Well, they stated the reason in the goal. Hence writing a goal?

I’m not a landlord. And you’re just incorrect. This is no stupid questions, but there are plenty of stupid answers. The great recession was caused by homeowners and banks making loans they shouldn’t have with adjustable rates and predatory practices (ever heard of a NINJA loan?) that greatly increased demand for housing, and then the banks created derivatives on derivatives that all went up in smoke when the underlying loans defaulted. This resulted in many people losing their homes, but more broadly financial markets tightened and housing starts plummeted, which is responsible for the housing shortage today. We had like 5-10 years of development well below replacement.

I would also point out that most local zoning laws make multi-use housing like apartments that we lust for in the 15 minute city difficult to build in favor of the single family home. I would argue that is actually the average homeowner’s fault more than a landlord.

“The alternative to landlords is not everything being government housing, but also that’s not an issue if you take away landlords and stop them from having any power…”

What the actual fuck does that mean? Do you hear yourself? The alternative is not the thing I said, but something else that still remains imaginary.

You know housing costs money to build right? So, for that to happen, someone has to invest. There are these institutions called banks, maybe they haven’t made it to lunatic Island where you live, but they charge interest so you can have money today to build or buy rather than waiting years to accumulate that money.

Now that housing is built, the person that built it wants to sell it. Someone buys it and then someone lives in it for a cost. Without government intervention, what is the alternative?

The problem is not OP’s Aunt or even most apartment management companies, but I will give you that Private Equity getting into single family housing is a problem. That should be addressed, and I seriously doubt it will.

If landlords are so evil, would their tenants alternatively buy the apartment where they rent? People rent for many reasons - perhaps they can’t afford to buy , or perhaps they like paying a fixed amount so someone else can fix the house when things break.

Either way it isn’t the landlords fault that many cities have restrictive zoning laws and we are still reeling from missed housing development during the great recession. Demand for housing has well outdated supply and inflation has made the inputs more expensive, thus prices have gone up. More supply will help reduce the rate of increase, but real prices will not decline without another deep recession, and the impact of that would still be temporary.

If landlords are middleman, would you prefer everyone lives in government housing? Explain the alternative in your fantasy land related to housing, not some ridiculous anecdote about charging for air.

It’s funny because OP leads with stating they don’t identify as Latino, and then proceeds to ask a question that has absolutely nothing to do with identity.

You’re wrong that it didn’t impact the outcome. MI flipped to Trump directly because of the uncommitted movement. Slotkin won the senate race, but Trump won by a narrow margin. Independent votes and low turn out siphoned off enough to make that happen. Low turn out also directly impacted the results. PA is a different story, but low turn out was true there, too

The word you’re looking for is etcetera. And unless you plan to return to community banks where you have to get to know the local banker to get a mortgage, you need this system.

I’m not sure how tying this to capitalism makes sense…lending is a risk, they are betting that you’ll remain employed and will continue to pay them - there is a chance you won’t and you pay a premium to get money now. Communist countries also have this system, but it is more centrally controlled by the State.

How about we just make tipping rounding and pay people a living wage? You know in Europe, eating out is not more expensive than it is in the US and they don’t beg for tips. It’s such bullshit here

Boromir would have patiently listened!!

No, it’s more like 3-400. The key point here is not the range, but the charging time

This is not comparable.

The fuel is spent and sold. Gas stations usually only have a few days supply of inventory.

This is like holding engines in inventory to swap without notice on the spot. But in this case the engines cost $10k+.

The fee to swap is about $12…so you have to swap each battery about 800 times to break even. See how you’re wrong yet?

The answer is massive government support. The cost of those stations has to be insane…imagine the inventory holding cost of those batteries

Exactly right, no one is going to show up with a fleet of cargo planes full of cash lol. It’s a huge amount of money, but if you have several nations investing, plus private business, it could happen - long shot, but it isn’t limited by the amount of cash that exists. He’s basically talking about starting a massive industry in the US that only exists in Japan and Taiwan.

That is not how that works…

Yes, eliminating a revenue source in one area means they will just price for it elsewhere.

As a parent, we still do laundry once per week. Usually 2-3 loads. OP is insane for doing daily laundry…it’s a huge waste of water

I wonder if hydrogen is a better solution for commercial vehicles or semis that need to haul. I’m not aware of how they would perform, but EVs are not very practical for medium and heavy duty use

Hydrogen is not going to happen. It’s wildly impractical and there is no infrastructure for it. EV is the way of the future, but Toyota’s strategy is to bring customers along with hybrids first. Most of their lineup has a hybrid powertrain, and in most cases it is the same 2.5L HEV engine, just retuned for more HP on larger vehicles. The Camry up to the Grand Highlander and their Lexus counterparts use it. Meanwhile, if they are successful with solid state battery technology, it’ll make the rest of the market obsolete. Their strategy is to make incremental steps toward EV vs trying to force the market into an EV.

You’ve missed the mark on two counts:

1. Musk raised $44B of real money to buy Twitter and bring it into private ownership. I’m saying had he just left well enough alone, he could have used that money for other purposes
2. Your point on adding more supply to the real estate market to prop up prices is the opposite of Econ 101 - more supply, all things equal, will reduce prices. Mental health is a much larger barrier to receiving help for the homeless.

I used to volunteer weekly with homeless and housing insecure people in Philadelphia and untreated mental health or substance abuse was an issue for many. There are also barriers to receiving government aid that would assist them because many programs require an address or the process is unnecessarily complicated.

Housing is just one step. They would also require a great deal of counseling, job training, and medical attention to reintegration into society. Anyway, my point was simply to illustrate what a magnificent waste of resources it was to buy Twitter.

To put this in perspective, they lost an average of $2B per month in value. According to HUD, there were about 582,000 homeless people in the US last year. $2B per month is enough to house all of them nearly 4 times over if you assume $1k per month in housing expenses.

What a monumental waste of resources that could have made a difference. Musk just sucks

Seems like if OP would have translated “turn” and then left or right, it would’ve gotten closer