#BLMers now demanding that white people give up our homes!

[Derec]

A movement with millions of people will have someone saying stupid stuff now and then. You seem to be under the impression that stupid stuff defines the movement, when there is no evidence that it does.

If it was "now and then" you would have a point. But #BLMers do and say stupid, racist shit all the time without the leadership objecting. Hell, in the case of Chicago #BLM defending looting as "reparations", it was the leader of a local chapter who said it.

 

[Derec]

Why do you believe that property values increasing is a good thing? It isn't. Increasing property values is very bad for the economy as a whole, the overall economy. Increasing property values increases housing costs which increases inflation.

Which is why Detroit has become a boom-town economically speaking, right?

Do you believe that inflation is good for the economy?

A certain level of inflation is definitely good, which is why the Fed has a target inflation rate that is slightly positive, and not zero.
But with real estate, there is something else. While there is a lot of land available for cheap in say Wyoming, desirable real estate, say on the island of Manhattan or peninsula of San Francisco is extremely limited by geography. With increasing population, the only way these property values not to increase is for economy to be bad, or that the local politicians manage to make these neighborhoods worse (for example by defunding police and local DAs like Boudin not prosecuting crimes).

The inflation in property values in the housing market is what, in conjunction with the absolutely insane belief that Wall Street doesn't need to be regulated by the government, that caused the Great Recession of 2007, the third worse depression in the last 100 years after the Trump ineptitude Greater Great Depression that we are in right now and the now Lesser Great Depression of the 1930s.

The major cause of the Great Recession was the subprime crisis, i.e. lending to people who had no business owning real estate. People who would have been much better off renting. But politicians, had the goal of increasing home ownership rate. I am sure people like Jarhyn, who thinks rent is evil, would have applauded these efforts before the shit hit the fan.

 

[Derec]

Probably the most regulated society in Europe, Germany, has almost no zoning, restricting land use only around airports, military installations, and to protect some farmland.

"Some farmland" is a bit of an understatement. Building is far more restrictive in Germany (and as a plus, there is far less "suburban sprawl") and the real estate prices are higher too.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Which is why Detroit has become a boom-town economically speaking, right?


A certain level of inflation is definitely good, which is why the Fed has a target inflation rate that is slightly positive, and not zero.
But with real estate, there is something else. While there is a lot of land available for cheap in say Wyoming, desirable real estate, say on the island of Manhattan or peninsula of San Francisco is extremely limited by geography. With increasing population, the only way these property values not to increase is for economy to be bad, or that the local politicians manage to make these neighborhoods worse (for example by defunding police and local DAs like Boudin not prosecuting crimes).

The inflation in property values in the housing market is what, in conjunction with the absolutely insane belief that Wall Street doesn't need to be regulated by the government, that caused the Great Recession of 2007, the third worse depression in the last 100 years after the Trump ineptitude Greater Great Depression that we are in right now and the now Lesser Great Depression of the 1930s.

The major cause of the Great Recession was the subprime crisis, i.e. lending to people who had no business owning real estate. People who would have been much better off renting. But politicians, had the goal of increasing home ownership rate. I am sure people like Jarhyn, who thinks rent is evil, would have applauded these efforts before the shit hit the fan.

There is great value for some to own a home and keep it into retirement. For many families, it's an inflation hedge. It generally goes up in value. Interest can be expensed. And etc. But my friend Jarhyn and others only see the upside of home ownership; none of the downside.

 

[laughing dog]

A movement with millions of people will have someone saying stupid stuff now and then. You seem to be under the impression that stupid stuff defines the movement, when there is no evidence that it does.

If it was "now and then" you would have a point. But #BLMers do and say stupid, racist shit all the time without the leadership objecting. Hell, in the case of Chicago #BLM defending looting as "reparations", it was the leader of a local chapter who said it.

There are thousands if not millions of #BLMers - your sample is cherry-picked to suit your "ideology".

 

[Politesse]

Is there a point to the OP?

Yes, it is further evidence against the common claim that #BLM is a positive movement. In reality, they are a bunch of racist extremists.

Do you really think there will be a push to take homes away from white people who live in neighborhoods that were previously inhabited by mostly black people?

Who knows any more with these leftist-run cities. Last year I would not have guessed that the mayor of Seattle would express support for a band on extremists taking over a neighborhood of her city.

Where by "support", we mean "say some vaguely supportive things to the cameras for a few days, then give the green light to send in the heavy armaments and destroy them."

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, it is further evidence against the common claim that #BLM is a positive movement. In reality, they are a bunch of racist extremists.


Who knows any more with these leftist-run cities. Last year I would not have guessed that the mayor of Seattle would express support for a band on extremists taking over a neighborhood of her city.

Where by "support", we mean "say some vaguely supportive things to the cameras for a few days, then give the green light to send in the heavy armaments and destroy them."

