Comment by zwnow
9 days ago
> It's fine to want that but let's not pretend "rent should be illegal" is a serious or reasonable policy proposal.
So its fine for you that there are people owning 20+ properties speculating on profit for basic human needs? Its literally Nestlé "this is MY water" behavior.
Most people here are pro capitalism. It has flaws but you’re also being blind to its benefits.
If 20 people need homes to live in and can’t afford to build them, suddenly landlords/investors have a place because they built housing inventory where others couldn’t. They won’t do that for free though and why should they.
I remember your username from prior threads, you’re a troll man. Take this crap to Reddit.
It's a bit telling of your own biases that government/public housing seems to have escaped mention as "having a place" in this scenario.
There's nothing mutually exclusive, I'm addressing the thing that's being discussed not the entire universe of possible solutions
Let them profit off commercial real estate, or a million other things that capitalism provides.
The nestle statements about profiting off people’s need for drinking water were universally viewed as disgusting. We shouldn’t always profit off the basic needs of other humans.
This list gets long pretty quick once you start it though. I'm sure you could say the same for healthcare & education. In doing so, according to a cursory google search, you just removed profit from ~40% of GDP. That's going to be felt.
Propose pivoting our entire economy all you want, but do it in a way that doesn't cripple it and provides more than a one sided benefit masquerading as having no downside implications.
3 replies →
Say they don't. If they can't afford to buy their own house, now those people no longer have a place to live. How is that better?
[flagged]