I would kill for an ugly bloc residential building I could afford.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Totally bought and paid for. It's funny how a salary of $173600 (= to $316800 today) was not enough for CT.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...to-quit-if-they-didnt-happen/?sh=256034705baf
While Congress ultimately never took action on raising justices’ salary beyond adjusting for inflation, Rehnquist wrote in his 2000 year-end report that “the need to increase judicial salaries” was “the most pressing issue facing the Judiciary,” and the Senate majority leader at the time, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), told ProPublica there were “serious concerns at the time that Thomas or other justices would leave.”
Thomas also pushed Congress to allow justices to give paid speeches, Mecham said in his letter to Rehnquist, leading Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to propose a provision removing that ban to a spending bill, though it never passed Congress.
This sellout turned out to be the biggest fraud. I know he's not all there anymore after his illness and is being controlled by others but its still sad to see.
Oh...
Thanks for the clarification. poor reading comprehension
Probably not. But is where we should strive for. Today, near Barcelona they evicted a family with to old people dependents. 1 of them connected to medical machines. Is disgusting as society that we reach that point.
Also I am sure that many people would rather prefer to live in a large Soviet bloc than not having a home at all
As you said, regulation would be the best solution. Or even limiting the number and size of a condo/house that a person or family can buy.owning more than 2? or how an investment group can own hundreds if not thousands of properties? A house should not be for profit beyond the constructors surplus, speculation is disgusting and accumulation of capital is atrocious. Again, capitalism at its finest on an item that is very important for the livability of any human being. Like health and education
I agree. We do have public housing in the United States but those have usually not gone well (the housing itself is fine) but for one reason or another, the care of that housing and the safety around it has not been good.
Last edited:
It wasn't Trump, but at least we got to see someone pivot.
No. Nobody does. Because Capitalism is global.
What WOULD work (and does) is rent control, alongside regulations around second homes and buy to let properties.
There’s absolutely no social value to private landlords. I can make a case for large companies building high density housing and renting them out at a rent controlled price, with a profit realised after two decades. I could even justify tax breaks for companies that build them.
But me buying a second home with a £2000 mortgage payment, then renting that property for £3000 is evidence of a broken system. It bakes in poverty and suppresses personal growth.
The system is designed to benefit the rich. That’s the whole game.
If I recall correctly there's economics studies showing that rent control hurts housing supply in the long term.
What you probably recall is propaganda of the neoliberalist to avoid that rent control is stablished.
They are repeating over and over thatbis a bad idea . Bombarding eveerywhere. So far there is no proof lomg term and the few articles that i read, are positive for renters
Though is not the solution, it helps. Multiproperty should be forbbiden. I can understand a second place for vacations if you can afford it. But thats it. Housing should not be a business. Is people's livelihood
"Neoliberalist propaganda"? Hardly a convincing argument. Besides, the negative long-term implications are hurtful for the average person as well because landlords shift towards other types of real estate and reduce maintenance.
It's not just "feck the landlords" here. The reduced amount of supply will affect average people in the long term.
That doesn't mean rent control should be abolished. I guess a precisely & targeted rent control policy could help here and there but it feels more like a bandaid than a long-term solution to housing problems.
The idea of only allowing a 2nd property but not more than that is intriguing. Haven't looked deeper into that yet.
I start by the end. Tge second property is just a personal opinion. Can be 1, 2 or 3. I personally would nevet buy a second. Maybe even a first. Is just to put s limit somewhere that if it ever would happen, it would not be me deciding.
On the limiting offer? Limiting offer will only happen when it will not be profitable. Here the prices of rent had increased 50% or more in 1-2 years. Before the inflation. Now the mortgages will increase due to the raise of interest. But once they will get back fown, the rents will continue the same
That it will be less offer? Then what the landlords will do? Have an empty house? For what? People will not buy property bc is not profitable? Great then maybe the prices will lower and people will have more access to ownership. And yes, neoliberals. The ones that want everything deregulated. It was not a convincing argument is describing who are behind of the scaremongering that rent regulation wont work. The same people that in US says public health care wont work and that university needs to be paid through a decade long loan
A reduced amount of housing supply means more people bidding for the same housing, which raises housing prices. That's the argument I think. So those who don't live in rent controlled housing will be the unlucky ones.
Getting back to US Politics...
Gents, can you take the discussion into the 'Capitalism Newds to Die' thread or some other? Really not a germane discussion in this thread.
Will be less offering because the people that want to purchase s house to invest and pay the mortgage with rent will be less. So they will need to lower the houses prices to adjust for. 1 - people that want to buy a house to live 2 - for peopld that want to invest and the mortgage payments are closer to the rent control market
Market should adjust and renters would be more protected
Anyway, market will selfadjust itself once developed countries will have half the population
Edit: @calodo2003 . Just so your post. Im done on the topic
Oh...
Please let it be parody.
Smart grift, if that's what the aim is.
Counterpoint: please don’t be a parody.
Good to see you breaking through the chains of Covid
I’ve been banished to the basement to quarantine. Except for last night where I managed to get into an argument with my conservative father in law….. kids, never talk politics on the holidays, especially when on a Sudafed/antibiotic/nyquil cocktail.
Apparently it is bad form to respond to “if you are not liberal when young you have no heart, if you’re not conservative as an adult you have no brain” with “no, it just means you fecking lost you heart.” Oops.
Edit: I may have also laughed in his face when his reason for not voting for Abram’s for gov was “her positions” and when I asked which ones the reply reply was “errr…. She wants reparations, right?”
Quarantine? How quaint.
Dude, I feel like I might have the plague. COVID morphed into eyes(yes, both) and ear infections. I’m just waiting for body parts to start falling off.
Tried ivermectin yet?
Right after the bleach enema
Thanks. If anyone is on the road tomorrow from GA to NC we’ll be easy to spot. We’ll be the car with both humans masked and the husband laid out in the back seat with a very judgmental German Shephard avoiding eye contact out of embarrassment.hope you feel better soon my friend.