Profit Over People

[Mercer]

 

 

Saw this and thought of this thread. lol

[mr.yuck]

^^ and free food!

 

speaking of food, Nabisco is hilarious right now. You know how when you get a box of Oreos and every once in a while you find one where one of the cookie half’s is flipped around the wrong way?

 

Go buy a box of Oreos right now and check that shit out. I just got one where half the box was fucked up. Quality control straight in the shitter while these fools are on strike.

 

[Mercer]

I'm ahead of the game apparently. Boycotting Nabisco products for years. Poison.

[mr.yuck]

5 hours ago, Mercer said:

I'm ahead of the game apparently. Boycotting Nabisco products for years. Poison.

You take that back. Don’t you ever talk bad about the North American Biscuit Company again. I don’t do much processed food but Oreos are my Achilles heel. 

Edited August 21, 2021 by mr.yuck

[misteraven]

How is anyone not willingly out of work in the USA right now? We literally have businesses shutting down because nobody wants to wash dishes for $18 hour. 

[Mercer]

Unemployment benefits are about to run out for a large number of Coloradans, and ICU's are filling up. These winter should be interesting.

[mr.yuck]

2 hours ago, misteraven said:

How is anyone not willingly out of work in the USA right now? We literally have businesses shutting down because nobody wants to wash dishes for $18 hour. 

 

unemployment still pays more. I fucked up big and should have drained this PPP welfare for all it had to offer me. 
 

 

Edit- I really just don’t think anyone is interested in working any more. Like working for half of your waking hours to not even be able to survive. I hope people have been using this down time and influx of money to better themselves in some way.

Edited August 21, 2021 by mr.yuck

[abrasivesaint]

On 8/20/2021 at 3:03 PM, Mercer said:

If you argue against evictions for non-payment, you’re arguing against private property rights.Either the person who owns the property is allowed to enforce contracts regarding its use, or they’re not. There’s no loopholes around this.

This is just black and white nonsense.

 

On 8/20/2021 at 1:38 PM, abrasivesaint said:

edit: But if we’re going to continue into the weeds.. Please play out the scenario that you think should have happened, involving evictions, and where that would have ended. 

You’ve asked people to offer alternatives to their arguments in the past, so i ask again. Where do you think evictions would have lead, and what benefits would it have had on our society? 

[abrasivesaint]

On 8/20/2021 at 5:42 PM, Mercer said:

 

 

Saw this and thought of this thread. lol

For the record, i never argued this, but carry on.. 

[abrasivesaint]

On 8/21/2021 at 9:22 AM, misteraven said:

How is anyone not willingly out of work in the USA right now? 

Most folks seem to be absolutely willingly out of work at this point. I just find it hard to argue against a worker milking loopholes in a system for profit when employers, politicians, and corporations do the same. 
 

When the latter does it, they’re smart Capitalists. When the worker does it, they’re lazy leaches.

[Mercer]

6 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

You’ve asked people to offer alternatives to their arguments in the past, so i ask again. Where do you think evictions would have lead, and what benefits would it have had on our society? 

 

People who are unable to pay rent get evicted. Some end up with family, homeless, couch surfing, etc.

 

Meanwhile, the disincentives a potential real estate investor faces are reduced, making real estate investing less risky, and more profitable. This profit attracts more investment, which in turn creates more actual housing, reducing the housing costs for people actually contributing.

[abrasivesaint]

6 hours ago, Mercer said:

 

People who are unable to pay rent get evicted. Some end up with family, homeless, couch surfing, etc.

 

Meanwhile, the disincentives a potential real estate investor faces are reduced, making real estate investing less risky, and more profitable. This profit attracts more investment, which in turn creates more actual housing, reducing the housing costs for people actually contributing.

This sounds good on paper, but prices have been on the rise for years, pre-pandemic, and from what i’ve read, there were already vacancies during 2020 due to lockdowns, unemployment, and uncertainty. So something’s not adding up. 
 

With mass evictions, those vacancies still wouldn’t have been filled in 2020. Maybe this would have decreased prices, but rent rarely seems to ever go down. In fact, i cant recall hearing it ever go down around here. It doesn’t seem like any decrease was or would have been for legitimate lack of demand, but artificially decreasing due to the uncertainty, not demand, because look at the way things are now.. the rental market is insane.

 

Now tack on the additional evicted tenants, the ones that were victims of circumstance, and not the deadbeats. Eventually they would be looking to re-home once they’re back to work, so they can get off of the couch or out of their families house. 
 

I think the market would have stayed the same, if not increased, as it has. I think we would still be in the same market that we are today. 

