US Politics Megathread

[knusch]

sure regulation on how to build a home contributes to prices. if its the case that there are overly complicated regulations (not that uncommon in public law in general) one can argue that this will limit development and decrease supply in the market. generally speaking tho these regulations dont have the purpose to making housing cheap, its to make it save.
i think what incog is actually referring to is ppl (individuals or companies for this matter) buying properties that they dont live in nor rent out - in a lot of countries/cities there is limited data on how many homes are vacant but estimates usually suggest upwards of 10% easily. now if you have a lot of ppl buy properties and look at it as an asset that appreciates in value over time (no need to bother rent it out) problems on the supply side of the market become kinda irrelevant in regards to having affordable housing available.

[RefluxSemantic]

If the situation is any comparable to the NL, the cost of building a house are only a relatively small part of the problem. If you're actually getting houses for ~1000€ per m^2, which is roughly what it should cost to construct, then I'd argue there isnt really a housing crisis at all.

[fightinfrenchman]

sure regulation on how to build a home contributes to prices. if its the case that there are overly complicated regulations (not that uncommon in public law in general) one can argue that this will limit development and decrease supply in the market. generally speaking tho these regulations dont have the purpose to making housing cheap, its to make it save.
i think what incog is actually referring to is ppl (individuals or companies for this matter) buying properties that they dont live in nor rent out - in a lot of countries/cities there is limited data on how many homes are vacant but estimates usually suggest upwards of 10% easily. now if you have a lot of ppl buy properties and look at it as an asset that appreciates in value over time (no need to bother rent it out) problems on the supply side of the market become kinda irrelevant in regards to having affordable housing available.

The reason big companies are buying them is because it's a good asset that will keep rising in value specifically because developers aren't allowed to build more

[RefluxSemantic]

Arent there two different aspects to this problem? There is generally a shortage of houses, which is in large part because:
- its too hard to construct new houses
- part of the available houses are taken by investors
Both can be true at the same time. We should solve both problems, one by trying to loosen regulations a bit and one by guillotine/imposing restrictions.

[knusch]

Arent there two different aspects to this problem? There is generally a shortage of houses, which is in large part because:
- its too hard to construct new houses
- part of the available houses are taken by investors
Both can be true at the same time. We should solve both problems, one by trying to loosen regulations a bit and one by guillotine/imposing restrictions.

id say its hard/ impossible to find afforable real estate to build on. i dont think its rocket science to construct a house tho.

[princeofcarthage]

These people buy multiple properties and turn it into a lifestyle. They live a comfortable life watching you work and turning in a good chunk of your income to them every month.
They create zero economic value, that's why renting is not included in the GDP. They suck economic value and live off of it.

You are wrong about this. Rental income is included in GDP. Brush up.

[princeofcarthage]

The whole space doesn't create value is pretty bad take. In the society we have developed land has value just like food. It means you need to pay to live. Whether you own the land or rent it depends. But you pay. Even if you own and you live yourself, you are still paying for it.

Not sure I follow. So if someone owns some built space, but can't rent it out, what economic value does the space have or produce?

Everything is translated in terms of goods and services. When you buy a house it is a good. When you live in it over the years, it's a service. You are basically paying yourself rent. Say suppose you have 2nd property. You are neither living nor renting. So while you are not paying in cash, it's still a net loss to you, as it is of no use to you but you are still paying for maintenance tax etc.and rent to yourself. When you live in the house, it is basically a service, and through that service you are generating economic value.

[iNcog]

Show hidden quotes

buying....

Do you think the number of homes getting built has anything to do with the number of homes being bought

sure and yet as far as i can tell @iNcog doesnt talk about regulation in construction...

??? why u bring me into this I didn't say anything

bring you into this?
we literally talk about his responds to YOU

?????

If it's a private landlord with a few extra homes or whatever, then idk. Working for money is tiring if you aren't in an air conditioned office. I wouldn't blame people for looking for ways to make their capital work for them.

If it's a corporation that's buying homes for twice the market price and keeping homeowners from buying a house, then that's a problem. But that's on lawmakers who let the situation get that bad with a deregulated market.

