the level you think is right for the city.
One factor is that a lot of construction in many countries is built for sale and not rent. That can offset high costs to a certain degree. But even that has a maximum it will support.
It's both. Excessive zoning regulation and rent control increase rent. There's no real support for rent control amongst economists. See for example these polls. Some responses have comments as well.
Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 7%
Disagree: 49%
Strongly disagree: 32%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 7%
Richard Thalers comment says it all:
Disagree
Next questions: does the sun revolve around the earth.
Question A:
Capping annual rent increases by corporate landlords at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would make middle-income Americans substantially better off over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 16%
Disagree: 58%
Strongly disagree: 16%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question B:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce the amount of available apartments for rent over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 18%
Agree: 44%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 4%
Strongly disagree: 2%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question C:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce US income inequality over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 0%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 53%
Strongly disagree: 13%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 9%
|
|
|
On August 16 2025 14:54 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 07:13 Yurie wrote:
Isn't the problem with most mega cities the rules? All the best land is taken and it is VERY hard to buy, tear down and build something larger on a lot. Or even building something new in an area that doesn't have a building on it already.
So you end up with areas far out that are worth less, where you have to extend the public transport network and it thus becomes a mega project. And people don't want to live that far out of the city, meaning rent can't be high enough to finance the project. Perhaps letting the public transport network finance it as a total project might work, kind of how Japanese train networks are just enablers for their land ownership (a bit exaggerated).
This leaves you with a few options I can think of directly, likely there are more.
1- Assume that with the rules you have rents will never get high enough to fix the problem. This doesn't seem very nice to somebody living there since costs will keep climbing until rent is 50%+ of income. Thus a popular politician imposes rent control sooner or later.
2- Assume rent can climb high enough that it is worth it for people to add to the city housing. In that case doing nothing likely works out better.
3- Change the rules so the cost of a new project decreases and 2 becomes more likely.
4- Do it as the city, as you control the rules and have the problem you finance more housing until you hit the level you think is right for the city.
One factor is that a lot of construction in many countries is built for sale and not rent. That can offset high costs to a certain degree. But even that has a maximum it will support. It's both. Excessive zoning regulation and rent control increase rent. There's no real support for rent control amongst economists. See for example these polls. Some responses have comments as well. Show nested quote +Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 7%
Disagree: 49%
Strongly disagree: 32%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 7%
Richard Thalers comment says it all: Show nested quote +Question A:
Capping annual rent increases by corporate landlords at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would make middle-income Americans substantially better off over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 16%
Disagree: 58%
Strongly disagree: 16%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question B:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce the amount of available apartments for rent over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 18%
Agree: 44%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 4%
Strongly disagree: 2%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question C:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce US income inequality over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 0%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 53%
Strongly disagree: 13%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 9%
There is no consensus like that among economists. The overall benefit of rent control (in a vacuum) is inconclusive.
5. Conclusion
In this study, I examine a wide range of empirical studies on rent control published in referred journals between 1967 and 2023. I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. These unintended effects counteract the desired effect, thus, diminishing the net benefit of rent control. Therefore, the overall impact of rent control policy on the welfare of society is not clear.
Moreover, the analysis is further complicated by the fact that rent control is not adopted in a vacuum. Simultaneously, other housing policies — such as the protection of tenants from eviction, housing rationing, housing allowances, and stimulation of residential construction (Kholodilin 2017; Kholodilin 2020; Kholodilin et al., 2021) — are implemented. Further, banking, climate, and fiscal policies can also affect the results of rent control regulations.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137724000020
Especially the second sentence is key:
I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction.
The primary benefit is that of affordability in controlled housing. This finding is simply true and not in dispute.
Drawbacks are:
- Higher rent in uncontrolled housing
If new housing is built for controlled rent, I don't see how this is an overall problem. I'll address this point a few more times.
- Lower mobility
This has pros and cons, and in a vacuum it would be an overall drawback. However, with good policy it becomes a non-issue. Families' needs can be met by continuously building new housing so they have incentive to move wherever they please. In Vienna this works just fine. Workers and the lower class have sufficient mobility. The middle class is fine, since they can afford more expensive housing. That's how things should work anyway. Goal accomplished.
So this is a very simple problem with a very simple solution.
- Reduced residential construction
This reveals the stupidity of the simplistic claim that rent control is bad. Yes, in a vacuum it's bad. But good policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Creation of new housing solves much if not the whole problem.
So it's fairly obvious that nothing is obvious to the economists. If any economist claims that there's a clear consensus against rent control among their peers, they're lying.
|
Apparently, Trump is asking for a Nobel Peace Prize:
"Trump cold-called Norwegian minister to ask about Nobel Peace Prize ...
U.S. President Donald Trump called Norway’s Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg out of the blue last month to discuss trade tariffs — as well as his bid to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
The call was first reported by Norwegian newspaper Dagens Næringsliv on Thursday and was later confirmed to POLITICO by a government official in Oslo. This was not the first time Trump had raised the prize in discussions with Stoltenberg, Dagens Næringsliv noted."
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-called-norway-finance-minister-ask-about-nobel-peace-prize/
|
On August 16 2025 16:40 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 14:54 RvB wrote:On August 16 2025 07:13 Yurie wrote:
Isn't the problem with most mega cities the rules? All the best land is taken and it is VERY hard to buy, tear down and build something larger on a lot. Or even building something new in an area that doesn't have a building on it already.
So you end up with areas far out that are worth less, where you have to extend the public transport network and it thus becomes a mega project. And people don't want to live that far out of the city, meaning rent can't be high enough to finance the project. Perhaps letting the public transport network finance it as a total project might work, kind of how Japanese train networks are just enablers for their land ownership (a bit exaggerated).
This leaves you with a few options I can think of directly, likely there are more.
1- Assume that with the rules you have rents will never get high enough to fix the problem. This doesn't seem very nice to somebody living there since costs will keep climbing until rent is 50%+ of income. Thus a popular politician imposes rent control sooner or later.
2- Assume rent can climb high enough that it is worth it for people to add to the city housing. In that case doing nothing likely works out better.
