maxmamis

it’s only “radical” from the narrow perspective of the last few hundred years of western capitalism.

> Say he was a high-ranking professional or a successful entrepreneur and he used the capital he earned to buy a building - what's immoral here exactly?

he’s using his capital to extract more wealth from those with fewer resources than himself. (that’s also how he accumulated the capital in the first place — but that’s another conversation.)

> Your example doesn’t really make sense - someone living paycheck to paycheck would default on a mortgage even if they got one. It’s for those people that renting makes the most sense.

you just made my point for me — there is a class of the population that is forced into spending a third (often more!) of their income on housing, which is being hoarded by another class. no different from a feudal serf being forced to turn over their hard-won harvest to the nobility. but sure, they can go find another manor to live on, they’re under no obligation to give their labor to this particular lord...

I never said it was “free money,” i said it was exploitation. just because it takes some effort to extract money from me doesn’t make it justifiable.

In other words, here’s the world’s smallest violin for my landlord’s “potential eviction expense and risk”

as for mortgages, please show me a worker living paycheck to paycheck who’s been approved for a mortgage for a twelve unit building

> If being a landlord is so easy, why wouldn't everyone do it?

maybe just sit and think about this one for a minute?

the answer is that they don't have the capital, which is why it's a relationship of exploitation. by virtue of owning more capital than me, my landlord feels entitled to the fruit of my own labor. it's just feudalism in a new garb, as reflected in the terms we use (landlord/lady)

> Repairs, insurance, inspections, et cetera

rents in the city where I live are up 11% in the past year. did the cost of repairs and inspections increase by that much?

> Also staging, advertising, pursuing delinquencies

ah, so I'm paying for my landlord to increase their rate of return and put my fellow tenants on the street. got it.

that work is done by maintenance workers — unless the landlord is personally out performing all the repairs, in which case they deserve to be compensated for their labor like anyone else. as mentioned below, the maintenance workers mysteriously aren't the ones entitled to a third of my paycheck...

secondly, ask anyone who's ever rented — landlords are notoriously awful at keeping up with maintenance. so if we're considering it a job, then they get paid far more for doing far worse work than any other occupation i can think of. does that not make you angry?

hmmm, i live in a similarly sized building with a live-in super. he's not the one receiving a third of my monthly income. where is the rest going?

why do you think it is one?

> I am hardcore free market fundamentalist, but profit motive should not come anywhere near healthcare.

> Government intervention in healthcare won't fix healthcare. Instead, it will give you Obamacare. Fix the cultural values, and the healthcare problem (along with other problems) will fix themselves.

so healthcare shouldn't be provided by private industry, but also not by the government... so, what? non-profit orgs only?

“peaceful empire” is a total oxymoron. the concept of empire is predicated on the subjugation of other countries and people.

and please, citation very much needed on the assertion that China is more warlike than the US.

> You know, the US does do peacekeeping, and does at times invade for actual humanitarian reasons.

yes, I too am very smart and unquestioningly parrot my rulers' propaganda lines.

another way to rephrase that is "if you choose not to work, you will stay in prison for longer." sounds pretty coercive to me!