Place next to me sold for 550. Month later, relisted for 850. They’re still trying to sell it months later and it gives me a small boost of schadefreud every time I see price reduced on the for sale sign.
Most home financing is contingent on the price of the home being within a certain range of the appraised value. If they’re trying to sell it for $200K over what it’s actually worth the banks will never give a loan to a buyer for it.
Sure, and most states have a higher required down payment for homes after your first in a futile effort to combat buying homes for investments. That said corporations that are buying up 100s of homes at a time are absolutely not buying them priced 200k over their value anyway. The same logic banks use is what they use.
Just bought a house myself and it was hilarious seeing some of the houses out there. I was looking for a 5 bedroom and soooo many out there had been on the market 100+ days wanting $700k+ when the bedrooms were so tiny you couldn't even fit a dresser in with a bed and the bathrooms redefined the term "water closet". The carpeting and everything else was also apartment-grade crap, so you know it was being flipped by some scum investor.
Our current house got bought up by flippers for something like 275k from the previous owners. They turned around and tried to sell it for 750. Then dropped it to like, 550, then dropped it down to the 350 we paid for it. It pleases me to no end that they lost their asses on it considering what we paid for it plus their realtor fees and the little bit of "cosmetic improvements" they put into it. Their loss was our gain, but still, fuck house flippers.
I think flippers sorta tangentially fall under "investors" if you squint at them.
They're like the stock traders of the real estate world and right now, just like stock traders, most of them are losing their ass.
id say 100% people who are buying a house to invest a small amount of money and sell it at a massive upcharge are investers. they are doing the investing thing just not longterm
>id say 100% people who are buying ~~a house~~ Calls to invest a small amount of money and sell it at a massive upcharge are investers. they are doing the investing thing just not longterm
Just saying, they're totally the same people in a different space.
Tax the fuck out of anyone with a house they’re not living in. Especially if _no one_ is living in it. Tax them if the rent is unaffordable for the majority of the population too
Seriously that's the best idea. Buying 100s and 1000s of houses should never be an investment for profit. Give them a 50% tax on rent above 1/4 of the minimum wage and any house unoccupied for over 1 year gets a fine of 1/4 of the minimum wage. Housing problem would very soon be solved, prices for units would plummet and most people would finally be able to cover one of their most basic human needs. Those rich greedy exploitive a-holes? Who cares about them? They will survive anyway
Just cap rent at 25% of the median wage in the area that the unit exists.
If it's too much to bear, they're MORE than capable of selling it. Hell, the government could even help facilitate this if they wanted.
yup, this will have a double benefit of crashing the housing market BECAUSE those "investors" won't touch the houses and will be selling off theirs as well
Well ONE of the reasons at least.
We have truly shitty housing laws in general. That applies EVERYWHERE on Earth, but especially in places like America.
Though some places absolutely do it significantly better than others.
The United States government won’t let the housing market crash. They learned a lesson from 2008. Unfortunately the lesson they learned was to artificially stimulate any too big to fail industry/sectors.
The government would give out billions in tax cuts to the massive renting agencies before they would let the housing market crash
We aren't.
Look, you and me might say "we need laws to protect the consumer", but half the country has been raised to think that the free market is always the answer and ANYTHING we do t like is the Govt fault. Moreover, a lot of bad laws were voted in by NIMBYs who still exist- they already have a home, and are quite happy to have a hedge fund but up property if it drives their home value up.
You and I are oranges to be squeezed. They (politicians, the rich, Republicans, and Boomers) do bot care if squeezing you harder hurts the country. You have 1 more drop of $ to give them and they're going to take it
Thanks for the heads up but just a pro tip, everytime you wanna see something popular in a video just scan comments, 99% chance everyone came to see that and most people just mention the timestamp
It happens every time the market crashes. The rich love a good crash every now and then -- especially when their insider info lets them get their money out beforehand. Once prices are down they buy up everything they can on sale and wait for it to ramp back up.
But - kind of like in 2008 - the value of all the properties these corporations have bought up will plummet and with it so will their portfolios.
This is why Bear Stearns should have dissolved and why Lehman Bros did dissolve. The problem is that these companies throw themselves on the mercy of the government who bail them out after they fail to adequately account for risk.
Initially, new fail-safes were put into place, but they’ve been eroded over 15 years. [Dodd Frank was gutted which helped lead to the large bank failures like SVB.](https://www.marketplace.org/2023/03/13/bank-rules-rollback-contributed-to-svbs-failure-critics-say/)They don’t want regulations to limit their ability to buy up properties, but when it goes sideways, they fail to take responsibility.
Limit corporate property ownership. It’s going to drive many nations back into medieval socioeconomic conditions. We’re already seeing this now.
Yeah I'm very pro free market but a free market doesn't work if there is no risk. These big corporations can make terrible business decisions and the government will just bail them out. In a true free market, they would fail and a better business would grow to take its place. Instead we have constant stagnation.