3- Change the rules so the cost of a new project decreases and 2 becomes more likely.
4- Do it as the city, as you control the rules and have the problem you finance more housing until you hit the level you think is right for the city.
One factor is that a lot of construction in many countries is built for sale and not rent. That can offset high costs to a certain degree. But even that has a maximum it will support. It's both. Excessive zoning regulation and rent control increase rent. There's no real support for rent control amongst economists. See for example these polls. Some responses have comments as well. Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 7%
Disagree: 49%
Strongly disagree: 32%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 7%
Richard Thalers comment says it all: Disagree
Next questions: does the sun revolve around the earth. Question A:
Capping annual rent increases by corporate landlords at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would make middle-income Americans substantially better off over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 16%
Disagree: 58%
Strongly disagree: 16%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question B:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce the amount of available apartments for rent over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 18%
Agree: 44%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 4%
Strongly disagree: 2%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question C:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce US income inequality over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 0%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 53%
Strongly disagree: 13%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 9% There is no consensus like that among economists. The overall benefit of rent control (in a vacuum) is inconclusive. Show nested quote +5. Conclusion
In this study, I examine a wide range of empirical studies on rent control published in referred journals between 1967 and 2023. I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. These unintended effects counteract the desired effect, thus, diminishing the net benefit of rent control. Therefore, the overall impact of rent control policy on the welfare of society is not clear.
Moreover, the analysis is further complicated by the fact that rent control is not adopted in a vacuum. Simultaneously, other housing policies — such as the protection of tenants from eviction, housing rationing, housing allowances, and stimulation of residential construction (Kholodilin 2017; Kholodilin 2020; Kholodilin et al., 2021) — are implemented. Further, banking, climate, and fiscal policies can also affect the results of rent control regulations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137724000020Especially the second sentence is key: Show nested quote +I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. The primary benefit is that of affordability in controlled housing. This finding is simply true and not in dispute. Drawbacks are: - Higher rent in uncontrolled housing If new housing is built for controlled rent, I don't see how this is an overall problem. I'll address this point a few more times. - Lower mobility This has pros and cons, and in a vacuum it would be an overall drawback. However, with good policy it becomes a non-issue. Families' needs can be met by continuously building new housing so they have incentive to move wherever they please. In Vienna this works just fine. Workers and the lower class have sufficient mobility. The middle class is fine, since they can afford more expensive housing. That's how things should work anyway. Goal accomplished. So this is a very simple problem with a very simple solution. - Reduced residential construction This reveals the stupidity of the simplistic claim that rent control is bad. Yes, in a vacuum it's bad. But good policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Creation of new housing solves much if not the whole problem. So it's fairly obvious that nothing is obvious to the economists. If any economist claims that there's a clear consensus against rent control among their peers, they're lying.
There is a consensus. I've just linked the polls to you. The study you quote has the same conclusions. I've you had actually read it you'd see that it cites no empirical literature on net welfare.
The rest of your argument is basically that rent control is bad but if you build enough housing it's fine. You know what other problem more housing solves? Higher rents! Rent control is implemented to lower rents compared to the market price. The effects become worse the larger the difference between market rents and controlled rents. If you bring the market price more in line with controlled rents then the negative effects also become less. At the same time that also reduces the need for rent control in the first place. So yes, your conclusion that building more housing helps solve much of the issues of rent control is correct. It's also meaningless if we want to judge its effectiveness as a policy.
|
On August 16 2025 18:09 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 16:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2025 14:54 RvB wrote:On August 16 2025 07:13 Yurie wrote:
Isn't the problem with most mega cities the rules? All the best land is taken and it is VERY hard to buy, tear down and build something larger on a lot. Or even building something new in an area that doesn't have a building on it already.
So you end up with areas far out that are worth less, where you have to extend the public transport network and it thus becomes a mega project. And people don't want to live that far out of the city, meaning rent can't be high enough to finance the project. Perhaps letting the public transport network finance it as a total project might work, kind of how Japanese train networks are just enablers for their land ownership (a bit exaggerated).
This leaves you with a few options I can think of directly, likely there are more.
1- Assume that with the rules you have rents will never get high enough to fix the problem. This doesn't seem very nice to somebody living there since costs will keep climbing until rent is 50%+ of income. Thus a popular politician imposes rent control sooner or later.
2- Assume rent can climb high enough that it is worth it for people to add to the city housing. In that case doing nothing likely works out better.
3- Change the rules so the cost of a new project decreases and 2 becomes more likely.
4- Do it as the city, as you control the rules and have the problem you finance more housing until you hit the level you think is right for the city.
One factor is that a lot of construction in many countries is built for sale and not rent. That can offset high costs to a certain degree. But even that has a maximum it will support. It's both. Excessive zoning regulation and rent control increase rent. There's no real support for rent control amongst economists. See for example these polls. Some responses have comments as well. Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 7%
Disagree: 49%
Strongly disagree: 32%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 7%
Richard Thalers comment says it all: Disagree
Next questions: does the sun revolve around the earth. Question A:
Capping annual rent increases by corporate landlords at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would make middle-income Americans substantially better off over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 16%
Disagree: 58%
Strongly disagree: 16%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question B:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce the amount of available apartments for rent over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 18%
Agree: 44%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 4%
Strongly disagree: 2%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question C:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce US income inequality over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 0%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 53%
Strongly disagree: 13%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 9% There is no consensus like that among economists. The overall benefit of rent control (in a vacuum) is inconclusive. 5. Conclusion
In this study, I examine a wide range of empirical studies on rent control published in referred journals between 1967 and 2023. I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. These unintended effects counteract the desired effect, thus, diminishing the net benefit of rent control. Therefore, the overall impact of rent control policy on the welfare of society is not clear.
