451–460 of 461 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make it as hard to build a new residential unit in Texas as it is in California and that trend falls through the floor.
They won't because they don't want to keep their property taxes affordable.
The tax rate has nothing to do with building houses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm unsure what point you are trying to make here? That the practices conducted by Standard Oil were considered acceptable? Or are you stating that because it is done today (wrongfully so, imo), it was okay back then? Please elaborate.
Price discrimination isn’t really a problem. Companies do it all the time with coupons, origin of purchaser, etc. What your comment doesn’t show is why it was bad when standard oil did it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Price discrimination isn’t really a problem. Companies do it all the time with coupons, origin of purchaser, etc. What your comment doesn’t show is why it was bad when standard oil did it.
Your comment, seems to be missing a lot more: a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view
My guess is you just found out that coupons are price discrimination and are still pretty upset about that? If so, I’m sorry to break that news to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They won't because they don't want to keep their property taxes affordable.
> They won't because they don't want to keep their property taxes affordable. The tax rate has nothing to do with building houses.
(I meant to say they do want to keep their taxes affordable)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They won't because they don't want to keep their property taxes affordable. The tax rate has nothing to do with building houses.
Sure it does. High uncapped taxes strongly incentivize property-owners to support new housing development. Low property taxes, capped to rise slower than inflation (e.g. prop 13), do the opposite. (I meant to say they do want to keep their taxes affordable)
> (I meant to say they do want to keep their taxes affordable)
That has absolutely nothing to do with CEQA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a reason that "Fuck you, got mine"/"socially liberal, fiscally conservative" was named "the California Ideology", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology .
That's outdated. California hasn't been fiscally conservative for over a decade.
America doesn’t have a left wing in its political landscape, at least not one with any representation or power. Sanders might change that, but I doubt it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment, seems to be missing a lot more: a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view
Wow, super childish. Anyway, the point I was making is that all you managed to show was that standard oil practiced price discrimination as if it was some big revelation. Then I pointed out how it happens to a vast extent every day and it’s part of modern markets and you have nothing in response to defend your stance on price discrimination. My guess is you just found out that coupons are price discrimination and are…
Back this up. None of your statements have any backing.
Edit: From your comment style and prior history, you have a history of utilizing red herring and slippery slope style comments to get your way without backing a single thing you say. Please, cut the bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's outdated. California hasn't been fiscally conservative for over a decade.
California is most definitely fiscally conservative. Taxes, and regulatory enforcement of leftish causes with real teeth are an uphill battle even with huge Democratic majorities, mainly because Democrats are basically a right-of-center party. America doesn’t have a left wing in its political landscape, at least not one with any representation or power. Sanders might change that, but I doubt it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, super childish. Anyway, the point I was making is that all you managed to show was that standard oil practiced price discrimination as if it was some big revelation. Then I pointed out how it happens to a vast extent every day and it’s part of modern markets and you have nothing in response to defend your stance on price discrimination. My guess is you just found out that coupons are price discrimination and are…
> Then I pointed out how it happens to a vast extent every day and it’s part of modern markets and you have nothing in response to defend your stance on price discrimination. Back this up. None of your statements have any backing. Edit: From your comment style and prior history, you have a history of utilizing red herring and slippery slope style comments to get your way without backing a single thing you say. Please…
Grocery stores getting more sophisticated: https://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/08/21/individ...
Here’s airlines: http://theconversation.com/a-travellers-guide-to-airline-pri...
There’s a bunch of examples right in the fucking wiki page on price discrimination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
Please spend a little effort at least googling before you make demands for proof of something so common.
> From your comment style and prior history
That’s just pathetic. Nobody is ever impressed you read someone else’s comment history to make a childlike ad hominem attack, especially just to misuse the term “red herring”. Stalking has ever advanced a conversation. Stick to the topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is increasing the supply of housing going to increase gentrification? The housing shortage has resulted in high housing prices, which is the main driver of gentrification.
Will the people it displaces be able to afford one of the units? If not, it’s just gentrification.
If new housing is not built then rich people will push out existing residents. Think about it.