Surrendering control of your value chain increases profits how exactly? These illegal taxi companies are neither cheaper nor more efficient than bespoke delivery personnel even if you do the thing where you pretend they wont monopsonize and charge your business fuckloads for the "privilege" of using their service-- which they will.
Pizzas have thermally unfortunate form factors, and the illegal taxi companies have almost always had worse delivery times. It's just a loss for everybody who isn't a capitalist.
Please read on the rent of the land by Smith, and anything by Henry George.
You appear to be advocating for anarchist concepts of free association and contract theory, but I've seen no specific citations. Are there any you'd reccomend?
Landlord stans havent read Smith after a 200 year head start, what makes you think they will read anything?
Risk doesn' t create value, what the heck are you talking about? I'll spin a revolver with a single round in it and fire, what fictional wizard signs my check?
Renters are the real ones at risk, being forced by an entire class of sociopaths acting in solidarity to parisitize their wealth. In a disagreement, landlords can commit asymmetric harm with impunity because legal defenses require capital, which the renting class lacks by definition.
Your "good" landlord only appears to be so because of the ubiquity of normal landlords. The handyman needed to help you that day cost pennies compared to what rent seekers steal, thats why they call it "passive income." In this case, you are describing work performed by a property manager, not a landlord, that created value to you. The landlord performed that managerial labor, and still pocketed disproportionally more value than he provided, because his earnings come from ownership, not from labor.
If its cheaper to rent than buy, why do landlords do it? Out of the goodness of their shiny little hearts? Thank you my lord for saving me from myself.
Landlords do not create housing. They destroy housing by turning what would have been a sold unit of housing into a rented unit of housing. They are directly incentivised to keep housing scarce.
Landlords out here in lemmy dot marxist lenninists comments deadass pretending their right to steal wealth is more important than ones fundamental human right to housing.
Let this be your reminder that "Landlords" do nothing of value. Anytime they claim they are, they are doing the work of an occupation that possibly does, like an electrician or developer or architect or carpenter or handyman or painter or realtor. Ticket scalpers don't create tickets. Don't let these antisocial freaks rewrite the dictionary, or excuse their own refusal to read anything about their own behavior.
If they try to cosplay as a pitiable person who only owns a house and doesn't want to be broke, tell them that their victims don't want that either, and only the landlord hates working for a living more than they hate parasitizing the wealth others. Their "ethical and reasonable" rent seeking is enabled by the threat of violence from the other "unreasonable" rent seekers, therefore acting as a single unified class.
They could have sold their houses to profit, but that's not enough for them. They must do their part to squeeze every drop of blood from that soil so that they don't accidentally decomodify housing even slightly by providing their smidge of housing to the captive market.
Read On The Rent of the Land. Fuckers.
Given that you claim schools of economic theory no longer exist, hypotheticals should prove useful (this is a silly thing to say).
Let's say you do ascribe to the theory that UBI under democratic socialism is an effective means of decreasing human suffering. What would stop landlords from simply increasing rents in proportion to incomes, as they are seen to do in places like SF, LA, and Seattle for example?
A policy reccomendation like a land value tax is something I think may possibly enable said ideological position, but you don't appear to be advocating for that.
Also, claiming that critics of rent control universally "feel" bad for the people they are rent seeking from is a strange position.
Opponents of rent control include the most dastardly machinations of corporate rent seeking. Opponents of rent control include real estate speculators who benefit from ever increasing property values due to artificial scarcity. Opponents of rent control include bloodthirsty businessmen who seek to pay unlivable wages lest the poorest worker be made homeless by the reserve army of labor.
Rent control makes it such that the only way a developer may increase their profits is to build more housing, a thing I believe you want to have happen.
You claim to talk about economic orthodoxy, yet you haven't even read Adam Smith?
There is a real difference between classical economics and neoclassical economics, and the disagreements between Smith and modern economists is one of the best examples of this contradiction.