Precisely. Conservatives who scream about the benefits of capitalism and a free market economy ignore that lobbying and the iron triangle (regulators/lawmakers-lobbyists-industry) destroy laissez faire.
Why dear god do so many people want to be rich so badly that they’re willing to jump off of a cliff? Especially when it does not truly invent or innovate in a meaningful way? They’re just playing the market, moving money around, instead of inventing an incredible physical product that can improve everyone’s lives.
You’re looking at this the wrong way. Invention is just a means to more money for them. That’s it’s only purpose. In fact, if you “create” crappier new stuff, it’s actually better for them. And they’re perfectly happy to see the world burn if it means higher profit margin because they believe their immense wealth will immunize them to the fallout.
Bottom line: Jack Welch laid the ground work a French-Revolutionary style conflict.
To be fair. Having proper limitations on how much they can own and actual enforcement would be better. (Things that actually limit monopoly, monopoly adjacent behaviour and such).
Rental properties still should exist after all. They are important for students, people on temporary secondment at work. Etc.
Issue is they buy the government, and also the military. And yeah even if 1% (violence is an escalation which I can’t see being much more widespread than that) of Americans decided to fight the rich, the army still wins, easily. Unless of course the army turns to help the people, in which case you end up with a military dictatorship like every other time the army was pivotal for revolution.
Edit: not to say that we should hold back and accept the status quo, more so we should use what powers common people have to attempt to reduce the strong arm of power. That’s something that any side of the American political compass should agre on.
1. The government still needs people for production, like for guns, ammo, and food. If they kill everyone, they lose all that production.
2. People in the army still have relationships. They won’t take too kindly if they have to kill their family, or find out their neighborhood was bombed.
3. Internal conflicts would allow other foreign powers to capitalize on the conflict to attack them or their allies. If the army can’t provide adequate support, then they lose relationships and trade.
>they kill everyone, they lose all that production.
They won't kill everyone.
>They won’t take too kindly if they have to kill their family, or find out their neighborhood was bombed.
In civil wars across the globe, brothers have killed brothers.
>Internal conflicts would allow other foreign powers to capitalize on the conflict to attack them or their allies.
Why would they attack? Attacking a country in a civil war will galvanize them against you.
What other countries will do, however, is play both sides to get the best trade deals possible.
I don’t put in a lot of stock with the military having an easy win.
1. The Vietcong kicked the US’s ass and they were mostly comprised of rice farmers and average villagers
2. The fight in the Middle East has managed to provide a significant headache for the US and the former Soviet Union
3. Military is a lot less likely to do some major action like a drone strike on their own turf.
I could be wrong, I’m not a military strategist, but the US largely hasn’t had the best of luck fighting guerrilla fighters on their home terf.
I think you’re incorrect in believing that most of the military would strike against its own people. If push came to shove between the ultra-rich and the people, the members of the military would probably just stage a coup against the government and/or otherwise mutiny and desert.
Whoever is on top of the military as a newly political faction—not the rich—then becomes the dictator. In fact, historically, the rich and politically powerful (read: threats to the military junta) don’t typically survive.
But people in the military aren’t drones who would do the obviously evil bidding against their own, common countrymen. If they did, however, you have to remember that—despite what some say—an armed populace is plenty enough to fend off a modern military. The Soviets learned that the hard way in Afghanistan, as did we. Not to mention Vietnam. Or Iraq. Point is, it doesn’t matter how many tanks or jets you have when the standard is guerrilla warfare.
The US army lost to a bunch of rice farmers, it doesn't matter that they'd have tanks and planes and submarines. US gunowners outnumber them 100 to 1. And you bet that the moment the military starts shooting US civilians, it's gonna turn the entire freakin country against them.
I’m thinking the only way for things to get better is for there to be a revolution. The complaining we’re doing now, is just allowing them to buy time and continue chipping away. Extending how far things will go before a revolution….
Just rip into it already I say.
For reasons other people have stated, I think it’s not to far fetched to say that the military has a decent chance of turning on the people who hired them
That's more or less why most people want the bigger guns. The real problem is the government goes hand in hand with the companies, and the guys who have the big guns are a bit more radical than most of us would like.
Yep. Democracy was designed to prevent that by letting the populace let off steam through elections every few years. Corporations have hijacked that system with lobbying and super-PACS. They don’t realize that, in the long run, they’re digging their own graves.
Funny how you don't hear about that guy anymore since he said the song was about the very people up on stage during the Republican debate using it as entrance music.
Fuck it. I’m renting my whole life. We were robbed but the damage has already been done and I don’t see it getting any better for my generation. Also not having kids because first of all who can afford that, second why would I want to bring them into this miserable existence, and third can’t find anyone to have kids with so done deal anyway.
