• 0 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2023

help-circle






  • I mean, mythologically speaking, vampires care about the religion of man because god actually exists and literally defends the faithful from their predation. Vampires also aren’t lawyers, barring an exceptional sci-fi series, so the rules they operate by are mystical and holistic. They can’t enter a home because it is a threshold defined and empowered by those living within, not by the laws that declare their ownership.

    Squatters would be safe so long as they saw the place they lived as home. Generally someone who lives within the home and therefore contributes to the threshold is required to invite them in, but sometimes agency can be granted to others (i.e. a doorman or friend), but agency cannot be taken (i.e. the state). So the 4-year-old can invite them in, because it is their house until their parents kick them out. They also can’t cross running water because it purifies evil, same with why they’re burned away by the sun.

    That said, it’s not like there’s a clearly defined foundation for their operation, and modern authors have modified how vampires work numerous times, so it really varies on a case by case basis.


  • I like the rule lawyering, but the fuzzy conception of vampire law is that they require an invitation to enter a home, but nobody would expect an abandoned home to stop them, indicating a holistic rather than a technical definition. The state can repossess the home, but if the entire police force is vampires they’ll be unable to cross the threshold so long as those living there view it as a home.

    For example, a worker drone that keeps a bed at their office and lives there part-time, it makes sense that a vampire could enter their office without invitation because it isn’t a home despite living there. However, alter the situation to an even sadder worker drone that lives full-time in their office and considers it to be their home, can the vampire enter? I posit nay, the vampire will need an invitation to enter their sad office home.


  • Bro.

    The first set were, in order, a deep dive on an investment firm and their impact on residential property, the impact of private equity on multi-family residential property, the broad spectrum impact of investors on the residential market, another article on investors driving up home prices, homebuilders drawing down production and waiting out customers at the same price, and the last is a global perspective on the housing crisis by the World Economic Forum.

    If you actually read them, you’d recognize literally everything I’ve said. I get skipping the article on Blackstone, because it’s an actual research article, but it details how Blackstone and Invitation Home would buy entire neighborhoods and then use that foundation to manipulate home and rent prices in the entire area, further improving their return on profits.

    The one in the last comment was “Capitalism just working” during the pandemic lol. Which is half a joke, but to not see the relevance of the others is just wilful ignorance.


  • By selling what they’ve built? They don’t make any money while building. I don’t expect you to read all of the links I offered, but at least skim them lol. Slowing completions and reducing starts keeps per unit profits high, as the alternative, cutting prices and accelerating completions and increasing starts boosts revenue but reduces per-unit profits. Small construction outfits have no choice other than continuing to work, but the larger ones can just slow expenses and refuse to move on price until they’re purchased.

    Capitalism just tries to make as much money as possible. That’s only a benefit when human well-being and profit are aligned, and otherwise just inevitably results in monopolies if we let it.

    Have another source https://archive.is/tosob




  • Probably would have been worth clarifying that distinction earlier, but I’m not attacking families looking to pay for a home to be built. Construction companies that build new homes en masse are doing so to make money, not to address the housing shortage.

    Much like Nissan being pleasantly surprised at making more money by discontinuing production of their cheaper models, larger construction companies aren’t at some sad loss to meet demand. they acquire building permits based on how many months of completed housing supply they have waiting to be purchased. When it passes a certain level, apparently 6 months of supply, they slow down completions and reduce the number of new permits until the supply is sold at the prices they want.

    Otherwise it would be less profitable. I’m not saying there aren’t other issues, and smaller home building outfits struggle with local permitting, keeping employees, and rising prices for materials and appliances. But a huge issue with the industry is that it’s fundamentally against their best interest to solve the housing shortage. There’s a happy little feedback loop between builders and investors that keeps pumping home prices up, which lets new ones be sold for more, which pumps home prices up. Which restricts more and more of the housing market to investors, until the dystopian future where everyone rents except for the lucky souls that inherit the family property.


  • Yes, though you did just call them good investments. An investment being good solely because the market is an anti-consumer purgatory isn’t a good investment. The moment the housing market is fixed the investment collapses back to being driven by property location instead of the simple fact that its exists. Not to mention concerns about another housing market crash or recession waiting in the wings.

    Homes should depreciate in value, similar to cars, and imagine what would happen if car manufacturers decided they liked the Covid price points and supply constriction, and started treating them like the housing market? There’s more money to be made in ensuring there isn’t enough supply than there is in meeting demand.




  • That’s… A truly remarkable perspective lol. I just told you that the supply is artificially constricted to inflate prices and gouge profit, and your response is “that’s what makes it good.”

    What’s next, investment groups buying up a significant percentage of non-perishable foods if it’ll make “good investments because supply is too low”? Basic necessities of life shouldn’t be investments because supply and demand aren’t really relevant when you need something. It’s just extortion with extra steps.

    A huge portion of the population is choosing not to have kids because houses are too expensive, and even if they manage to get one, raising a family on top of that is too expensive. When investments are negatively impacting the entire population of a country, that’s a bad thing.