Like, I bet they haven't even talked to, don't even know anyone who lives in Seattle. But they know for a FACT what the situation there is. My close friend who lives there and tells me the free zone was 100% peaceful, having commuted through/past it to get to work every day, is just lying. For the likes. Despite the fact that I asked him in private and he doesn't publicly comment on it. FAKE NEWS!

 

[Bomb#20]

In philosophical use, not paying attention to your <expletive deleted> no-true-scotsman, "rent seeking" is any behavior where one party, as a product of initially paying for a thing, leverages that thing to extort others who need it but cannot afford the initial investment to acquire it for themselves, for more value than the rent seeker themselves used to acquire or create it, while not ceding ownership to the renter in the least.

Dude, if an immigrant from Basque-country is totally into bike racing and therefore describes himself as a "racist", so I advise him not to call himself that, and alert him that "racist" is a pejorative in English referring to ethnic prejudice, then the circumstance that you're a fanatic who hates people on bicycles does not justify you accusing me of a no-true-scotsman and does not justify you accusing him of really being a racist.

Economics has a technical jargon that to non-specialists might as well be a foreign language. "Rent-seeking" is a pejorative for reasons described in the Wikipedia page; and as it says, "Rent-seeking is distinguished in theory from profit-seeking". What Mr. Bosch is doing is profit-seeking, not rent-seeking in its pejorative sense. The circumstance that you have a philosophy hostile to profit and you equate "In philosophical use" with "In the use of people who share my philosophy" does not change the fact that when you try to take advantage of "rent-seeking" being a pejorative in that foreign language to get people to look down on landlords, you're committing an equivocation fallacy.

Now, if you have a substantive reason to think Mr. Bosch is extorting his tenant, feel free to present your evidence.

 

[Bomb#20]

Your ideology isn't the only one that makes the people it infects pick out a minority group and call them parasites. Do you have any reason for thinking yours is an inch different from those other ideologies?

"Both sides" and not even a strong "both sides".

Excuse me? There are more than two sides, and some of those sides aren't all about blaming society's problems on an allegedly parasitical minority group.

Getting resources without doing commensurate continuing WORK is parasitism. Period. It is the word that actually describes the acknowledged behavior.

So that's your answer? Your ideology is different from antisemitism because your ideology has a theory? And your theory implies your outgroup really are parasites? Seriously? Oh for the love of god, don't you know antisemites have theories too? Their reasons for calling Jews parasites seem every bit as solid to them as your reasons seem to you.

The Labor Theory of Value is a steaming pile of dingoes' kidneys. Having a theory explaining why your outgroup are lesser beings doesn't make you a non-bigot. But outgroups are like children. It's different when they're yours.

Now, quit with your <expletive deleted> and just say who you, yourself, are accusing here of being "the actual" parasites, and we can discuss whether those people are, in fact, parasites.

Dude, what planet are you from? Where the bejesus did you see me accuse anyone of being parasites? Why are you trying to change the subject from whether an accusation you really made was a false accusation, to whether some other accusation would be false if only somebody would step up and do the accusing? In fact, why did you put "the actual" in quotes? Who are you quoting?

What, does your theory tell you to assume that if landlords weren't parasites that would magically prove tenants were parasites?

But "was born to a wealthy family and had enough inheritance or clout to buy homes they are not going to live in, and generally let go to <expletive deleted>" is not a justification for absorbing equity that other people are, in full, paying for.

Where whether other people are paying for that equity in full is decided, I presume, by consulting you? And your mystical theory? That stuff has some objective "value" apparently to be determined by "commensurate continuing WORK"?

When a Christian claims you owe obedience to a God you can't see, wouldn't you ask for evidence that God is a real thing? When a folk-medicine practitioner claims your body contains qi you can't see, wouldn't you ask for evidence that qi is a real thing? Well then, when you tell us landlords extort others "for more value than the rent seeker themselves used to acquire or create it", you're going to get asked for evidence that "value" is a real thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which is why Detroit has become a boom-town economically speaking, right?


A certain level of inflation is definitely good, which is why the Fed has a target inflation rate that is slightly positive, and not zero.

No. The ideal inflation rate is zero. It's just that we can't aim perfectly and positive is less harmful than negative. Thus we aim a little above zero to minimize the total harm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Like, I bet they haven't even talked to, don't even know anyone who lives in Seattle. But they know for a FACT what the situation there is. My close friend who lives there and tells me the free zone was 100% peaceful, having commuted through/past it to get to work every day, is just lying. For the likes. Despite the fact that I asked him in private and he doesn't publicly comment on it. FAKE NEWS!

100% peaceful areas don't have murders.