Moreover, the analysis is further complicated by the fact that rent control is not adopted in a vacuum. Simultaneously, other housing policies — such as the protection of tenants from eviction, housing rationing, housing allowances, and stimulation of residential construction (Kholodilin 2017; Kholodilin 2020; Kholodilin et al., 2021) — are implemented. Further, banking, climate, and fiscal policies can also affect the results of rent control regulations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137724000020Especially the second sentence is key: I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. The primary benefit is that of affordability in controlled housing. This finding is simply true and not in dispute. Drawbacks are: - Higher rent in uncontrolled housing If new housing is built for controlled rent, I don't see how this is an overall problem. I'll address this point a few more times. - Lower mobility This has pros and cons, and in a vacuum it would be an overall drawback. However, with good policy it becomes a non-issue. Families' needs can be met by continuously building new housing so they have incentive to move wherever they please. In Vienna this works just fine. Workers and the lower class have sufficient mobility. The middle class is fine, since they can afford more expensive housing. That's how things should work anyway. Goal accomplished. So this is a very simple problem with a very simple solution. - Reduced residential construction This reveals the stupidity of the simplistic claim that rent control is bad. Yes, in a vacuum it's bad. But good policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Creation of new housing solves much if not the whole problem. So it's fairly obvious that nothing is obvious to the economists. If any economist claims that there's a clear consensus against rent control among their peers, they're lying. There is a consensus. I've just linked the polls to you. The study you quote has the same conclusions. I've you had actually read it you'd see that it cites no empirical literature on net welfare. The rest of your argument is basically that rent control is bad but if you build enough housing it's fine. You know what other problem more housing solves? Higher rents! Rent control is implemented to lower rents compared to the market price. The effects become worse the larger the difference between market rents and controlled rents. If you bring the market price more in line with controlled rents then the negative effects also become less. At the same time that also reduces the need for rent control in the first place. So yes, your conclusion that building more housing helps solve much of the issues of rent control is correct. It's also meaningless if we want to judge its effectiveness as a policy.
More housing is generally a good idea, but it's especially good with rent control. The only part of the housing market that loses out is the private one, which becomes more expensive. I don't see why lower classes should care about that when there are enough homes they can move to at an affordable cost. That's what rent control does. It allows for the additional homes to be immediately affordable and to remain affordable. If the additional homes are privately owned, there is no rent control, and lower classes can't afford them.
There are currently no known solutions for affordability other than rent control. It's literally one the best solutions out there. The fact that - in a vacuum - it introduces a problem is completely irrelevant. The main problem is solved with a continuous construction of homes, and other problems are solved with other policies.
Many policies don't work in a vacuum but they do work in the right context. This is not a new revelation.
|
On August 16 2025 18:34 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 18:09 RvB wrote:On August 16 2025 16:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2025 14:54 RvB wrote:On August 16 2025 07:13 Yurie wrote:
Isn't the problem with most mega cities the rules? All the best land is taken and it is VERY hard to buy, tear down and build something larger on a lot. Or even building something new in an area that doesn't have a building on it already.
So you end up with areas far out that are worth less, where you have to extend the public transport network and it thus becomes a mega project. And people don't want to live that far out of the city, meaning rent can't be high enough to finance the project. Perhaps letting the public transport network finance it as a total project might work, kind of how Japanese train networks are just enablers for their land ownership (a bit exaggerated).
This leaves you with a few options I can think of directly, likely there are more.
1- Assume that with the rules you have rents will never get high enough to fix the problem. This doesn't seem very nice to somebody living there since costs will keep climbing until rent is 50%+ of income. Thus a popular politician imposes rent control sooner or later.
2- Assume rent can climb high enough that it is worth it for people to add to the city housing. In that case doing nothing likely works out better.
3- Change the rules so the cost of a new project decreases and 2 becomes more likely.
4- Do it as the city, as you control the rules and have the problem you finance more housing until you hit the level you think is right for the city.
One factor is that a lot of construction in many countries is built for sale and not rent. That can offset high costs to a certain degree. But even that has a maximum it will support. It's both. Excessive zoning regulation and rent control increase rent. There's no real support for rent control amongst economists. See for example these polls. Some responses have comments as well. Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 7%
Disagree: 49%
Strongly disagree: 32%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 7%
Richard Thalers comment says it all: Disagree
Next questions: does the sun revolve around the earth. Question A:
Capping annual rent increases by corporate landlords at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would make middle-income Americans substantially better off over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 16%
Disagree: 58%
Strongly disagree: 16%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question B:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce the amount of available apartments for rent over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 18%
Agree: 44%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 4%
Strongly disagree: 2%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question C:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce US income inequality over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 0%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 53%
Strongly disagree: 13%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 9% There is no consensus like that among economists. The overall benefit of rent control (in a vacuum) is inconclusive. 5. Conclusion
In this study, I examine a wide range of empirical studies on rent control published in referred journals between 1967 and 2023. I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. These unintended effects counteract the desired effect, thus, diminishing the net benefit of rent control. Therefore, the overall impact of rent control policy on the welfare of society is not clear.