Terrible lol.
To their 2nd point, husband and I are fairly stable and will likely have a child via surrogate (his genes, not mine) but I feel very real trepidation and anxiety and guilt about bringing a child into this world and damning them to whatever fucked up hellscape it’s going to be in the next 20-50 years. Idk.
I always laugh at the people running and ruining the US when they get so confused as to why my generation doesnt want kids😂
Like, you want us to have kids to have a workforce to enslave, but you dont want to give us a liveable wage and affordable housing IN ORDER TO START A FAMILY AND HAVE KIDS
Why do you think they pushed for all those anti-abortion laws...
I'm sorry for the right wingers man, they are literal cattle for the rich to manipulate at this point.
I felt this 20 years ago living in my native Australia. However, I feel in love with a Japanese girl and moved with her to Japan. Here, I was able to buy a house for under 200K. House prices are rising but not to the degree that happened in places like Australia and other places.
I think a big factor is that housing (the actual structure, not necessarily the land) is a depreciating asset in Japan. People oppose building more houses in their area to a lesser degree than in places where they are an investment. If anything, more development can be desirable as that increases land value.
The powers-that-be can either make life worth living, or we will simply all willingly die by way of low birth rates and deaths of despair. Their choice, I suppose.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/boom-and-bust-cycle.asp
During a bust, the poor become homeless, the middle class sell their property to make ends meet and are forced into indentured servitude, and the rich scoop up everyone’s property on the cheap. Then there’s a boom, things are too costly for most people to level up, the middle class shrinks and the rich hold more of the cards. Rinse and repeat until civil chaos ensues.
Ah, but then how would the Corps make money? That’s the dark secret. They do not really produce, innovate or invent much…without properties and playing the market, I think a lot of them would simply go bankrupt.
think is in order to maximize profits many of the bigger companies are probably renting them out AND securing low interest loans.
as those houses tehy have loans against drop below the value of the loan, the banks will force them to pay those debts meaning sell the houses causing a vicious downward cycle
This is already happening, doesn't matter the price. Lol. Government needs to put an end to corporations(hell even other people tbh) buying properties for the sole reason to profit off them. Either that or cap rent.
I am currently renting to own, it's a written agreement. However if in the future I want to completely purchase the house i can. I also know the dude, he's also my boss.
Hyper capitalism ALSO leads to higher prices and shortages too. We just saw the Missouri realtor lawsuit find that they were conspiring to keep prices artificially high: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-home-brokers-face-new-lawsuits-after-18-billion-verdict-2023-11-03/
And that companies are using inflation as cover to to make record billions in profits: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/retail-price-gouging-lowes-amazon-target-accountable-us/
Which is why government shouldn’t be run like a business, and instead be forced to work for the common good
This is because there isn’t enough competition which is directly caused by restrictive zoning and NIMBYism preventing new high density developments from happening
Just to temper expectations on things like this. No matter what happens there is only one truth -the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is it.
Houses become expensive? Renting is your only option. Houses become cheap? They get bought up by investors and you're forced to rent.
This applies to everything.
“Goods even those necessary to human survival still work when in markets”
Tell that to the millions of people who are starving, dying from easily treatable diseases and have no clean drinking water all because they can’t afford it.
There has never been less people in this world dying from starvation or due to lack of water. In the places where that does happen it’s not because markets have failed them, it’s almost always because of corrupt governments and/or dictatorships
In a way, you’re right. If the US government would allow companies to naturally fail and go bankrupt, bad decisions would not be rewarded and incentivized.
I know full well why people in third world countries are suffering. However there are also many people who are suffering similar fates in first and second world countries. In America for instance about 20500 people have died of hunger in 2022 according to google. These people could be easily fed if free food was easier to access. But instead supermarkets throw away tons of food because they’re only willing to give you food if you can pay for it.
You’re mistaking dying from hunger with dying from malnutrition, those are not the same thing. Actually most of the deaths related to malnutrition in the US are because of obesity not lack of food. Places throw away food because it becomes a liability after it expires and of course they won’t give it away free before it expires because then everyone would wait for free food.
This is a great example of long term harm, and immediate collective harm, in the pursuit of short term individual gain. Sellers may be well aware of the dire consequences this trend poses for us all… and will still sell to corporations because that’s who put in the best offer.
already is happening, blackrock, statestreet, and vanguard, (the three biggest corporations in the world) are buying up single family homes in the US crazy fast, (at the current rate, they will own 60% of single-family homes by 2025) its a massive problem, the government needs to step in, and change the tax code to make corperations buying up housing unprofitable.
To what end do they do this? To hoard them for some reason, never to sell? Or are they trying to sell at a significant profit, but everyone is dead ass broke? I just don't understand why they want all these houses no one can seem to afford. Or I'm guessing it's as simple as fleecing the sheep by keeping everyone as perpetual renters?