 

[J842P]

The major cause of the Great Recession was the subprime crisis, i.e. lending to people who had no business owning real estate. People who would have been much better off renting. But politicians, had the goal of increasing home ownership rate. I am sure people like Jarhyn, who thinks rent is evil, would have applauded these efforts before the shit hit the fan.

No, that's a lie. The fundamental cause of the Great Recession was that the financial industry created all sorts of worthless paper from that debt which it was those derivatives that created the systematized risk. If it had just been a housing bubble collapse it would not have spread to the whole economy, not to mention the whole world.

This was fundamentally a failure of regulation, most of what the banks were doing should simply not have been allowed. And outright fraud, in many cases.

The idea that the cause was US housing policy is an ideological canard only put forward by right-wing extremists. The problem was not GSEs creating morgage-backed securities, rather, it was the private-label MBSs and the crazy house of cards built-up on top of them that caused the system-wide collapse. And that was allowed due to various changes in laws throughout the 80s and 90s pushed by right-wingers who argued that it wasn't fair that only GSEs could do this stuff.

 

[Toni]

Gentrification does force low income people out of their neighborhoods and cause greater instability in the lives of all of those forced to relocate because they are priced out of their neighborhood.

In other words, we shouldn't try to improve bad neighborhoods.

Doesn't it depend on what you mean by 'improve?'

I'm not saying this is you, but for a lot of white people, 'improving' means making more appealing to white people--especially the kind of white people who like their chains and big boxes and have no ties to the local small businesses or the restaurants and shops that give the neighborhoods their lifeblood, their unique character that keeps people there for generations and helps draw the new people.

I listened to a lot of people my parents age complain about how if you let black families move in/attend the same schools, etc. that the quality would go down. Because there were black people. Even as a kid, I recognized the bigotry/racism inherent in that line of thinking. Heck, where I grew up, substitute Hispanic or Asian and you'd get very nearly the same reaction:NIMBY.

Even if it is less bigoted or intentionally malevolent, dramatically improving a property on a block can have the ripple effect of causing enough of an increase in property values that the increased property taxes make older adults or younger families priced out of the neighborhood where they've lived their entire lives. Driving out the bodega that caters to the needs of the preimproved neighborhood and gives credit or donations to local customers or schools, etc. get replaced by big boxes who don't because of corporate policy. Hey, when my kids were in school and I had to do fundraising for the public schools, I know there was a HUGE difference between local businesses and national changes in terms of how much they actually supported the local community.

 

[James Madison]

I wouldn't begin to demand white people give up their homes. I would demand that rent seekers who are almost universally white (but in reality, regardless of race) be forced to sell their rental properties to lower income locals at price points commensurate with the rent paid over the previous years (to prevent rate hike inflation).

This would in effect be forcing "people who are mostly white", to sell the homes they don't live in to "people who are largely/mostly black".

Because really, what purpose do those people serve other than profiting on "being there first"?

Of course, “these people” provide a place to live for people who otherwise cannot afford to purchase a house, have insufficient income to obtain financing to purchase a house, no credit to insufficient credit to obtain financing, or are in a stage in their life where they want to rent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elixir]

I own a property and have a renter. ... I think that RE is greatly overrated unless you plan to hold for a long time. People always focus on when real estate increases in value, but forget the bad times. In Oregon, real estate dropped in half during 2009 and 2010.

I.e., your renter is the one who gets the benefit of living on the land even though you are the one who bears all the risk of loss if the land becoming less desirable. And you're okay with that because the renter is paying you. And the renter is okay with paying you because that's a risk he or she can't afford. So the risk is being transferred, from the one less able to take the risk to the one more able to take it. I.e., you're selling insurance.

As a buyer of homes or land you're also a buyer of insurance. I'm pretty old and bought my first 3 houses on ~3 acres land for 14k, 11k of it owner financed, when I was 22. A few years later I met a girl at a party who gave me the name of a guy who wanted to sell his 10 remote acres above Central City CO. I met him in a cafe in Central City, gave him a check for 2k and he gave me a signed quit claim deed. A year or so later I had only ever visited that land twice - it was at 11,000 feet. Someone wanted to pay me 8k for it so I sold it. Those first three houses ... tore one down, rented one out, lived in one and eventually sold for a good fraction of 1m. I'm sure there's land that loses its value, but I think you'd have to be REALLY unlucky. As they say, they're not making any more land. As I write this I have a property some 30 miles from here that is fully paid off and has the same renter I had when I bought it, paying the same rent for the last ... shee-hitt ... 12 years now. I could have doubled the rent in that time, but I don't because I have not even had to visit in the last eight or so years, the rent is never late and the renter takes care of everything that breaks. He basically paid for the house, and I own it. Insurance and taxes have gone up, but not his rent Fair? No fair?

Oregon home values took a dip in 2009-2010 all right, but from 2009-2019 they were up like, 50%. They aren't making any more land. (Or at least not much of it, and most artificial land is really expensive!)