Moreover, the analysis is further complicated by the fact that rent control is not adopted in a vacuum. Simultaneously, other housing policies — such as the protection of tenants from eviction, housing rationing, housing allowances, and stimulation of residential construction (Kholodilin 2017; Kholodilin 2020; Kholodilin et al., 2021) — are implemented. Further, banking, climate, and fiscal policies can also affect the results of rent control regulations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137724000020Especially the second sentence is key: I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. The primary benefit is that of affordability in controlled housing. This finding is simply true and not in dispute. Drawbacks are: - Higher rent in uncontrolled housing If new housing is built for controlled rent, I don't see how this is an overall problem. I'll address this point a few more times. - Lower mobility This has pros and cons, and in a vacuum it would be an overall drawback. However, with good policy it becomes a non-issue. Families' needs can be met by continuously building new housing so they have incentive to move wherever they please. In Vienna this works just fine. Workers and the lower class have sufficient mobility. The middle class is fine, since they can afford more expensive housing. That's how things should work anyway. Goal accomplished. So this is a very simple problem with a very simple solution. - Reduced residential construction This reveals the stupidity of the simplistic claim that rent control is bad. Yes, in a vacuum it's bad. But good policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Creation of new housing solves much if not the whole problem. So it's fairly obvious that nothing is obvious to the economists. If any economist claims that there's a clear consensus against rent control among their peers, they're lying. There is a consensus. I've just linked the polls to you. The study you quote has the same conclusions. I've you had actually read it you'd see that it cites no empirical literature on net welfare. The rest of your argument is basically that rent control is bad but if you build enough housing it's fine. You know what other problem more housing solves? Higher rents! Rent control is implemented to lower rents compared to the market price. The effects become worse the larger the difference between market rents and controlled rents. If you bring the market price more in line with controlled rents then the negative effects also become less. At the same time that also reduces the need for rent control in the first place. So yes, your conclusion that building more housing helps solve much of the issues of rent control is correct. It's also meaningless if we want to judge its effectiveness as a policy. More housing is generally a good idea, but it's especially good with rent control. The only part of the housing market that loses out is the private one, which becomes more expensive. I don't see why lower classes should care about that when there are enough homes they can move to at an affordable cost. That's what rent control does. It allows for the additional homes to be immediately affordable and to remain affordable. If the additional homes are privately owned, there is no rent control, and lower classes can't afford them. There are currently no known solutions for affordability other than rent control. It's literally one the best solutions out there. The fact that - in a vacuum - it introduces a problem is completely irrelevant. The main problem is solved with a continuous construction of homes, and other problems are solved with other policies. Many policies don't work in a vacuum but they do work in the right context. This is not a new revelation. But then is the solution rent control or is it just market saturation? You say rent control works if there are so many houses on the market that anyone can find one. Wouldn't the normal housing market also self correct back into affordability if the market was flush with houses, naturally bringing prices down as supply exceeds demand?
The problem in both cases is enticing companies to keep building houses when they make less profit off of them. That and not getting voted out of office by all the home owners who see the value of their house plummet. The latter might well be the entire core issue around the world, the haves (those who own homes) benefitting from ever increasing housing prices and not being willing to take a hit to help the have nots.
|
On August 16 2025 18:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 18:34 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2025 18:09 RvB wrote:On August 16 2025 16:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2025 14:54 RvB wrote:On August 16 2025 07:13 Yurie wrote:
Isn't the problem with most mega cities the rules? All the best land is taken and it is VERY hard to buy, tear down and build something larger on a lot. Or even building something new in an area that doesn't have a building on it already.
So you end up with areas far out that are worth less, where you have to extend the public transport network and it thus becomes a mega project. And people don't want to live that far out of the city, meaning rent can't be high enough to finance the project. Perhaps letting the public transport network finance it as a total project might work, kind of how Japanese train networks are just enablers for their land ownership (a bit exaggerated).
This leaves you with a few options I can think of directly, likely there are more.
1- Assume that with the rules you have rents will never get high enough to fix the problem. This doesn't seem very nice to somebody living there since costs will keep climbing until rent is 50%+ of income. Thus a popular politician imposes rent control sooner or later.
2- Assume rent can climb high enough that it is worth it for people to add to the city housing. In that case doing nothing likely works out better.
3- Change the rules so the cost of a new project decreases and 2 becomes more likely.
4- Do it as the city, as you control the rules and have the problem you finance more housing until you hit the level you think is right for the city.
One factor is that a lot of construction in many countries is built for sale and not rent. That can offset high costs to a certain degree. But even that has a maximum it will support. It's both. Excessive zoning regulation and rent control increase rent. There's no real support for rent control amongst economists. See for example these polls. Some responses have comments as well. Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 7%
Disagree: 49%
Strongly disagree: 32%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 7%
Richard Thalers comment says it all: Disagree
Next questions: does the sun revolve around the earth. Question A:
Capping annual rent increases by corporate landlords at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would make middle-income Americans substantially better off over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 16%
Disagree: 58%
Strongly disagree: 16%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question B:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce the amount of available apartments for rent over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 18%
Agree: 44%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 4%
Strongly disagree: 2%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question C:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce US income inequality over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 0%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 53%
Strongly disagree: 13%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 9% There is no consensus like that among economists. The overall benefit of rent control (in a vacuum) is inconclusive. 5. Conclusion
In this study, I examine a wide range of empirical studies on rent control published in referred journals between 1967 and 2023. I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. These unintended effects counteract the desired effect, thus, diminishing the net benefit of rent control. Therefore, the overall impact of rent control policy on the welfare of society is not clear.
Moreover, the analysis is further complicated by the fact that rent control is not adopted in a vacuum. Simultaneously, other housing policies — such as the protection of tenants from eviction, housing rationing, housing allowances, and stimulation of residential construction (Kholodilin 2017; Kholodilin 2020; Kholodilin et al., 2021) — are implemented. Further, banking, climate, and fiscal policies can also affect the results of rent control regulations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137724000020Especially the second sentence is key: I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. The primary benefit is that of affordability in controlled housing. This finding is simply true and not in dispute. Drawbacks are: - Higher rent in uncontrolled housing If new housing is built for controlled rent, I don't see how this is an overall problem. I'll address this point a few more times. - Lower mobility This has pros and cons, and in a vacuum it would be an overall drawback. However, with good policy it becomes a non-issue. Families' needs can be met by continuously building new housing so they have incentive to move wherever they please. In Vienna this works just fine. Workers and the lower class have sufficient mobility. The middle class is fine, since they can afford more expensive housing. That's how things should work anyway. Goal accomplished. So this is a very simple problem with a very simple solution. - Reduced residential construction This reveals the stupidity of the simplistic claim that rent control is bad. Yes, in a vacuum it's bad. But good policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Creation of new housing solves much if not the whole problem. So it's fairly obvious that nothing is obvious to the economists. If any economist claims that there's a clear consensus against rent control among their peers, they're lying. There is a consensus. I've just linked the polls to you. The study you quote has the same conclusions. I've you had actually read it you'd see that it cites no empirical literature on net welfare. The rest of your argument is basically that rent control is bad but if you build enough housing it's fine. You know what other problem more housing solves? Higher rents! Rent control is implemented to lower rents compared to the market price. The effects become worse the larger the difference between market rents and controlled rents. If you bring the market price more in line with controlled rents then the negative effects also become less. At the same time that also reduces the need for rent control in the first place. So yes, your conclusion that building more housing helps solve much of the issues of rent control is correct. It's also meaningless if we want to judge its effectiveness as a policy. More housing is generally a good idea, but it's especially good with rent control. The only part of the housing market that loses out is the private one, which becomes more expensive. I don't see why lower classes should care about that when there are enough homes they can move to at an affordable cost. That's what rent control does. It allows for the additional homes to be immediately affordable and to remain affordable. If the additional homes are privately owned, there is no rent control, and lower classes can't afford them. There are currently no known solutions for affordability other than rent control. It's literally one the best solutions out there. The fact that - in a vacuum - it introduces a problem is completely irrelevant. The main problem is solved with a continuous construction of homes, and other problems are solved with other policies. Many policies don't work in a vacuum but they do work in the right context. This is not a new revelation. But then is the solution rent control or is it just market saturation? You say rent control works if there are so many houses on the market that anyone can find one. Wouldn't the normal housing market also self correct back into affordability if the market was flush with houses, naturally bringing prices down as supply exceeds demand? The problem in both cases is enticing companies to keep building houses when they make less profit off of them. That and not getting voted out of office by all the home owners who see the value of their house plummet. The latter might well be the entire core issue around the world, the haves (those who own homes) benefitting from ever increasing housing prices and not being willing to take a hit to help the have nots.