[Mercer]

Yea, rents have always been going up. Like since forever if you're trying to read the market here. The population is always increasing leading to more demand, and inflation doesn't help either. I'm really not sure how to respond to be honest. I've noticed you have a built in economic cognitive dissonance, makes learning simple concepts impossible for you. Instead of running the math using logic, you're factoring in emotional responses and it it derails any attempt for you to calculate past 1 or 2 steps. No matter what, for you eviction is "wrong" and that's it. Not trying to diss because even this is simple stuff here, most people share your same shortcoming, not understanding why rents are so high in places like NY/SF where policy interferes heavily in the market.

 

 

 

[abrasivesaint]

9 hours ago, Mercer said:

I'm really not sure how to respond to be honest. I've noticed you have a built in economic cognitive dissonance, makes learning simple concepts impossible for you. Instead of running the math using logic, you're factoring in emotional responses and it it derails any attempt for you to calculate past 1 or 2 steps. No matter what, for you eviction is "wrong" and that's it.

What you may call cognitive dissonance, i would call believing in grey areas. I don’t believe any system, ideology, philosophy, is without flaw, and should be handled with absolutism. 
 

Morality aside, i viewed the idea of mass evictions as simply unnecessary. I see banks and corporations getting bailed out, why couldn’t landlords get the same protections? Massachusetts seemed to handle it. I’m sure other states did, or could have as well. I think the idea that mass evictions would have brought in revenue after the evictions is inaccurate, and think loses were inevitable regardless. I think we would just be in the same market that we are now, and those evictions would have been next to meaningless.
 

What i think you’re confusing in my logic is the eviction of a straight up “deadbeat”, and someone victim of circumstance, that being the repercussions of the pandemic, whether it be the landlord or the tenant. Someone not paying rent because they’re putting it up their nose? Evict them. Someone destroying your property because they’re getting hammered or simply constantly pissed off? Evict them. I think the pandemic classifies as a rare and extenuating circumstance that could, and should, be handled differently.  

 

9 hours ago, Mercer said:

Not trying to diss because even this is simple stuff here, most people share your same shortcoming, not understanding why rents are so high in places like NY/SF where policy interferes heavily in the market.

I think i have a fair understanding of rent control, construction costs, return of investments, zoning laws, amount of available land, population, and shit like that. I know that i am certainly no “expert”.

[Mercer]

This "gray area" you're referring to is an ideological moral shortcoming, condoning, and assisting one party in their theft from another. Your position doesn't have any of the virtue associated with "Hey, whether we all agree to, or not, we're all pitching in together to help". At least in that situation the person declaring so, is supporting the effort themselves. This is literally watching someone get robbed, and not letting them stop it because you favor one group, over another most likely based on class identity.

 

A person who respects the rights of others shouldn't be targeted because of their chosen profession, or business. Especially when it's demonstrable they provide a very important function in society. Where do your whims end? Who else deserves their property rights violated? That's a pretty easy question for me to answer, because I believe there is a such thing as right, and wrong.

 

I don't have a wishy washy moral compass like right wingers when they want to violate the rights of the poor, immigrants, etc. or left wingers when they want to make excuses, then violate the rights of anyone who's done well for themselves like landlords. I just don't see being absolutely against things like murder, rape, theft etc. as being "absolute" or "extremist". Outside of self defense, you shouldn't harm/murder another person; Outside of consent, you shouldn't engage in sex acts; and outside of restitution for crime/damages you don't take what belongs to another person. 

 

Crossing moral boundaries in a "the ends justify the means" causes more harm big picture (I've explained how in this situation in previous posts) than it helps. This is how most intentional, and unintentional large scale man made losses of life, and prosperity start. Favoring the rights, and sovereignty of one group of individuals, and removing the rights of another group.

[abrasivesaint]

58 minutes ago, Mercer said:

This "gray area" you're referring to is an ideological moral shortcoming, condoning, and assisting one party in their theft from another. Your position doesn't have any of the virtue associated with "Hey, whether we all agree to, or not, we're all pitching in together to help".

Disagree. You keep harping about theft of one party, where as i am not arguing that whatsoever. I am saying that it seems that  there could have been temporary protections implemented in extenuating circumstances where both parties benefitted, as there has been in some circumstances where states imposed such protections. This means LANDLORDS, and tenants. Nobody is being robbed. 
 

I think it’s clear we’re not going to see eye to eye on this, at this point. 

 

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

That's a pretty easy question for me to answer, because I believe there is a such thing as right, and wrong.

 

Morality is subjective. The Taliban may disagree on what we may view as right or wrong. IS may disagree with the Taliban. What i may view as wrong, Chevron or Frito Lay may view as simply, business. 