So what gives? Where's the piss?
To quote the economist J.W mason from this article (its not dense like the smith quote, I swear) from 2019... In direct response to articles like the ones you quoted from the 70s and the 90s.
https://jwmason.org/slackwire/considerations-on-rent-control/
Among economists, rent regulation seems be in similar situation as the minimum wage was 20 years ago. At that time, most economists took it for granted that raising the minimum wage would reduce employment. Textbooks said that it was simple supply and demand — if you raise the price of something, people will buy less of it. But as more state and local governments raised minimum wages, it turned out to be very hard to find any negative effect on employment. This was confirmed by more and more careful empirical studies. Today, it is clear that minimum wages do not reduce employment. And as economists have worked to understand why not, this has improved our theories of the labor market. Rent regulation may be going through a similar evolution today. You may still see textbooks saying that as a price control, rent regulation will reduce the supply of housing. But as the share of Americans renting their homes has increased, more and more jurisdictions are considering or implementing rent regulation. This has brought new attention from economists, and as with the minimum wage, we are finding that the simple supply-and-demand story doesn’t capture what happens in the real world. A number of recent studies have looked at the effects of rent regulations on housing supply, focusing on changes in rent regulations in New Jersey and California and the elimination of rent control in Massachusetts. Contrary to the predictions of the simple supply-and-demand model, none of these studies have found evidence that introducing or strengthening rent regulations reduces new housing construction, or that eliminating rent regulation increases construction. Most of these studies do, however, find that rent control is effective at holding down rents.
EDIT_01: also, the hostility is because not everybody is a bystander in arguments like this. Some people are forced to live a grusome and crushing existence under our system of landlords rights to profit over peoples right to live.
EDIT_02: typos, apologies
What's the point? Seriously.
This is one of those weird pieces of economic theory that all the neoclassical people act like is settled science despite a long history of good faith studies and publications casting serious doubt.
Most rightwing publications nowdays parrot largely debunked austrian school nonsense as if other countries housing policies don't exist, or as if the ability of landlords to profit is more important than keeping people in their homes.
Inb4 neoliberal pissdrinking "economists" start claiming a lack of theoretical foundation for opposing the interests of the rent seeking class.
Read Smith, you charlatans.
https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-xi-of-the-rent-of-land
It been fucking hillarious seeing people doubletalk California demographics.
"Everybody keeps leaving California because the cost of rent and housing keeps going up!" which feels true but like...
It has big "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded" energy.
Youre looking for Bismuth, the technical speedrun communicator. Hes perfect in everyway.
Also theres Tomatoanus, also speedrun comminicator, excellent work.
Isaac Arthur is a futurist I like for this, hell give you wonderful dreams.
3blueonebrowns visual communicatio style is excellent but ive fallen asleep to his videos tons of times.
Chyrosan22 has the voice of God and he reviews mechanical keyboards, absolutely love it
Donoteat01, justin rosczknyaiacs channel, has perfect shit in his Power Planning and Politics series, hypnotic, funny, and entrancing
Drachinifel is a naval historiographer whos excellent, highly reccomend his video on the second pacific sauadron
Emplemon also has some excellent content
Food Wishes is chef johns youtube channel and he has a very unique way if talking that i love
Hypohystericalhistory has excellent longform documentaries about warstuff
Hope thats enough thats off the top of my head and is through H of my subscriptions lol
Oh that's excellent news. I hope this won't be used an excuse to neither lower vehicle speeds nor improve the places that we live. I also don't know if this will offset the doubling or tripling of the average automobile in terms of weight that is happening. Also, I fear that if these tires are even slightly less profitable to create, they will not be adopted, rendering fixation on them worse than useless.
It's also a massive issue that some tires and asphalts are far quieter than others, which makes the people forced to live near high speed car infrastructure substantially less miserable. Noise induced stress is one of those health effects that I'm personally too anxious to read in detail about, as it scares the hell out of me. It'd be wonderful if quieter asphalt and tires were also the same kind that were less polluting, but I have learned that tech brained ideas pitched by car companies claiming to solve their massive problems rarely do.