Leaving housing construction to the free market drives up housing cost because it's a lot more profitable to raise rent than to build more homes, which also perversely orients the incentivize towards less construction and creates a feedback loop of rising rental cost. Building homes costs a large amount of money, it's more of a hassle due to construction guidelines, it's overall also a riskier investment, whereas raising rent for the next renter (even when including expensive refurbishment) costs much less money and carries much less risk. This can can even completely hyper-inflate the cost of homes depending on how greedy the owners are. And that's only the most obvious of the problems resulting from free market housing.
There is a place for free market housing, but it can't serve the lower classes. People who argue that rent control is bad in the long run should research the impact of the free market in the long run. It's a lot worse.
|
United States43232 Posts
On August 16 2025 17:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Apparently, Trump is asking for a Nobel Peace Prize: "Trump cold-called Norwegian minister to ask about Nobel Peace Prize ... U.S. President Donald Trump called Norway’s Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg out of the blue last month to discuss trade tariffs — as well as his bid to win the Nobel Peace Prize. The call was first reported by Norwegian newspaper Dagens Næringsliv on Thursday and was later confirmed to POLITICO by a government official in Oslo. This was not the first time Trump had raised the prize in discussions with Stoltenberg, Dagens Næringsliv noted." https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-called-norway-finance-minister-ask-about-nobel-peace-prize/
Give Obama a second one.
|
On August 16 2025 18:34 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 18:09 RvB wrote:On August 16 2025 16:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2025 14:54 RvB wrote:On August 16 2025 07:13 Yurie wrote:
Isn't the problem with most mega cities the rules? All the best land is taken and it is VERY hard to buy, tear down and build something larger on a lot. Or even building something new in an area that doesn't have a building on it already.
So you end up with areas far out that are worth less, where you have to extend the public transport network and it thus becomes a mega project. And people don't want to live that far out of the city, meaning rent can't be high enough to finance the project. Perhaps letting the public transport network finance it as a total project might work, kind of how Japanese train networks are just enablers for their land ownership (a bit exaggerated).
This leaves you with a few options I can think of directly, likely there are more.
1- Assume that with the rules you have rents will never get high enough to fix the problem. This doesn't seem very nice to somebody living there since costs will keep climbing until rent is 50%+ of income. Thus a popular politician imposes rent control sooner or later.
2- Assume rent can climb high enough that it is worth it for people to add to the city housing. In that case doing nothing likely works out better.
3- Change the rules so the cost of a new project decreases and 2 becomes more likely.
4- Do it as the city, as you control the rules and have the problem you finance more housing until you hit the level you think is right for the city.
One factor is that a lot of construction in many countries is built for sale and not rent. That can offset high costs to a certain degree. But even that has a maximum it will support. It's both. Excessive zoning regulation and rent control increase rent. There's no real support for rent control amongst economists. See for example these polls. Some responses have comments as well. Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 7%
Disagree: 49%
Strongly disagree: 32%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 7%
Richard Thalers comment says it all: Disagree
Next questions: does the sun revolve around the earth. Question A:
Capping annual rent increases by corporate landlords at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would make middle-income Americans substantially better off over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 16%
Disagree: 58%
Strongly disagree: 16%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question B:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce the amount of available apartments for rent over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 18%
Agree: 44%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 4%
Strongly disagree: 2%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question C:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce US income inequality over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 0%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 53%
Strongly disagree: 13%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 9% There is no consensus like that among economists. The overall benefit of rent control (in a vacuum) is inconclusive. 5. Conclusion
In this study, I examine a wide range of empirical studies on rent control published in referred journals between 1967 and 2023. I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. These unintended effects counteract the desired effect, thus, diminishing the net benefit of rent control. Therefore, the overall impact of rent control policy on the welfare of society is not clear.