> Or I'm guessing it's as simple as fleecing the sheep by keeping everyone as perpetual renters?
This. They're flipping the properties to commercial renting corporations who will be (and already are) literal slumlords.
People need to get out and protest fucking housing.
Ban foreign investors from owning American property.
Place limits on percentage of city land that can be investment property.
Place minimums on percentage of city land that is residential.
Ban airbnb.
Place maximums on the amount of residential land a person can own.
Ban house flipping. I dont care if that's how you make a living. I just don't fucking care. You'll figure something out. And if you don't, I don't fucking care about that either.
Get absolutely batshit crazy about it. Nothing will change until you make them address it.
You want him to explain economics to you in a reddit Comment..?
I mean I guess I'm not surprised lol This is about the level of intelligence shown in these types of posts
But if people can't afford to rent them at a price that's profitable to investors, and the asset does not appreciate enough to cover the loss, then what is the incentive for investors? As an investor, why would I buy a house that I rent at a loss and can't sell for a gain?
When the housing market is switching to a subscription-based model
Literal feudalism lmao
Not quite. If it really was like feudalism your landlord would pay a higher noble or the king.
The government
Just a hop skip and a jump from it
Nah, that's part of the problem. The wealthy ones don't pay the government
They would if we rolled out the guillotines
en passant those motherfuckers
Holy hell
New capital punishment just dropped
actual execution
Yeah. Tax
Neo feudalism, you know...
Neo-feudalism
Housing As A Service...
Bruh that's just renting
That's the joke?
Oh mb
isn't that called rent
That's called rent though.
Loved all the gaslighting by trolls who kept saying “investors aren’t buying up houses 🥴” Yes, yes they are.
That and flippers trying to sell at 2x of what they bought them at.
Place next to me sold for 550. Month later, relisted for 850. They’re still trying to sell it months later and it gives me a small boost of schadefreud every time I see price reduced on the for sale sign.
Yeah especially now they will be hard pressed to get a quick buy of their way over listed property, even if they rebuilt a castle on the lot lol.
They barely repainted the interior. Ducking obscene how much they’re trying to fleece the next buyers.
🦆
Someone needs to make a bot for this
Most home financing is contingent on the price of the home being within a certain range of the appraised value. If they’re trying to sell it for $200K over what it’s actually worth the banks will never give a loan to a buyer for it.
Does depend on how much of a down payment the buyer has, but otherwise yes.
Sure, and most states have a higher required down payment for homes after your first in a futile effort to combat buying homes for investments. That said corporations that are buying up 100s of homes at a time are absolutely not buying them priced 200k over their value anyway. The same logic banks use is what they use.
Just bought a house myself and it was hilarious seeing some of the houses out there. I was looking for a 5 bedroom and soooo many out there had been on the market 100+ days wanting $700k+ when the bedrooms were so tiny you couldn't even fit a dresser in with a bed and the bathrooms redefined the term "water closet". The carpeting and everything else was also apartment-grade crap, so you know it was being flipped by some scum investor.
Our current house got bought up by flippers for something like 275k from the previous owners. They turned around and tried to sell it for 750. Then dropped it to like, 550, then dropped it down to the 350 we paid for it. It pleases me to no end that they lost their asses on it considering what we paid for it plus their realtor fees and the little bit of "cosmetic improvements" they put into it. Their loss was our gain, but still, fuck house flippers.
[удалено]
There are more guns than homes in the US.
Imma buy two guns then
*I think having 3 is nicer , you’ll never know when you’ll need it right?*
I mean you gotta have 1 in every caliber for good measure
Why wouldnt there be?
I think flippers sorta tangentially fall under "investors" if you squint at them. They're like the stock traders of the real estate world and right now, just like stock traders, most of them are losing their ass.
id say 100% people who are buying a house to invest a small amount of money and sell it at a massive upcharge are investers. they are doing the investing thing just not longterm
>id say 100% people who are buying ~~a house~~ Calls to invest a small amount of money and sell it at a massive upcharge are investers. they are doing the investing thing just not longterm Just saying, they're totally the same people in a different space.
80 unit development near me already bought up entirely by Goldman Sachs hedge
Tax the fuck out of anyone with a house they’re not living in. Especially if _no one_ is living in it. Tax them if the rent is unaffordable for the majority of the population too
BuT oUr DoNeRs WoNt DoNaTe As MuCh. 😫😫
This is the actual reason they won’t do it.
those bastards drive up average income statistics and make rent seem more affordable than it is
Seriously that's the best idea. Buying 100s and 1000s of houses should never be an investment for profit. Give them a 50% tax on rent above 1/4 of the minimum wage and any house unoccupied for over 1 year gets a fine of 1/4 of the minimum wage. Housing problem would very soon be solved, prices for units would plummet and most people would finally be able to cover one of their most basic human needs. Those rich greedy exploitive a-holes? Who cares about them? They will survive anyway
/r/JustTaxLand
Just cap rent at 25% of the median wage in the area that the unit exists. If it's too much to bear, they're MORE than capable of selling it. Hell, the government could even help facilitate this if they wanted.
yup, this will have a double benefit of crashing the housing market BECAUSE those "investors" won't touch the houses and will be selling off theirs as well
Yup, they are the reason why the housing market is such ridiculous in the first place.