Building homes, famously not regulated by anyone

what am i missing?

zoning restrictions in Los Angeles for example are so strict that it makes building affordable housing basically illegal

am i talking about zoning restrictions or was the initial statement about it?

Incog was saying that large corporations buying up homes and making them less affordable for regular people is primarily due to a lack of regulation in that market. I would argue high housing prices are more a result of a lack of development, because of absurd regulations on building. In this case, deregulation would actually be helpful

what's so absurd about them?

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

buying....

Do you think the number of homes getting built has anything to do with the number of homes being bought

sure and yet as far as i can tell @iNcog doesnt talk about regulation in construction...

??? why u bring me into this I didn't say anything

bring you into this?
we literally talk about his responds to YOU

?????

If it's a private landlord with a few extra homes or whatever, then idk. Working for money is tiring if you aren't in an air conditioned office. I wouldn't blame people for looking for ways to make their capital work for them.

If it's a corporation that's buying homes for twice the market price and keeping homeowners from buying a house, then that's a problem. But that's on lawmakers who let the situation get that bad with a deregulated market.

Building homes, famously not regulated by anyone

what am i missing?

zoning restrictions in Los Angeles for example are so strict that it makes building affordable housing basically illegal

am i talking about zoning restrictions or was the initial statement about it?

Incog was saying that large corporations buying up homes and making them less affordable for regular people is primarily due to a lack of regulation in that market. I would argue high housing prices are more a result of a lack of development, because of absurd regulations on building. In this case, deregulation would actually be helpful

what's so absurd about them?

Being unable to build anything other than single family homes makes the climate crisis so much worse

[iNcog]

Show hidden quotes

buying....

Do you think the number of homes getting built has anything to do with the number of homes being bought

sure and yet as far as i can tell @iNcog doesnt talk about regulation in construction...

??? why u bring me into this I didn't say anything

bring you into this?
we literally talk about his responds to YOU

?????

If it's a private landlord with a few extra homes or whatever, then idk. Working for money is tiring if you aren't in an air conditioned office. I wouldn't blame people for looking for ways to make their capital work for them.

If it's a corporation that's buying homes for twice the market price and keeping homeowners from buying a house, then that's a problem. But that's on lawmakers who let the situation get that bad with a deregulated market.

Building homes, famously not regulated by anyone

what am i missing?

zoning restrictions in Los Angeles for example are so strict that it makes building affordable housing basically illegal

am i talking about zoning restrictions or was the initial statement about it?

Incog was saying that large corporations buying up homes and making them less affordable for regular people is primarily due to a lack of regulation in that market. I would argue high housing prices are more a result of a lack of development, because of absurd regulations on building. In this case, deregulation would actually be helpful

what's so absurd about them?

Being unable to build anything other than single family homes makes the climate crisis so much worse

what would you rather see, apartments or something? is that's what's driving rent up?

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

buying....

Do you think the number of homes getting built has anything to do with the number of homes being bought

sure and yet as far as i can tell @iNcog doesnt talk about regulation in construction...

??? why u bring me into this I didn't say anything

bring you into this?
we literally talk about his responds to YOU

?????

If it's a private landlord with a few extra homes or whatever, then idk. Working for money is tiring if you aren't in an air conditioned office. I wouldn't blame people for looking for ways to make their capital work for them.

If it's a corporation that's buying homes for twice the market price and keeping homeowners from buying a house, then that's a problem. But that's on lawmakers who let the situation get that bad with a deregulated market.

Building homes, famously not regulated by anyone

what am i missing?

zoning restrictions in Los Angeles for example are so strict that it makes building affordable housing basically illegal

am i talking about zoning restrictions or was the initial statement about it?

Incog was saying that large corporations buying up homes and making them less affordable for regular people is primarily due to a lack of regulation in that market. I would argue high housing prices are more a result of a lack of development, because of absurd regulations on building. In this case, deregulation would actually be helpful

what's so absurd about them?

Being unable to build anything other than single family homes makes the climate crisis so much worse

what would you rather see, apartments or something? is that's what's driving rent up?