 

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

Crossing moral boundaries in a "the ends justify the means" causes more harm big picture (I've explained how in this situation in previous posts) than it helps. This is how most intentional, and unintentional large scale man made losses of life, and prosperity start. Favoring the rights, and sovereignty of one group of individuals, and removing the rights of another group.

How is eviction not causing loss of prosperity and loss of life, intentional or not? How is it not favoring the rights of one group, and removing those of another? It is only because housing is not recognized as a human right under this system, yet. Again, this is subjective, as it follows your systemic beliefs. 
 

Again, i am not arguing anyone’s rights should have been violated. I have been stating that both parties should/could be temporarily protected.
 

Seems like all the money that was being thrown at Afghanistan could now be repurposed to federally protect the rights of landlords, if the rights of the tenants are being federally protected. 

[Mercer]

39 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

You keep harping about theft of one party.

 

Correct, this is what you condone here by saying the non-paying tenant shouldn't be evicted.

 

39 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

, where as i am not arguing that whatsoever.

 

Incorrect.

 

 

39 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

I am saying that it seems that  there could have been temporary protections implemented in extenuating circumstances where both parties benefitted

 

By, condoning/prolonging the theft right?

 

39 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

, as there has been in some circumstances where states imposed such protections. This means LANDLORDS, and tenants. Nobody is being robbed. 

 

This comes across as purely disingenuous, there are no "protection" for landlords. Do they get to kick out tennants, and continue charging them rent?

 

39 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

I think it’s clear we’re not going to see eye to eye on this, at this point. 

 

That's a given, I value self reliance, where you find virtue in taking away from one party and giving to another. 

 

 

39 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

Morality is subjective.

 

Everyone condoning immoral behavior uses this as a cop out. Somehow, there's always an excuse where the rules of morality aren't applied consistently, one person to the next. You think there's a difference (morally) between a tenant not paying rent, and continuing to occupy the landlords property, and a landlord continuing to collect rent, while not providing the property they agreed to. Embracing inequality under the law isn't morally subjective. Class war, (like most war) is a moral shortcoming, not a subjective take on morality.

 

39 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

The Taliban may disagree on what we may view as right or wrong. IS may disagree with the Taliban. What i may view as wrong, Chevron or Frito Lay may view as simply, business.

 

If you feel this way, how can one person decide if another person is acting immorally or not? Perhaps OJ felt Nicole wronged him, perhaps a child abuser was abused themselves, and felt it was morally OK so they continue that practice on others. The fact that people have ideological differences doesn't mean there's no such thing as morality. 

 

39 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

 

How is eviction not causing loss of prosperity and loss of life, intentional or not?

 

It's not causing it. The tenants failure to uphold their end of the agreement is the cause, eviction, and any loss of prosperity is a result. Without the cause (breach of contract), there is no eviction. 

 

39 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

How is it not favoring the rights of one group, and removing those of another?

 

You're not saying both parties here can breach contract to offset their personal financial woes, you're saying only one party here needs to be held to their word. Mine doesn't favor the rights of one group over another because it's holding both parties responsible to uphold their agreement. 

 

39 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

It is only because housing is not recognized as a human right under this system, yet. Again, this is subjective, as it follows your systemic beliefs. 

 

Materiel goods and services aren't human rights.  

 

39 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

Again, i am not arguing anyone’s rights should have been violated. I have been stating that both parties should/could be temporarily protected.

 

You keep saying this, but still fail to recognize the property rights of landlords.

 

39 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

Seems like all the money that was being thrown at Afghanistan could now be repurposed to federally protect the rights of landlords, if the rights of the tenants are being federally protected. 

 

Irrelevant, and also wrong. You start forcibly taxing people to hand out free rent to landlords there's just as much potential for a deadbeat landlord to game that system as well. This is a terrible idea and completely unnecessary. Whats wrong with every American taxpayer keeping an additional 5-10% more of their income for as long as the bullshit war will need to be payed off. Imagine the improvement to out economy if our economy was just 5-10% more profitable to operate in. You don't have to waste money forcibly seized from people. No amount of mental gymnastics justifies removing the incentives for individuals to meet their consensual/contractual obligations. 

[abrasivesaint]

11 hours ago, Mercer said:

there are no "protection" for landlords.

This is the point that i’ve been making. That maybe during extenuating circumstances, we must step outside rigid, religious ideology and search for answers where all parties benefit, i.e., create temporary protections or “bail outs” for landlords, as have been provided to tenants, banks, and corporations. The same protections that the state of Massachusetts has implemented, apparently. 
 

