151–160 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fact Twitter was able to get away with kicking off a US President without any ramifications is frightening. Your stance is the government should be able to compel private businesses to be mouthpieces for government officials ? Seems pretty authoritarian.
Honestly, Twitter kicking off a sitting President was one of the biggest wins for free speech in a long time. I don't know how people don't see that. This kind of public rebuke of the government will _literally_ get you killed in some countries countries. In many more it will get you disappeared at the very least.
One could read that history as severely undermining your point-- that they were afraid of him until he was on his way out. But I don't think that's true: rather they kept him on because his popularity and toxicity brought a ton of revenue to them, and punted him when they finally expected him to be less profitable in the future.
Quoted post unavailable.
> The nastiest one is big tech. True. > These companies should be broken up. True. > The fact Twitter was able to get away with kicking off a US President without any ramifications is frightening. ah, what? You seem to have conveniently left out the fact that he had a significant role in the attempted overthrow of the US government? What do you expect Twitter to do? Just let it happen unchecked? "all enemies foreign…
Very important to keep him from putting out messages like "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!" and "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
:D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that you're actually presenting a reasonable solution and you're being downvoted shows how much capitalist propaganda has poluted the mainstream. Either that, or the majority of people here are real estate speculators, which I very much doubt.
I think you might be reading the post differently from the people downvoting it. Why would punitively taxing vacation homes, which are almost always outside of urban / dense-surban locations where there is little housing market congestion and where building additional housing units is straight forward -- do anything to help things? Why would punitively taxing the "ultra-luxury housing supply" do anything substantial…
I know that's not a direction most people agree on (hitting real estate as an investment), but there really is no other way I see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly anyone says "I have $200, where can I fly." Usually its "I have to go to X for y reasons, X is already booked and paid for, lets get a flight" at which point you are extorted by the dynamic price model for a flight you must take. It's somewhat hilarious when Spirit in particular overbooks, and tries to offer you money to take a flight some other day, assuming you can just rearrange everything in your life arou…
> Hardly anyone says "I have $200, where can I fly." Not sure about that, there are entire industries around cheap flights for people that are location agnostic. ScottsCheapFlights comes to mind.
For example, I would like to go to a major city in Europe sometime this summer. Which city isn’t urgent to me. The week I go doesn’t matter. Except oh so and so is getting married that week of June and I’ve recently been to Germany so would prefer something else.
Very very few people plan their vacations like this. They would rather pay twice the rate a deal site gives them and plan around school breaks for their kids, know which country they are kicking off their bucket list, have a direct flight from their home airport, etc. We who are willing to book an international flight and only then figure out what our vacation will be give up a lot for our discounted ticket prices.
> pricing algorithms to adjust prices on vacant apartments in real time… The program may also induce landlords to charge the rents recommended by the algorithm, putting upward pressure on prices and decreasing the availability of affordable apartments. Wait until she hears about hotels and flights. > The software analyzes non-public data that RealPage gathers from its property management clients, including confidenti…
For me, the difference is that using the same software to set the price based on the non-public information effectively makes it a form of collusion on setting rents, which seems analogous to the illegal practice of employees colluding to cap wages. It's not the same, I know, but has a similar negative effect in that the market is being subverted in some way.
The real question for me is what, if anything, comes out of the investigation. If some new legislation prohibiting the practice comes out, I could see the big landlords simply publicizing that data to avoid any legal issues.
Price controls are ineffective long term but can be a useful stopgap measure in the short term. The only solution to this is dealing with supplyside issues, notably the artificial constraints on housing supply. This is longer term.So the pricing algorithms are a natural reaction to market forces. Here are some more important things you can do in the short term to increase supply: 1. Outlaw (at the local and state lev…
The fact that you're actually presenting a reasonable solution and you're being downvoted shows how much capitalist propaganda has poluted the mainstream. Either that, or the majority of people here are real estate speculators, which I very much doubt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hardly anyone says "I have $200, where can I fly." Not sure about that, there are entire industries around cheap flights for people that are location agnostic. ScottsCheapFlights comes to mind.
But ScottsCheapFlights is a very particular concept and not how most people go on vacation. Even with it people have a vague idea of where they would like to go, just perhaps not when. For example, I would like to go to a major city in Europe sometime this summer. Which city isn’t urgent to me. The week I go doesn’t matter. Except oh so and so is getting married that week of June and I’ve recently been to Germany so…
I've heard of many people saying, I have 1000 bucks to spend on a vacation, I'd like to go somewhere for that amount during this time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you might be reading the post differently from the people downvoting it. Why would punitively taxing vacation homes, which are almost always outside of urban / dense-surban locations where there is little housing market congestion and where building additional housing units is straight forward -- do anything to help things? Why would punitively taxing the "ultra-luxury housing supply" do anything substantial…
As in most real-world scenarios, multiple solutions are needed, and it's best to first agree on the goal you want. To me these would be more availability while also disincentivising real estate as an investment vehicle. I know that's not a direction most people agree on (hitting real estate as an investment), but there really is no other way I see.
> I know that's not a direction most people agree on (hitting real estate as an investment),
Most states have substantially lower and/or increase restricted property taxes for a single owner occupied home, so I don't think you can say that taxing investment properties at a higher rate than owner occupied properties a direction people don't agree on, generally. (California is weird in that it restricts tax increases for all properties, including commercial).
One problem you run into is that most investment properties are rented out and increased taxes on them will be passed onto the tenants, so any increased taxes on these properties is arguably regressive since the tenants tend to be a lower income part of the population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly anyone says "I have $200, where can I fly." Usually its "I have to go to X for y reasons, X is already booked and paid for, lets get a flight" at which point you are extorted by the dynamic price model for a flight you must take. It's somewhat hilarious when Spirit in particular overbooks, and tries to offer you money to take a flight some other day, assuming you can just rearrange everything in your life arou…
Person 1: "Let's go on vacation in the spring." Person 2: "Sure, where should we go?" Person 1: "How about Japan?" Person 2: "Sounds great, how much are tickets?" Person 1: "Hmm, they're around $1,600 each. That's too expensive. What about going to Amsterdam instead?" That seems like a totally plausible exchange.