It's the same mentality that your neighbor has... I don't have enough because someone else has slightly more than me. Tony across the street got the new car... so I should get a newer and better one than him!
The .01% only hang out with each other, and they compete with each other. And they get jealous when their buddy has a cooler nuclear bunker than them, so they need that extra 10 million this year to ugprade their bunker.
They are not evil, they are just people. And you'd behave exactly the same way in their situation. It's how we are wired, to be stupid selfish jealous monkeys. You don't exist to them, they are not thinking about you, only about themselves.
Same thing when you go to your town meeting and your elderly neighbors are screaming bloody murder at their taxes going up $50 this year because they think children should go to school in unheated buildings.
I agree that it’s more complicated than “It’s how we are wired, to be stupid selfish jealous monkeys.”
And they get jealous when their buddy has a cooler nuclear bunker than them, so they need that extra 10 million this year to upgrade their bunker.
As I said, “it’s never enough”.
And you’d behave exactly the same way in their situation.
No, I’m willing to bet everything I have that I would not behave the same way.
You don’t exist to them, they are not thinking about you, only about themselves.
What I’m asserting is that cruelty is an inherent trait to the sociopathic avarice required to hoard that level of wealth. The addiction isn’t about wealth or material possession anymore, it’s power over other people.
Most neuro-normative higher primates work together and are very socially conscious (see: The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haight and The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley). They work together the most synchronously and with the most ardent fervor when deposing a perceived unjust tyrant in their group, coincidentally to our discussion.
Plutocrats may not even be consciously aware of it, and they wouldn’t admit it even if they were, but it’s always about control. Cruelty is the point because it’s a vehicle (i.e., modus operandi) by which they maintain control, and get their high; as Napoleon Bonaparte said, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”
Sociopathic bullies get a huge dopamine hit off of successful manipulation, don’t feel remorse, and in a post-apocalyptic hellscape, they would kill to ensure they’re in charge of an empire of scrap.
They went overboard here, to be fair. Articles and short prepositions shouldn’t be capitalized in title case. It is funny to think that an adult has gone through their entire life without seeing title case, though.
If your neighborhood has an HOA, pressure them into adding language that limits the number of rental properties. It can take a lot of work / votes to pass, but it can be done.
I think corporations should be limited to owning a small quantity of sfh. Maybe a dozen unless they can show a compelling reason such as housing for employees.
Maybe put in a few exceptions for things like remote research or production facilities where no real town or civilization in general exists around them. Basically the kind where rotating worker shifts are stationed for 3-6 months at a time and then move back for a few months off.
You don’t place the limit on the company you place the limit on the region. Just like zoning often requires a certain amount of green space you write regulations that only 10-25% of all single family homes can be owned by corporations.
Just scale the tax, it’s so fucking easy to fix. But if they wait it’ll become a giant problem where some awful company or groups of company will fail and break the economy for a while etc etc.
All you have to do is scale the tax. 1 house normal tax rate. 2 houses 2x tax rate on all properties. 3 houses 3x the tax rate on all properties.
Numbers probably need adjusting but that keeps things reasonable, even for small landlords you can scale it so its fair and keeps properties local and even a good investment vehicle for individuals but prevent it from becoming an exploitive market by giants corps.
True. Outright rent-seeking is certainly typically safer than flipping.
I think the risks that crushed Zillow are still relevant: Trying to do something at national scale requires a situation where lack of local knowledge is unnecessary. And housing has proven a few times not to be that.
I would bet on Amazon to come up with an “investment” scheme that externalizes the extreme local market risks to their “partners”.
I just don’t like large corporations buying up the housing. It just drives the cost up. I am not against local landlords. I had rented many times when I didn’t want to buy and I appreciate clean, affordable, and well-maintained properties. Local landlords can only buy so many properties before they run out of cash, as such the market limits itself. Bezos can buy a lot of homes before he even puts a dent into his cash funds. There are times when corporate ownership makes sense, I had a friend who traveled to BFE for weeks a time and his company owned a house where he could stay. They always had someone out there for weeks or months at a time.
Anyone who thinks Bezos’ controlling interests in both companies won’t cause public harm should consider my fine selection of bridges that I’m selling for ridiculous bargains.
Add comment