 

[JohnG]

Not going to get into a real estate debate here - but RWNJ seeking out extreme views or out of context media to justify their own racism/visions of supremacy is pretty easy to spot.

If everything they present is juxtaposed against "Blood and Soil" or "Jews will not replace us" or even building a facking wall, then it becomes laughable.

Black people are mad because study after study after study confirms that America is a systematically racist country.

 

[Derec]

Not going to get into a real estate debate here - but RWNJ seeking out extreme views or out of context media to justify their own racism/visions of supremacy is pretty easy to spot.

Just because I can find plenty of examples of LWNJs (and by the way, it is NOT out of context) does not make me a RWNJ.

If everything they present is juxtaposed against "Blood and Soil" or "Jews will not replace us" or even building a facking wall, then it becomes laughable.

"Jews will not replace us" was a single rally 2 years ago. #BLM has had dozens of racist riots since then. In Portland they have been rioting for 79 days already, and have just sent two police officers to the hospital by throwing heavy rocks.

2 officers hospitalized after Portland protester throws a nearly 10-pound rock, police say
But I guess you will insist that was "out of context" too because in your mind, #BLM can't do no wrong!

As far as building a wall, we definitely do need to secure our southern border. It is a joke how easily illegals can come through!

Black people are mad because study after study after study confirms that America is a systematically racist country.

You ignoring anti-white racism by groups such as Noi and #BLM is typical of LWNJs, as is exaggerating any white racism. The only systematic racism in the US is thinks like blacks getting an automatic boost in college admissions due to their race!

 

[Derec]

No, that's a lie.

No, not a lie. Just a simplification. The reality is that the reason that paper was worthless was because so many people took mortgages that they could not pay back.

 

[Derec]

I'm not saying this is you, but for a lot of white people, 'improving' means making more appealing to white people--especially the kind of white people who like their chains and big boxes and have no ties to the local small businesses or the restaurants and shops that give the neighborhoods their lifeblood, their unique character that keeps people there for generations and helps draw the new people.

Ah yes, the prejudices against "white people" are alive and well. Never mind that poor/bad (however you want to say it) neighborhoods also have their chains, they just tend to be different chains, and gentrified neighborhoods have their locally owned non-chain restaurants and the like. Mrs. Winners and Family Dollar are as much a chain as Starbucks.

I listened to a lot of people my parents age complain about how if you let black families move in/attend the same schools, etc. that the quality would go down. Because there were black people. Even as a kid, I recognized the bigotry/racism inherent in that line of thinking. Heck, where I grew up, substitute Hispanic or Asian and you'd get very nearly the same reaction:NIMBY.

And yet, you support black people who want to chase white people our of "their" neighborhoods. What's the difference?

Even if it is less bigoted or intentionally malevolent, dramatically improving a property on a block can have the ripple effect of causing enough of an increase in property values that the increased property taxes make older adults or younger families priced out of the neighborhood where they've lived their entire lives.

So people should not improve their houses, lest the house next door be worth a bit more?

I guess houses like these (in the infamous Atlanta "The Bluff" neighborhood) are perfect, because they keep all other houses nice and cheap and low-tax...

Driving out the bodega that caters to the needs of the preimproved neighborhood and gives credit or donations to local customers or schools, etc. get replaced by big boxes who don't because of corporate policy. Hey, when my kids were in school and I had to do fundraising for the public schools, I know there was a HUGE difference between local businesses and national changes in terms of how much they actually supported the local community.

Again, improved neighborhoods have local businesses. Bad neighborhoods have chains.

 

[Toni]

Ah yes, the prejudices against "white people" are alive and well. Never mind that poor/bad (however you want to say it) neighborhoods also have their chains, they just tend to be different chains, and gentrified neighborhoods have their locally owned non-chain restaurants and the like. Mrs. Winners and Family Dollar are as much a chain as Starbucks.

In my town, which is well over 90 percent white, we have chains like Walmart and Starbucks and Family Dollar--and lost a lot of nice local stores, like the hardware store where you could purchase just one screw to replace the one that was missing instead of a whole package.

I'm really not much of a fan of chains.

And yet, you support black people who want to chase white people our of "their" neighborhoods. What's the difference?

The difference is that black people moving into a town or a neighborhood doesn't cause property taxes to go up so that the people already living there can no longer afford their homes. Look at all the cities with a giant tech explosion: Lots of neighborhoods are being dramatically changed as long time residents can no longer afford the homes they've lived in for 20 years or more--and nothing affordable is near by.

I guess houses like these (in the infamous Atlanta "The Bluff" neighborhood) are perfect, because they keep all other houses nice and cheap and low-tax...
View attachment 28969

Do you ever get out of Atlanta? There are neighborhoods and individual homes that look like that everywhere.