Yes

[Dolan]

Everything is translated in terms of goods and services. When you buy a house it is a good. When you live in it over the years, it's a service. You are basically paying yourself rent. Say suppose you have 2nd property. You are neither living nor renting. So while you are not paying in cash, it's still a net loss to you, as it is of no use to you but you are still paying for maintenance tax etc.and rent to yourself. When you live in the house, it is basically a service, and through that service you are generating economic value.

Yeah, exactly, you are generating economic value for someone else, the landlord. Because they don't generate anything until someone is desperate enough to pay them for this "service".
It's a landlords' market, in the sense that they can afford to hold until they find someone desperate enough to pay the high rent they're asking for. Especially if they have more than one property.
While the renter can't really afford not to have a place to live in.
I mean, cmon, you can realise the abnormality of the situation in which rents can be as high as half of your income in an area, when you have to work hard for that income just to support this class of property owners.

[princeofcarthage]

But rent is related to the price of the place itself. You can't expect 2k a month rent if the house costs 1 million

[callentournies]

Good point.

[fightinfrenchman]

The cringe libs were right again

[princeofcarthage]

As I correctly stated earlier, White House was privy to inside information. Biden was simply disconnected from reality on ground. But when reality shook in, that explains such hasty and unplanned evacuation.

[Dolan]

It's also possible that the CIA is undermining Biden. It's not unheard of for people in the intelligence to dislike an administration and you know, not do their best.
Wouldn't be the first time a president is played by the intelligence.

[princeofcarthage]

There are confirmed reports that Pakistan orchestrated the takeover. That Biden was warned and made aware that current government won't last. Both by intelligence community, military personnel, generals and even afghan counterparts, including president Ghani. Biden chose to ignore everyone disillusioned that Taliban were not a threat. Then flipping to atleast holding out for 90 days. He thought US would have a grand exit by 31st. But when reality came knocking on the door...

[fightinfrenchman]

Nobody really cares about that anymore

[princeofcarthage]

Only narcissistic, self absorbed, selfish Americans can think so

[Dolan]

Pakistan always supported the Taliban, that's nothing new. The reason why the US bribed their government to cooperate in Afghanistan was to weaken this traditional connection between Pakistan and the Taliban.
But I wouldn't be surprised if they took the money and just pretended to help the US.
I doubt Biden was given an accurate estimation of how fast the Afghan army would fold and he chose to ignore it. After all, if the Taliban advanced too fast, that would spoil the process of pulling out of Afghanistan for everyone involved.
And since this decision to leave before September was made for the sake of scoring a symbolic image objective, of leaving before 20 years have passed since 11 September, it was obvious they were counting on the Taliban failing to advance too fast.
I simply think Biden was given a wrong estimation by the CIA and that might be because the intelligence dislikes the idea of leaving Afghanistan with a whimper, rather than with a bang.
There is obviously a big degree of upset in the military community in the US right now, they're all seething hard that this pullout will be seen as yet another US defeat, it refreshes memories of Vietnam and whatnot.
And I'm sure there must be some people in the CIA who think about the same, they dislike being seen as a force that had to make a hasty retreat in front of a handful of cavemen that don't even know how to pilot a helicopter. So idk, my bet is that the CIA played a trick on Biden.

[princeofcarthage]

Yet they didn't. Administration were given ample warnings and scenarios including fallout within days. CIA has little motivation to mislead as this is also seen as intelligence failure. It was Biden plain and simple and the blood is on his hand and he should resign instantly or send the troops back.

[fightinfrenchman]

Only narcissistic, self absorbed, selfish Americans can think so

Feel free to invade now that we've left

[princeofcarthage]

Only narcissistic, self absorbed, selfish Americans can think so

Feel free to invade now that we've left

Classic Americans, expecting others to clean up their mess

[fightinfrenchman]

Only narcissistic, self absorbed, selfish Americans can think so

Feel free to invade now that we've left

Classic Americans, expecting others to clean up their mess

I was 7 when we invaded Afghanistan