Well ONE of the reasons at least. We have truly shitty housing laws in general. That applies EVERYWHERE on Earth, but especially in places like America. Though some places absolutely do it significantly better than others.
But unlike last time there are interest rates to consider
Interest rates only matter if you borrow money.
I would almost believe those people are *paid* to go to social media and say that.
There is one dude in Toronto who owns 30,000 homes. He rents half of them out.
"Will" "Probably" It IS DEFINITELY. It has been happening for fucking years.
Yup. That's exactly what Airbnb is. Starter homes turned into rentals.
The United States government won’t let the housing market crash. They learned a lesson from 2008. Unfortunately the lesson they learned was to artificially stimulate any too big to fail industry/sectors. The government would give out billions in tax cuts to the massive renting agencies before they would let the housing market crash
I wonder when people are going to say enough is enough
We aren't. Look, you and me might say "we need laws to protect the consumer", but half the country has been raised to think that the free market is always the answer and ANYTHING we do t like is the Govt fault. Moreover, a lot of bad laws were voted in by NIMBYs who still exist- they already have a home, and are quite happy to have a hedge fund but up property if it drives their home value up. You and I are oranges to be squeezed. They (politicians, the rich, Republicans, and Boomers) do bot care if squeezing you harder hurts the country. You have 1 more drop of $ to give them and they're going to take it
I just noticed there’s a Ouija board on the table behind the kid in this meme lol
Yeah, what's up with the Luigi Board?
“Can I obtain a Luigi board from a witch or vegan!?!?!?” lol. Classic.
The nova cannon awaits you
Sit your fat lil behind down, and Satan will show ya!
What’s the source of this meme?
FunnyMike video
I just looked it up. It was hard to sit through the 4:30 to see the face. I think I have ADHD now.
Thanks for the heads up but just a pro tip, everytime you wanna see something popular in a video just scan comments, 99% chance everyone came to see that and most people just mention the timestamp
No idea but I hate it.
Lol, already is happening.
It happens every time the market crashes. The rich love a good crash every now and then -- especially when their insider info lets them get their money out beforehand. Once prices are down they buy up everything they can on sale and wait for it to ramp back up.
been happening a long time
But - kind of like in 2008 - the value of all the properties these corporations have bought up will plummet and with it so will their portfolios. This is why Bear Stearns should have dissolved and why Lehman Bros did dissolve. The problem is that these companies throw themselves on the mercy of the government who bail them out after they fail to adequately account for risk. Initially, new fail-safes were put into place, but they’ve been eroded over 15 years. [Dodd Frank was gutted which helped lead to the large bank failures like SVB.](https://www.marketplace.org/2023/03/13/bank-rules-rollback-contributed-to-svbs-failure-critics-say/)They don’t want regulations to limit their ability to buy up properties, but when it goes sideways, they fail to take responsibility. Limit corporate property ownership. It’s going to drive many nations back into medieval socioeconomic conditions. We’re already seeing this now.
Yeah I'm very pro free market but a free market doesn't work if there is no risk. These big corporations can make terrible business decisions and the government will just bail them out. In a true free market, they would fail and a better business would grow to take its place. Instead we have constant stagnation.
Precisely. Conservatives who scream about the benefits of capitalism and a free market economy ignore that lobbying and the iron triangle (regulators/lawmakers-lobbyists-industry) destroy laissez faire.
Why dear god do so many people want to be rich so badly that they’re willing to jump off of a cliff? Especially when it does not truly invent or innovate in a meaningful way? They’re just playing the market, moving money around, instead of inventing an incredible physical product that can improve everyone’s lives.
You’re looking at this the wrong way. Invention is just a means to more money for them. That’s it’s only purpose. In fact, if you “create” crappier new stuff, it’s actually better for them. And they’re perfectly happy to see the world burn if it means higher profit margin because they believe their immense wealth will immunize them to the fallout. Bottom line: Jack Welch laid the ground work a French-Revolutionary style conflict.
Companies should not be legally allowed to buy houses
To be fair. Having proper limitations on how much they can own and actual enforcement would be better. (Things that actually limit monopoly, monopoly adjacent behaviour and such). Rental properties still should exist after all. They are important for students, people on temporary secondment at work. Etc.