Moreover, the analysis is further complicated by the fact that rent control is not adopted in a vacuum. Simultaneously, other housing policies — such as the protection of tenants from eviction, housing rationing, housing allowances, and stimulation of residential construction (Kholodilin 2017; Kholodilin 2020; Kholodilin et al., 2021) — are implemented. Further, banking, climate, and fiscal policies can also affect the results of rent control regulations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137724000020Especially the second sentence is key: I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. The primary benefit is that of affordability in controlled housing. This finding is simply true and not in dispute. Drawbacks are: - Higher rent in uncontrolled housing If new housing is built for controlled rent, I don't see how this is an overall problem. I'll address this point a few more times. - Lower mobility This has pros and cons, and in a vacuum it would be an overall drawback. However, with good policy it becomes a non-issue. Families' needs can be met by continuously building new housing so they have incentive to move wherever they please. In Vienna this works just fine. Workers and the lower class have sufficient mobility. The middle class is fine, since they can afford more expensive housing. That's how things should work anyway. Goal accomplished. So this is a very simple problem with a very simple solution. - Reduced residential construction This reveals the stupidity of the simplistic claim that rent control is bad. Yes, in a vacuum it's bad. But good policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Creation of new housing solves much if not the whole problem. So it's fairly obvious that nothing is obvious to the economists. If any economist claims that there's a clear consensus against rent control among their peers, they're lying. There is a consensus. I've just linked the polls to you. The study you quote has the same conclusions. I've you had actually read it you'd see that it cites no empirical literature on net welfare. The rest of your argument is basically that rent control is bad but if you build enough housing it's fine. You know what other problem more housing solves? Higher rents! Rent control is implemented to lower rents compared to the market price. The effects become worse the larger the difference between market rents and controlled rents. If you bring the market price more in line with controlled rents then the negative effects also become less. At the same time that also reduces the need for rent control in the first place. So yes, your conclusion that building more housing helps solve much of the issues of rent control is correct. It's also meaningless if we want to judge its effectiveness as a policy. More housing is generally a good idea, but it's especially good with rent control. The only part of the housing market that loses out is the private one, which becomes more expensive. I don't see why lower classes should care about that when there are enough homes they can move to at an affordable cost. That's what rent control does. It allows for the additional homes to be immediately affordable and to remain affordable. If the additional homes are privately owned, there is no rent control, and lower classes can't afford them. There are currently no known solutions for affordability other than rent control. It's literally one the best solutions out there. The fact that - in a vacuum - it introduces a problem is completely irrelevant. The main problem is solved with a continuous construction of homes, and other problems are solved with other policies. Many policies don't work in a vacuum but they do work in the right context. This is not a new revelation.
No, the private part of the housing market is not the only one that loses out. As per your own source it reduces mobility and reduces housing quality. It's not even clear if renters benefit in the long term as they'll forgo better work opportunities if it does not raise their income enough to make the move out of a rent controlled appartment worth it. That will then mean forgoing additional promotions in the future. I can see how building more housing can solve some of the problems with mobility but you're introducing new ones at the same time. Since rent controlled housing has by definition a below market rate any renter would want one. So you either need to ration or build enough to house them all. Rationing means waiting lists with the state deciding who is lucky enough to live in rent controlled housing, building more subsidised housing is costly leaving less money for other spending. And then the state also needs to know where and what housing to build.
The lower class should certainly care about rising prices in the private market. Poor people usually don't want to stay poor. As some of them escape poverty they'll have to compete in the same private housing market. The non-poor part of the population is also the part of the population that funds the welfare state. Without them there's no subsidised housing for the poor. There's a clear incentive to make sure they keep supporting said welfare state. Unnecessarily increasing their housing prices is not a good way to do that.
That there is no other solution for affordability is completely false. The solution is to make it easier to build housing by reducing zoning constraints and decreasing housing subsidies that increase demand while doing nothing for supply like rent control and the mortgage interest rate deduction.
On August 16 2025 21:43 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 18:48 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2025 18:34 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2025 18:09 RvB wrote:On August 16 2025 16:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2025 14:54 RvB wrote:On August 16 2025 07:13 Yurie wrote:
Isn't the problem with most mega cities the rules? All the best land is taken and it is VERY hard to buy, tear down and build something larger on a lot. Or even building something new in an area that doesn't have a building on it already.
So you end up with areas far out that are worth less, where you have to extend the public transport network and it thus becomes a mega project. And people don't want to live that far out of the city, meaning rent can't be high enough to finance the project. Perhaps letting the public transport network finance it as a total project might work, kind of how Japanese train networks are just enablers for their land ownership (a bit exaggerated).
This leaves you with a few options I can think of directly, likely there are more.
1- Assume that with the rules you have rents will never get high enough to fix the problem. This doesn't seem very nice to somebody living there since costs will keep climbing until rent is 50%+ of income. Thus a popular politician imposes rent control sooner or later.
2- Assume rent can climb high enough that it is worth it for people to add to the city housing. In that case doing nothing likely works out better.
3- Change the rules so the cost of a new project decreases and 2 becomes more likely.
4- Do it as the city, as you control the rules and have the problem you finance more housing until you hit the level you think is right for the city.
One factor is that a lot of construction in many countries is built for sale and not rent. That can offset high costs to a certain degree. But even that has a maximum it will support. It's both. Excessive zoning regulation and rent control increase rent. There's no real support for rent control amongst economists. See for example these polls. Some responses have comments as well. Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 7%
Disagree: 49%
Strongly disagree: 32%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 7%
Richard Thalers comment says it all: Disagree
Next questions: does the sun revolve around the earth. Question A:
Capping annual rent increases by corporate landlords at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would make middle-income Americans substantially better off over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 16%
Disagree: 58%
Strongly disagree: 16%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question B:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce the amount of available apartments for rent over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 18%
Agree: 44%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 4%
Strongly disagree: 2%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question C:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce US income inequality over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 0%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 53%
Strongly disagree: 13%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 9% There is no consensus like that among economists. The overall benefit of rent control (in a vacuum) is inconclusive. 5. Conclusion
In this study, I examine a wide range of empirical studies on rent control published in referred journals between 1967 and 2023. I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. These unintended effects counteract the desired effect, thus, diminishing the net benefit of rent control. Therefore, the overall impact of rent control policy on the welfare of society is not clear.
