• Marin_Rider@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    108
    ·
    11 months ago

    residential property should not be able to be bought by corporations, there is no benefit in allowing that to happen at all

    • Aleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s sure beneficial for the rich fucks behind these companies. Everyone else gets fucked.

      • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        35
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        No, that’s not any of this works. In a free market, it’s entirely possible (and often the case) that both the rich fucks and everyone else benefit.

        I recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell and also Poor Economics by Abhijit V. Banerjee.

        edit Based on the voting response, I guess I should have suggested something from Dr. Seuss first.

        • Aleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Then pray tell, how is private equity purchasing homes benefiting everyone else?

          • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            It increases the overall supply, brings more resources and stability to the housing market. Corporations that specialize in house rental have a opportunity to view market data. All this combined benefits everybody.

            • rainynight65@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              Only if these corporations are actually required by regulation to make these houses available for rent, and at market-adequate rates. If a company is as cashed up as this one is likely to be, they’ll only rent to people who are willing to pay higher rents, and if there’s nobody who wants to rent a specific property, they’d rather leave it sitting vacant than lower the rent.

              This isn’t hypothetical, it’s happening in practically every property market where wealthy investors are buying up housing stock.

          • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            That is true. Protecting the free market is one of the few legitimate roles of the government.

    • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      56
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      USA has roughly 15 million vacant homes currently. If this company manages to fill some of them with people, that means there’ll be fewer vacant homes. Obvious net benefit for all.

      edit I guess you guys enjoy that there are homeless people then

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Oh look… a capitalist shill using homeless people as a propaganda prop to do apologetics for the capitalists that caused all the homelessness.

        Yawn.

      • argarath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        11 months ago

        The reason those houses are vacant is because companies bought them and are now pricing them out of the reach of most consumers

        • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          How do you think businesses work? By pricing the things they are selling out of reach of consumers?

          How much money does a corporation make by just owning a house? I think it’s not as much as renting it.

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            Free market can work in fields where competition is plenty and entering is cheap.

            When the amount of “players” in the market is so small they can collude to keep prices high it all falls apart.

      • S_204@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        11 months ago

        Hol up. Lolololol.

        Are you saying that the rich fucks who are buying up housing stock will make them accessible to the houseless population of America?

        • Aleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          So far they actually have nothing to say beyond “nuh uh you’re wrong”, which is effectively nothing at all. I’ve asked them to explain, we’ll see what we get.

        • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          11 months ago

          Are you saying that the rich fucks who are buying up housing stock will make them accessible to the houseless population of America?

          No, that’s not what I’m saying.

          • S_204@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            And please explain the economic theory behind your post. We have history as far back as the start of capitalism. It shows your post to be completely out of touch with reality. If you have proof evidence or a functioning theory of why your post would lead to Las vacancies and more accessible housing for people, I am very interested in seeing it.

            I’ve got a feeling though that you don’t have an adequate response or you would have posted it. So if you’re going to reply without a response, maybe all you need to do is post an apology…

      • orrk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        so, you think the reason that the homeless people don’t live in these homes is because… they wouldn’t be able to pay rich people money if they did?

        how high do you have to be to make the statement “look I would love to not freeze to death, but only if I get to pay half my income to Amazon” seem reasonable?

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        A surplus of homes does not equal less homeless people. If their prices, either as rentals or for buying, is too high, it can actually increase the number of homeless people.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Vacant does not mean unowned.

        Plus I’m pretty sure Amazon doesn’t want thousands of crackhead row houses in shit areas.

      • rainynight65@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        If there are 15 million vacant homes now, then a company made up of wealthy investors buying up heaps of them at the current inflated prices isn’t going to change anything. Those houses won’t become living spaces for poor and homeless people - they’ll sit vacant until someone comes along who’s willing to pay the exorbitant rent.