“Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

Post by Gigablah » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:21 AM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #180

mod wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't think we were talking about "holy law" and afterlife punishment. In that sense, I guess you're correct. There's still lots of flaws in the theory, for instance morality has changed--slavery was not outlawed by holy laws, and seemingly was considered okay morally. I don't personally equate legality with anything except written law enforced by people on earth, typically a government. Even in older times, "eart…

Those traditions and societies specifically named The Law (translated from the local language) as what you are describing as holy law. You still haven't described what moral is, or how one has an obligation to it.

Post by wpietri » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:22 AM UTC

clarky07 wrote: post #144

brandonbloom wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Landlords can diversify their properties, renters only get one. Everyone needs to live somewhere, nobody needs to be a landlord. 2) You've missed my point about moving costs. Even when the market favors renters, the lease renewal negotiation favors landlords. This is because moving costs time and money payable to third parties. As a result, the landlord can charge higher rents for renewals than they can for new le…

1 - first, so what? second, nobody needs to live "there". They can move to a different rental. 2 - moving isn't "that" expensive. It's a pain in the ass, but you can do it in a weekend with a few hundred dollar moving truck. You might be able to raise rates a few percent, but you can't just move them significantly above market.

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:23 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #219

escherize wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this argument. _Quality_ housing seems to me, to be a normal good, because when income increases the demand for such housing increases. Even crappy places in SF seem to be quality housing. Whether or not there are class issues, or your house is sentimental is irrelevant. Edit: typo

Apparently "normal good" is an economic technical term, and apparently you are using that technical definition here and not the normal use of "normal". I have no idea why you'd do that; as you point out, that technical term bears no relation to what I'm talking about.

Post by wpietri » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:23 AM UTC

cwyers wrote: post #238

wpietri wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently "normal good" is an economic technical term, and apparently you are using that technical definition here and not the normal use of "normal". I have no idea why you'd do that; as you point out, that technical term bears no relation to what I'm talking about.

Words have meanings. In the context of a discussion of economic activity, you really have "no idea" why someone would assume you were using the economic meaning of "normal good?

Post by jackmaney » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:24 AM UTC

clarky07 wrote: post #144

brandonbloom wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Landlords can diversify their properties, renters only get one. Everyone needs to live somewhere, nobody needs to be a landlord. 2) You've missed my point about moving costs. Even when the market favors renters, the lease renewal negotiation favors landlords. This is because moving costs time and money payable to third parties. As a result, the landlord can charge higher rents for renewals than they can for new le…

1 - first, so what? second, nobody needs to live "there". They can move to a different rental. 2 - moving isn't "that" expensive. It's a pain in the ass, but you can do it in a weekend with a few hundred dollar moving truck. You might be able to raise rates a few percent, but you can't just move them significantly above market.