Moreover, the analysis is further complicated by the fact that rent control is not adopted in a vacuum. Simultaneously, other housing policies — such as the protection of tenants from eviction, housing rationing, housing allowances, and stimulation of residential construction (Kholodilin 2017; Kholodilin 2020; Kholodilin et al., 2021) — are implemented. Further, banking, climate, and fiscal policies can also affect the results of rent control regulations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137724000020Especially the second sentence is key: I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. The primary benefit is that of affordability in controlled housing. This finding is simply true and not in dispute. Drawbacks are: - Higher rent in uncontrolled housing If new housing is built for controlled rent, I don't see how this is an overall problem. I'll address this point a few more times. - Lower mobility This has pros and cons, and in a vacuum it would be an overall drawback. However, with good policy it becomes a non-issue. Families' needs can be met by continuously building new housing so they have incentive to move wherever they please. In Vienna this works just fine. Workers and the lower class have sufficient mobility. The middle class is fine, since they can afford more expensive housing. That's how things should work anyway. Goal accomplished. So this is a very simple problem with a very simple solution. - Reduced residential construction This reveals the stupidity of the simplistic claim that rent control is bad. Yes, in a vacuum it's bad. But good policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Creation of new housing solves much if not the whole problem. So it's fairly obvious that nothing is obvious to the economists. If any economist claims that there's a clear consensus against rent control among their peers, they're lying. There is a consensus. I've just linked the polls to you. The study you quote has the same conclusions. I've you had actually read it you'd see that it cites no empirical literature on net welfare. The rest of your argument is basically that rent control is bad but if you build enough housing it's fine. You know what other problem more housing solves? Higher rents! Rent control is implemented to lower rents compared to the market price. The effects become worse the larger the difference between market rents and controlled rents. If you bring the market price more in line with controlled rents then the negative effects also become less. At the same time that also reduces the need for rent control in the first place. So yes, your conclusion that building more housing helps solve much of the issues of rent control is correct. It's also meaningless if we want to judge its effectiveness as a policy. More housing is generally a good idea, but it's especially good with rent control. The only part of the housing market that loses out is the private one, which becomes more expensive. I don't see why lower classes should care about that when there are enough homes they can move to at an affordable cost. That's what rent control does. It allows for the additional homes to be immediately affordable and to remain affordable. If the additional homes are privately owned, there is no rent control, and lower classes can't afford them. There are currently no known solutions for affordability other than rent control. It's literally one the best solutions out there. The fact that - in a vacuum - it introduces a problem is completely irrelevant. The main problem is solved with a continuous construction of homes, and other problems are solved with other policies. Many policies don't work in a vacuum but they do work in the right context. This is not a new revelation. But then is the solution rent control or is it just market saturation? You say rent control works if there are so many houses on the market that anyone can find one. Wouldn't the normal housing market also self correct back into affordability if the market was flush with houses, naturally bringing prices down as supply exceeds demand? The problem in both cases is enticing companies to keep building houses when they make less profit off of them. That and not getting voted out of office by all the home owners who see the value of their house plummet. The latter might well be the entire core issue around the world, the haves (those who own homes) benefitting from ever increasing housing prices and not being willing to take a hit to help the have nots. Leaving housing construction to the free market drives up housing cost because it's a lot more profitable to raise rent than to build more homes, which also perversely orients the incentivize towards less construction and creates a feedback loop of rising rental cost. Building homes costs a large amount of money, it's more of a hassle due to construction guidelines, it's overall also a riskier investment, whereas raising rent for the next renter (even when including expensive refurbishment) costs much less money and carries much less risk. This can can even completely hyper-inflate the cost of homes depending on how greedy the owners are. And that's only the most obvious of the problems resulting from free market housing. There is a place for free market housing, but it can't serve the lower classes. People who argue that rent control is bad in the long run should research the impact of the free market in the long run. It's a lot worse.
This makes no logical sense. The market value of a rental property is the discounted cash flow of the house. An increase in rent will increase that market value. It won't change the cost to build one. Increasing rents will then increase the incentive to build more housing since it'll push the market value above building costs (including the profit) at the margin. Often developers are not allowed to build these housing units though.
|
On August 16 2025 18:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2025 18:34 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2025 18:09 RvB wrote:On August 16 2025 16:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2025 14:54 RvB wrote:On August 16 2025 07:13 Yurie wrote:
Isn't the problem with most mega cities the rules? All the best land is taken and it is VERY hard to buy, tear down and build something larger on a lot. Or even building something new in an area that doesn't have a building on it already.
So you end up with areas far out that are worth less, where you have to extend the public transport network and it thus becomes a mega project. And people don't want to live that far out of the city, meaning rent can't be high enough to finance the project. Perhaps letting the public transport network finance it as a total project might work, kind of how Japanese train networks are just enablers for their land ownership (a bit exaggerated).
This leaves you with a few options I can think of directly, likely there are more.
1- Assume that with the rules you have rents will never get high enough to fix the problem. This doesn't seem very nice to somebody living there since costs will keep climbing until rent is 50%+ of income. Thus a popular politician imposes rent control sooner or later.
2- Assume rent can climb high enough that it is worth it for people to add to the city housing. In that case doing nothing likely works out better.
3- Change the rules so the cost of a new project decreases and 2 becomes more likely.
4- Do it as the city, as you control the rules and have the problem you finance more housing until you hit the level you think is right for the city.
One factor is that a lot of construction in many countries is built for sale and not rent. That can offset high costs to a certain degree. But even that has a maximum it will support. It's both. Excessive zoning regulation and rent control increase rent. There's no real support for rent control amongst economists. See for example these polls. Some responses have comments as well. Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 7%
Disagree: 49%
Strongly disagree: 32%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 7%
Richard Thalers comment says it all: Disagree
Next questions: does the sun revolve around the earth. Question A:
Capping annual rent increases by corporate landlords at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would make middle-income Americans substantially better off over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
Uncertain: 16%
Disagree: 58%
Strongly disagree: 16%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question B:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce the amount of available apartments for rent over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 18%
Agree: 44%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 4%
Strongly disagree: 2%
No opinion: 0%
Did not answer: 9%
Question C:
Capping annual rent increases at 5%, as proposed by President Biden, would substantially reduce US income inequality over the next ten years.
Strongly agree: 0%
Agree: 0%
Uncertain: 22%
Disagree: 53%
Strongly disagree: 13%
No opinion: 2%
Did not answer: 9% There is no consensus like that among economists. The overall benefit of rent control (in a vacuum) is inconclusive. 5. Conclusion
In this study, I examine a wide range of empirical studies on rent control published in referred journals between 1967 and 2023. I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. These unintended effects counteract the desired effect, thus, diminishing the net benefit of rent control. Therefore, the overall impact of rent control policy on the welfare of society is not clear.