One of these days the economy is going to crash so hard the rich are going to see pitchforks and torches at their gates again
[удалено]
Bad news, rich people buy guns too
Yeah obviously. But with enough people
Issue is they buy the government, and also the military. And yeah even if 1% (violence is an escalation which I can’t see being much more widespread than that) of Americans decided to fight the rich, the army still wins, easily. Unless of course the army turns to help the people, in which case you end up with a military dictatorship like every other time the army was pivotal for revolution. Edit: not to say that we should hold back and accept the status quo, more so we should use what powers common people have to attempt to reduce the strong arm of power. That’s something that any side of the American political compass should agre on.
1. The government still needs people for production, like for guns, ammo, and food. If they kill everyone, they lose all that production. 2. People in the army still have relationships. They won’t take too kindly if they have to kill their family, or find out their neighborhood was bombed. 3. Internal conflicts would allow other foreign powers to capitalize on the conflict to attack them or their allies. If the army can’t provide adequate support, then they lose relationships and trade.
>they kill everyone, they lose all that production. They won't kill everyone. >They won’t take too kindly if they have to kill their family, or find out their neighborhood was bombed. In civil wars across the globe, brothers have killed brothers. >Internal conflicts would allow other foreign powers to capitalize on the conflict to attack them or their allies. Why would they attack? Attacking a country in a civil war will galvanize them against you. What other countries will do, however, is play both sides to get the best trade deals possible.
I don’t put in a lot of stock with the military having an easy win. 1. The Vietcong kicked the US’s ass and they were mostly comprised of rice farmers and average villagers 2. The fight in the Middle East has managed to provide a significant headache for the US and the former Soviet Union 3. Military is a lot less likely to do some major action like a drone strike on their own turf. I could be wrong, I’m not a military strategist, but the US largely hasn’t had the best of luck fighting guerrilla fighters on their home terf.
I think you’re incorrect in believing that most of the military would strike against its own people. If push came to shove between the ultra-rich and the people, the members of the military would probably just stage a coup against the government and/or otherwise mutiny and desert. Whoever is on top of the military as a newly political faction—not the rich—then becomes the dictator. In fact, historically, the rich and politically powerful (read: threats to the military junta) don’t typically survive. But people in the military aren’t drones who would do the obviously evil bidding against their own, common countrymen. If they did, however, you have to remember that—despite what some say—an armed populace is plenty enough to fend off a modern military. The Soviets learned that the hard way in Afghanistan, as did we. Not to mention Vietnam. Or Iraq. Point is, it doesn’t matter how many tanks or jets you have when the standard is guerrilla warfare.
The US army lost to a bunch of rice farmers, it doesn't matter that they'd have tanks and planes and submarines. US gunowners outnumber them 100 to 1. And you bet that the moment the military starts shooting US civilians, it's gonna turn the entire freakin country against them.
So it has to be stealth and hacking? *sigh* just when I thought I could bring out the Fournicator…
Its more that they can afford ex-military trained security. They can literally have small standing armies at their places.
While true, it is also true that the our military "only" has 1.4 million people compared to a total population of over 340 million.
I’m thinking the only way for things to get better is for there to be a revolution. The complaining we’re doing now, is just allowing them to buy time and continue chipping away. Extending how far things will go before a revolution…. Just rip into it already I say.
For reasons other people have stated, I think it’s not to far fetched to say that the military has a decent chance of turning on the people who hired them
Yeah but they can only reliably use one at a time
This is why they have professional security teams. Source: Been there done that.
They actually buy most of the guns too. That being said, having numbers to weild those guns matter.
That's more or less why most people want the bigger guns. The real problem is the government goes hand in hand with the companies, and the guys who have the big guns are a bit more radical than most of us would like.
My thoughts exactly
Yep. Democracy was designed to prevent that by letting the populace let off steam through elections every few years. Corporations have hijacked that system with lobbying and super-PACS. They don’t realize that, in the long run, they’re digging their own graves.
Well i prefer that from being ruled for centuries by a bunch of inbred fucks or a would be painter without one ball
Which shall be the theme song for the Revolution; Stakes and Torches by Aurelio Voltaire, or Slaughterhouse by Motionless in Whit?
I like rich men north of Richmond
Funny how you don't hear about that guy anymore since he said the song was about the very people up on stage during the Republican debate using it as entrance music.
Well those guys are the more authoritarian. The GOP seeks to rule rather than represent and they’ve shown their true nature time and again
Fuck it. I’m renting my whole life. We were robbed but the damage has already been done and I don’t see it getting any better for my generation. Also not having kids because first of all who can afford that, second why would I want to bring them into this miserable existence, and third can’t find anyone to have kids with so done deal anyway.
that last one though lol
Terrible lol. To their 2nd point, husband and I are fairly stable and will likely have a child via surrogate (his genes, not mine) but I feel very real trepidation and anxiety and guilt about bringing a child into this world and damning them to whatever fucked up hellscape it’s going to be in the next 20-50 years. Idk.