I respect you Mercer, always have, but jesus christ dude, we’re so far into the fucking weeds here. 

…. 

 

On 8/20/2021 at 11:26 AM, Mercer said:

something as absolute, and black/white as property rights.

……

 

So what is it man? Does 100% of black flag flyers harbor disdain for property rights, or do they “generally” harbor disdain? If you are flexing the black flag, are you not part of the 100%, and therefore harbor disdain for the property rights of those with more than you?
 

I think it is clear you do not harbor this disdain, and that you must fall into some grey area there. However, by your own words, there’s no grey area with property rights, they are black and white. Therefore, either support them, or you fly the black flag with the 100% and harbor disdain for them. 
 

(Edit: the text in those images is larger because they are screenshots. If there is a way to quote posts from various pages and threads, i dont know how to do it, and had to screen shot.)

Edited August 25, 2021 by abrasivesaint

[Dirty_habiT]

5 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

we’re so far into the fucking weeds here.

 

DHabz has entered the chat.

[mr.yuck]

 

1 hour ago, Dirty_habiT said:

 

DHabz has entered the chat.

 Well, well, well.

[ndv]

1 hour ago, Dirty_habiT said:

 

DHabz has entered the chat.

 

Welcome back, how was the playboy mansion?

[Mercer]

The black flag indicates zero loyalty to a corrupt empire, or any nation, and isn't an endorsement of Socialism, or Communism. My unwillingness to acknowledge that a little bit of theft is OK is the same thing as a little bit of rape not being cool, or a little bit of assault, etc. It's not like I want people out on the street, I just know the alternative because of the unintentional consequences is worse.

 

It's not just the morality of theft/breach of contract. I can understand on the surface, eviction seems like a cruel matter of greed and we want to prevent it right?. The reality is if you look more than a single layer deep, a healthy, affordable housing market (at least for people willing to pay rent) evictions are necessary. Stopping evictions may benefit a small minority of people very short term, but the harm this would cause everyone else in the housing market big picture ultimately makes it not only immoral, it causes more harm than the problem it intends to correct.

 

Pretty sure I've gone over both the moral shortcomings, and how stopping the consequences for non-payment are harmful on a practical level. That said, I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm just unable to concede designing society to benefit the few, at the expense of the majority is a smart move. Lving in West Germany during the 80's, and witnessing first hand the difference in standards of living between East & West, and my close ties to Argentina make me passionately anti "left" on the economic scale, and that's what makes me anti-government.

 

 

[Dark_Knight]

4 hours ago, Dirty_habiT said:

 

DHabz has entered the chat.

 

[where]

On 8/25/2021 at 10:58 AM, Dark_Knight said:

 

Why are you the way you are

[where]

On 8/25/2021 at 8:17 AM, Mercer said:

The black flag indicates zero loyalty to a corrupt empire, or any nation, and isn't an endorsement of Socialism, or Communism. My unwillingness to acknowledge that a little bit of theft is OK is the same thing as a little bit of rape not being cool, or a little bit of assault, etc. It's not like I want people out on the street, I just know the alternative because of the unintentional consequences is worse.

 

It's not just the morality of theft/breach of contract. I can understand on the surface, eviction seems like a cruel matter of greed and we want to prevent it right?. The reality is if you look more than a single layer deep, a healthy, affordable housing market (at least for people willing to pay rent) evictions are necessary. Stopping evictions may benefit a small minority of people very short term, but the harm this would cause everyone else in the housing market big picture ultimately makes it not only immoral, it causes more harm than the problem it intends to correct.

 

Pretty sure I've gone over both the moral shortcomings, and how stopping the consequences for non-payment are harmful on a practical level. That said, I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm just unable to concede designing society to benefit the few, at the expense of the majority is a smart move. Lving in West Germany during the 80's, and witnessing first hand the difference in standards of living between East & West, and my close ties to Argentina make me passionately anti "left" on the economic scale, and that's what makes me anti-government.

 

 

No

 

[where]

On 8/25/2021 at 8:14 AM, ndv said:

 

Welcome back, how was the playboy mansion?

What does this mean lol

[Dark_Knight]

2 minutes ago, where said:

Why are you the way you are

[where]

2 minutes ago, Dark_Knight said:

For what a whole win, your brain is a bruised banana don't even

[Dark_Knight]

6 minutes ago, where said:

For what a whole win, your brain is a bruised banana don't even

[where]

7 minutes ago, Dark_Knight said:

Youre like a toenail in the overall spectrum stop trying to bully the homie and acting like a human hangnail this is a life lesson

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by where