Also, perhaps "EV magazine" has a vested interest in portraying inherent problems with automobiles as non-inherent?
I don't want less car induced lung cancer, I want no car induced lung cancer.
Halving vehicle weights or ranges or top speeds would also nonlinearly decrease tire wear while also decreasing vehicle cost and danger to others, but here in the US none of those things are happening. Instead, every possible negative attribute is worsening, along with corresponding fluff pieces and propoganda to convince truck owners that they aren't doing the harm that they are doing. I also feel terrified that these fluff pieces are poisoning wells of activism around the world, harming the entire human species rather than just the imperial core.
It's true that smaller, two wheeled vehicles are drastically better for the environment, and the fact that so many cities in europe and southeast asia are able to exist with so few "cars" is a disagreement I have with your last, excellent sentence. I very much wish I posessed the intelligence to separate Private automobile ownership from Commercial automobile ownership, but I forget to most of the time. I do genuinely believe that private automobile ownership should be as rare as policy can make it, just like it is (kind of) for airplanes in the US.
Thank you for the excellent link.
Wear is nonlinearly dependant on number of cycles, materials, and load. I've not seen anything in the litterature that indicates rubbers can maintain safety while decreasing their amount of particulate pollution. In fact, ive seen that they are a direct trade with one another.
Lighter cars being forced to drive slower, would do something about it. Also, simply restricting the number of cars in a city the same way we restricted the density of coal burning power plants in a city would also solve the problem in the exact same way.
Non-rubber materials such as steel do not have this problem, which is why trains are good.
Turns out most car pollution is actually from rubber tires flaking off and putting microplastics in your lungs.
This gets worse the heavier the car is, and because electric cars are heavier, theres a chance that EVS could actually be worse for particulate emmission than moderately efficient regular cars.
Ah yes, Big Bicycle.
A very real thing that has lobbiests and a department you have to go to. You know, the DPV, the department of pedalled vehicles, its where you are forced to do basically everything from register to vote to get a death certificate. It's CRAZY how much influence Big Bicycle has over our society.
I mean did you know that ~40,000 americans per year are killed by traffic violence every year. I bet 99% of those are from extremely fat men riding osmium bicycles at 50 mph, running people over!
And did you know that bicycles use alchemy to create almost all of the pollution that coats our cities, adversely affecting the health of everybody who doesn't bike?
I mean hell, can you imagine bulldozing empoverished minority neighborhoods in every city in the US for 50 years to build these federally funded 12 land elevated bike lanes that totally exist? The nerve of those cyclists advocacy groups!
Damn bicycles, who the heck do they think they are?!
Edit 01: typo
googles kia forte
My guy that's a car, not a land yacht.
Nobody is mad at you for having a car thats reasonably sized. You should be the most angry about these child-flattening-front-over-machines because youre the one who they'll kill while they're playing pokemon go on their dash television instead of looking at the road.
These assholes are destroying your roads, giving your kids asthma, and running over your friends and family. And they hate having their sociopathy pointed out.
As long as you dont drive a deathmachine through a populated city, nonconsentually transfering risk from yourself onto others, nobody ought care my friend. We all need farmers and miners and whatnot. Y'all could drive a turbo boosted afterburning steamroller with JATO assist as an emergency break for all we care, as long as its not harming others.
Most of the buddies I have who are both bike commuters and motorheads have their fun at the track or on the mountain roads. I'd take a 3000$ beat up Miata over these land yachts any day. I don't understand the kind of people who roll coal to the whole foods parking lot in their spotless F690-compensator-edition. It seems as antisocial as it is unfun.
But thats my personal frustration you see. I can't drive fun cars like that anymore because selfish pricks have made the roads less safe for everyone other than themselves.