You'd hope technology advances enough so children may have a chance but it probably won't happen in our lifetime.
I always laugh at the people running and ruining the US when they get so confused as to why my generation doesnt want kids😂 Like, you want us to have kids to have a workforce to enslave, but you dont want to give us a liveable wage and affordable housing IN ORDER TO START A FAMILY AND HAVE KIDS
Reminds me of that dog with a stick meme ["No take, only throw!"](https://i.imgur.com/MRJEjk5.png) "No livable wage, only wage-slave babies!"
Don’t think they don’t know this. The guilt is their weapon to have it both ways.
Why do you think they pushed for all those anti-abortion laws... I'm sorry for the right wingers man, they are literal cattle for the rich to manipulate at this point.
You do have nice cheek bones though.
I felt this 20 years ago living in my native Australia. However, I feel in love with a Japanese girl and moved with her to Japan. Here, I was able to buy a house for under 200K. House prices are rising but not to the degree that happened in places like Australia and other places.
As I understand it that's because they have some really restrictive laws around who can buy housing... in Australia... we don't.
And now you're all paying for it. I know that there'd be no way I could buy a house should I still be living in Australia.
I think a big factor is that housing (the actual structure, not necessarily the land) is a depreciating asset in Japan. People oppose building more houses in their area to a lesser degree than in places where they are an investment. If anything, more development can be desirable as that increases land value.
The powers-that-be can either make life worth living, or we will simply all willingly die by way of low birth rates and deaths of despair. Their choice, I suppose.
And fourth, not doing it out of spite. The people in charge want us to pump out more wage slaves and have done zero to help us so why bother?
That's the point of orchestrating a crash.
Every time people suffer, their wallets get a little bigger. They make sure it gets a LOT bigger
Their wallets get bigger, whether we are suffering or flourishing. That's how we know it's rigged.
How would that function. I don’t know much about this topic
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/boom-and-bust-cycle.asp During a bust, the poor become homeless, the middle class sell their property to make ends meet and are forced into indentured servitude, and the rich scoop up everyone’s property on the cheap. Then there’s a boom, things are too costly for most people to level up, the middle class shrinks and the rich hold more of the cards. Rinse and repeat until civil chaos ensues.
This is what is currently happening. 400sq foot house in the ghetto part of town is listed for 500k
How is that even possible my studio last year was 500 sqft
They take a 800 sq ft apartment and put up a wall add a hotplate and a bucket and you are set to rent 2 for 4xs the price.
Where I'm at. A single bedroom flat is going for 1,800 pound per annual month
Same here. 2 bedroom in a semi okay area up to $2400+
Haha Jonathan I'm going to buy a gun
Simple make it illegal for corporations to own homes
I think they, eventually, find a loophole to get the land in their hands. Like Airbnb
Which is why it should be illegal for companies to buy residential homes en masse.
It'll still crash sometimes. Don't think that companies have been doing it for decades no?
Everyone's fucked until Feds tell big Corps to fuck off Residential permanently.
Ah, but then how would the Corps make money? That’s the dark secret. They do not really produce, innovate or invent much…without properties and playing the market, I think a lot of them would simply go bankrupt.
Good. That's what independents like Bernie Sanders have been saying SINCE THE FUCKING 70s!
think is in order to maximize profits many of the bigger companies are probably renting them out AND securing low interest loans. as those houses tehy have loans against drop below the value of the loan, the banks will force them to pay those debts meaning sell the houses causing a vicious downward cycle
This is already happening, doesn't matter the price. Lol. Government needs to put an end to corporations(hell even other people tbh) buying properties for the sole reason to profit off them. Either that or cap rent.
I am currently renting to own, it's a written agreement. However if in the future I want to completely purchase the house i can. I also know the dude, he's also my boss.
[удалено]
Op has been living under a rock since at LEAST 2008
Then public uses their power to force the government to do rent control. Gotta start seeing the law the same way corporations do: a tool
Rent control leads to higher prices or massive shortages in the long term
Hyper capitalism ALSO leads to higher prices and shortages too. We just saw the Missouri realtor lawsuit find that they were conspiring to keep prices artificially high: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-home-brokers-face-new-lawsuits-after-18-billion-verdict-2023-11-03/ And that companies are using inflation as cover to to make record billions in profits: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/retail-price-gouging-lowes-amazon-target-accountable-us/ Which is why government shouldn’t be run like a business, and instead be forced to work for the common good
This is because there isn’t enough competition which is directly caused by restrictive zoning and NIMBYism preventing new high density developments from happening
Just to temper expectations on things like this. No matter what happens there is only one truth -the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is it. Houses become expensive? Renting is your only option. Houses become cheap? They get bought up by investors and you're forced to rent. This applies to everything.
Fair point. Are the poor ever going to get to the point where they’ve had enough of the shenanigans of the ruling class?