Moreover, the analysis is further complicated by the fact that rent control is not adopted in a vacuum. Simultaneously, other housing policies — such as the protection of tenants from eviction, housing rationing, housing allowances, and stimulation of residential construction (Kholodilin 2017; Kholodilin 2020; Kholodilin et al., 2021) — are implemented. Further, banking, climate, and fiscal policies can also affect the results of rent control regulations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137724000020Especially the second sentence is key: I conclude that, although rent control appears to be very effective in achieving lower rents for families in controlled units, its primary goal, it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. The primary benefit is that of affordability in controlled housing. This finding is simply true and not in dispute. Drawbacks are: - Higher rent in uncontrolled housing If new housing is built for controlled rent, I don't see how this is an overall problem. I'll address this point a few more times. - Lower mobility This has pros and cons, and in a vacuum it would be an overall drawback. However, with good policy it becomes a non-issue. Families' needs can be met by continuously building new housing so they have incentive to move wherever they please. In Vienna this works just fine. Workers and the lower class have sufficient mobility. The middle class is fine, since they can afford more expensive housing. That's how things should work anyway. Goal accomplished. So this is a very simple problem with a very simple solution. - Reduced residential construction This reveals the stupidity of the simplistic claim that rent control is bad. Yes, in a vacuum it's bad. But good policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Creation of new housing solves much if not the whole problem. So it's fairly obvious that nothing is obvious to the economists. If any economist claims that there's a clear consensus against rent control among their peers, they're lying. There is a consensus. I've just linked the polls to you. The study you quote has the same conclusions. I've you had actually read it you'd see that it cites no empirical literature on net welfare. The rest of your argument is basically that rent control is bad but if you build enough housing it's fine. You know what other problem more housing solves? Higher rents! Rent control is implemented to lower rents compared to the market price. The effects become worse the larger the difference between market rents and controlled rents. If you bring the market price more in line with controlled rents then the negative effects also become less. At the same time that also reduces the need for rent control in the first place. So yes, your conclusion that building more housing helps solve much of the issues of rent control is correct. It's also meaningless if we want to judge its effectiveness as a policy. More housing is generally a good idea, but it's especially good with rent control. The only part of the housing market that loses out is the private one, which becomes more expensive. I don't see why lower classes should care about that when there are enough homes they can move to at an affordable cost. That's what rent control does. It allows for the additional homes to be immediately affordable and to remain affordable. If the additional homes are privately owned, there is no rent control, and lower classes can't afford them. There are currently no known solutions for affordability other than rent control. It's literally one the best solutions out there. The fact that - in a vacuum - it introduces a problem is completely irrelevant. The main problem is solved with a continuous construction of homes, and other problems are solved with other policies. Many policies don't work in a vacuum but they do work in the right context. This is not a new revelation. But then is the solution rent control or is it just market saturation? You say rent control works if there are so many houses on the market that anyone can find one. Wouldn't the normal housing market also self correct back into affordability if the market was flush with houses, naturally bringing prices down as supply exceeds demand? The problem in both cases is enticing companies to keep building houses when they make less profit off of them. That and not getting voted out of office by all the home owners who see the value of their house plummet. The latter might well be the entire core issue around the world, the haves (those who own homes) benefitting from ever increasing housing prices and not being willing to take a hit to help the have nots.
Price fixing software like RealPage is something that could make any amount of additional rental units or homes similarly unaffordable because an algorithm is basically doing the opposite of rent control.
There are no clean market based solutions for necessities in capitalism, half measures are alll we’re gonna have and I think it’s better to just push for and take any and everything we can get on any given issue.
Even if rent control isn’t perfect or doesn’t solve problems I don’t see why it can’t be a part of a larger push to make sure homes are treated like a basic human right.
|
alternatively break Obama's and give Trump one "piece"... Obama's was - especially in hindsight - not a great choice that damaged its reputation. so much that shitbird Tangerine Tyrants now think they should and could also get one.
speaking of Trump and the wisdom he dispenses:
Trump says Putin agrees with him US should not have mail-in voting
WASHINGTON, Aug 15 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin agrees with him that letting voters send in ballots by mail puts honest elections at risk.
"Vladimir Putin, smart guy, said you can't have an honest election with mail-in voting," Trump told Fox News Channel's "Hannity" after a nearly three-hour meeting between the leaders in Alaska. "He said there's not a country in the world that uses it now."
Trump, who promoted the false narrative that he, not Democrat Joe Biden, won the 2020 election, cited his agreement with Putin over absentee voting as he pressed his fellow Republicans to try harder to advance overhauls to the U.S. voting system that he has long sought.
Trump has voted by mail in some previous elections and urged his supporters to do so in 2024.
Putin, who has been Russia's president or prime minister since 1999, was elected to another term in office with 87% of the vote in a 2024 election that drew allegations of vote rigging from some independent polling observers, opposition voices and Western governments. The most formidable opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, died in an Arctic penal colony in 2024.
Russia's embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment on his conversation with Trump.
The Russian president has previously said some U.S. elections were marred by fraudulent voting, without presenting evidence. The position mirrors Trump's false claims of widespread voter fraud following the 2020 election.
democracy enjoyer and - some say - unbeatable Russian democracy champion Putin gives his approval.
|
On August 16 2025 14:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Looks like Trump accomplished nothing with Putin, other than to give Putin more limelight: "No ceasefire, no deal. What summit means for Trump, Putin and Ukraine ... US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin have left Alaska without reaching an agreement for a ceasefire in Ukraine. ... For the man who likes to tout himself as a peacemaker and a dealmaker, it appears that Trump will leave Alaska with neither. ... What's more, the president had to suffer the apparent indignity of standing silent as Putin started off the press-conference-that-wasn't with extensive opening remarks. It was a marked difference than the normal routine in the Oval Office, when the US president typically holds court while his foreign counterpart looks on without comment." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyvd3gkg1po
The EU leaders should say "if you arm Ukraine to the teeth and cut all the tariff bullshit we will give you a noble peace prize.
It is also really funny to me how all Trumps bluster and fake tough guy shit goes away around Putin. Trump is so clearly intimidated.
|
Canada11370 Posts
Ah. But have you considered that he flew a B2 over Putin's head?
Very epic and based. Results exceeded (many are saying) every expectation!!! (many people).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
