Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
My mother was actually thinking about selling my grandparents house to them.
I'm not sure if I changed her mind, but I straight up told her the second she mentioned them that I would burn the house down before the sale went through and would be chilling in a cell with a smile on my face for it.
She decided not to sell to a company.
Does that make me unhinged? Maybe. But that's one less house going to a rental company and one more family getting a house they'll live in.
You did the right thing. They would have just used it as currency anyways.
Make a secondary house all but impossible to own via property tax, and make it illegal for corporations to own property. Watch housing cost plummet through the floor.
and make it illegal for corporations to own property.
You are asking to make corporations illegal which I am admittedly in favor of but don't think that's what you were going for
It wasn't intentional, but I believe that my subconscious knows what's up, so I'll stick with it.
No, just make corporations rent land or property from the government.
Make it illegal for companies to own standalone housing then.
100%. Right now you can write your empty property off on your taxes as a loss in most places*
*In the US
Oh not only can you, it's encouraged. I see libs talking on Reddit about how it's actually better than renting because you take on a risk when renting and an empty house builds value and doesn't run the chance of damage.
This is of course why private property sucks, but if the general populous can't stomach that, I'd be willing to settle for georgism.
Good lord those people are idiots. Few things kill a house faster than being uninhabited
It's insanity. Should be the complete opposite. If there's no renter in it? More tax!
The people that would write these laws are the ones profiting off the exploits in the system. The politicians literally get legal bribes to allow the behaviour.
The issue is that they're already doing this with HOAs. They don't care if they owne your house, but they own the dirt under it and can evict you for bullshit reasons. Make corporate HOAs illegal too
Make ~~corporate~~ HOAs illegal
FTFY
I was waiting for this comment, and it's the reason I framed it this way. Because an HOA done right is pretty much a commune. You can chose the membership terms, penalties, and organization scope.
I've seen some where not paying your dues simply locks you out of amenities like pool access, and that's it. So it's kind of what you make it. Doesn't have to be the nightmare most deal with.
HOAs are just power tripping cunts. They treat their "job" like it's life or death. Fuck HOAs.
That could be handled with a communal spaces, a HOA tends to end run by the "Karens" trying to micromanage everyone, and the boys who think they're Wyatt Earp running around enforcing stuff.
There's no excuse for meddling in the affairs of your neighbor, unless what they are doing is literally dangerous, as much as a flamingo in the yard pains me to see it doesn't actually hurt me.
Same to say my raised beds don't hurt anyone, breaking the boring theme of crappy lawns isn't reason to tack notices to the door, and a lot of them will attack people near the HOA not just the ones in it.
I mean a lot of what BlackRock sells is index funds like vanguard etc.
That's a lot of people's retirements more than it's private equity.
I think you'll have more luck changing the rules of the game rather than chasing the players. If black rock disappeared tomorrow all that money would just move to another ETF manager and you would instantly have another BlackRock.
Also I think BlackRock (which is far from blameless in a whole of affairs) gets confused with black stone. It was the latter more directly investing in real estate iirc.
Any time I see a comment/thread about this stuff I just assume the OP heard Blackstone does this and doesn't realize they're separate companies.
Granted, Blackrock does have a few real estate funds, but they're mostly in commercial property. They don't buy homes.
Regardless, it is raising good points and information.
Also what i find very interesting about this topic is how demographics plays into this
i personally think that the UN predictions about how the population numbers are going to evolve are utter bullshit. it is well known that the population pyramid looks something like this:
and it's going to get thinner and thinner at the bottom as time progresses.
anyways, i think a lot of organizations that could build housing are a bit reluctant mostly for that reason. a company thinks "if i build a house today, there's a good chance that there won't be demand for that house in 30 years, so it might not pay off". and municipalities, i'm afraid, are way too under-invested in building social housing in general because that would be communism or sth.
after a quick search on the internet, about 1.6 million people live in public housing in the US in 2024. that's about 0.5 percent. Source
Meanwhile in Europe, about 9.3% (45 million people) people live in public housing according to this article, with some countries like Austria having 24%. (8% of EU according to this OECD study).
anyways, i think a lot of organizations that could build housing are a bit reluctant mostly for that reason. a company thinks “if i build a house today, there’s a good chance that there won’t be demand for that house in 30 years, so it might not pay off”.
First of all, that would only apply to companies with a build-and-hold business model, not to ones that develop a property and then sell it off to owner-occupants. Clearly, there do exist people who want to be owner-occupants, so the real issue is how to construct the regulations etc. to incentivize the latter business model.
Second, even build-and-hold companies wouldn't give a fuck about 30 years from now; the asset would be fully depreciated by then anyway. If you're in business to make a profit, you're looking to do it way sooner than 30 years.
Blackstone. Everyone blames BlackRock, but it's Blackstone doing this. BlackRock is maybe a little bit evil, but mostly they sell ETFs, so ways for retail investors to invest in the stock market indexes. They make a fee off that, and at their size that's a huge amount of money already. Blackstone is more active about what it invests in, it strategically buys up neighborhoods so they can unilaterally raise rents. Among all kinds of other morally dubious investments.
I used to dream of owning a small shack to live in but now I truly don't give a fuck, I'm soon to be homeless and no longer care about society
YDI. Shouldn't have been poor. If elon musk can pull himself up by his bootstrap and become a trillionaire, why can't that lady? YDI.