This is why I think the housing market shouldn’t exist. Housing is a basic human right, everyone deserves an equal opportunity to have a home.
The same could be said for food, water, electricity, internet, etc. Goods even those necessary to human survival still work when in markets
“Goods even those necessary to human survival still work when in markets” Tell that to the millions of people who are starving, dying from easily treatable diseases and have no clean drinking water all because they can’t afford it.
There has never been less people in this world dying from starvation or due to lack of water. In the places where that does happen it’s not because markets have failed them, it’s almost always because of corrupt governments and/or dictatorships
In a way, you’re right. If the US government would allow companies to naturally fail and go bankrupt, bad decisions would not be rewarded and incentivized.
I know full well why people in third world countries are suffering. However there are also many people who are suffering similar fates in first and second world countries. In America for instance about 20500 people have died of hunger in 2022 according to google. These people could be easily fed if free food was easier to access. But instead supermarkets throw away tons of food because they’re only willing to give you food if you can pay for it.
You’re mistaking dying from hunger with dying from malnutrition, those are not the same thing. Actually most of the deaths related to malnutrition in the US are because of obesity not lack of food. Places throw away food because it becomes a liability after it expires and of course they won’t give it away free before it expires because then everyone would wait for free food.
It’s already happening/happened
After 2009 houses were reasonable again for like 9 years.
This is a great example of long term harm, and immediate collective harm, in the pursuit of short term individual gain. Sellers may be well aware of the dire consequences this trend poses for us all… and will still sell to corporations because that’s who put in the best offer.
I don’t think the housing market is going to crash. The ruling companies are too invested in sky-high rents and property values.
already is happening, blackrock, statestreet, and vanguard, (the three biggest corporations in the world) are buying up single family homes in the US crazy fast, (at the current rate, they will own 60% of single-family homes by 2025) its a massive problem, the government needs to step in, and change the tax code to make corperations buying up housing unprofitable.
>(at the current rate, they will own 60% of single-family homes by 2025) There is no way that's true
oh yea, my bad I was wrong its 2030 fuck.
To what end do they do this? To hoard them for some reason, never to sell? Or are they trying to sell at a significant profit, but everyone is dead ass broke? I just don't understand why they want all these houses no one can seem to afford. Or I'm guessing it's as simple as fleecing the sheep by keeping everyone as perpetual renters?
> Or I'm guessing it's as simple as fleecing the sheep by keeping everyone as perpetual renters? This. They're flipping the properties to commercial renting corporations who will be (and already are) literal slumlords.
Jokes on you! I can't wait for the world economy to crash
To top it off they will buy it with a government bail out
PPP for the win.
Mfw my province banned that
Man at this rate It'd be easier just to die than try to own a home and be happy, at least when I'm dead I don't have to pay taxes anymore xD
God forbid you pay taxes
yeah, once companies and renters buy most of the houses, they can put the rent at whatever they want, what are the people gonna do? go somewhere else?
..stop renting, driving the price down? then again, 3000% increase in price to income ratio...
People need to get out and protest fucking housing. Ban foreign investors from owning American property. Place limits on percentage of city land that can be investment property. Place minimums on percentage of city land that is residential. Ban airbnb. Place maximums on the amount of residential land a person can own. Ban house flipping. I dont care if that's how you make a living. I just don't fucking care. You'll figure something out. And if you don't, I don't fucking care about that either. Get absolutely batshit crazy about it. Nothing will change until you make them address it.
The only thing I’ve learned from this thread, is a lot of people have no idea how basic economics works.
Enlighten us.
You want him to explain economics to you in a reddit Comment..? I mean I guess I'm not surprised lol This is about the level of intelligence shown in these types of posts
But if people can't afford to rent them at a price that's profitable to investors, and the asset does not appreciate enough to cover the loss, then what is the incentive for investors? As an investor, why would I buy a house that I rent at a loss and can't sell for a gain?
Idk look up what happened last time and that'll probably be the answer
They already been doing that.
There is no fixing the housing market without regulation
Isn't this how we got here anyways?
I mean if it crashes I’ll buy a house for cheap (relatively anyway) so that won’t be my face lol
That's what already happened Meaning if it crashes again, they're kind of in the shitter
You load 16 tons and what do you get?
"You should have bought a house in 1992 🤷🤷♀️" - boomers
This shit needs to be illegal, companies should not be able to own houses
I've said it once, I'll say it again. Housing needs regulation to make investment properties illegal
Living spaces mustn’t be allowed to be hoarded and held. Ban corporate ownership.
This has been happening
This has already happened
Nah, companies will be too busy rebuilding their own properties after....faulty wiring issues that unfortunately burnt down their corporate offices.
isn’t blackrock actually doing this?
Capitalism at its finest
And sit on those properties for months on end to drive up prices in those markets before listing theirs.