Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo • Hacker News Board

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#291

Post by rfwhyte » Thu, Mar 27, 2025, 10:24 PM UTC

CabSauce wrote: post #62

These two gentlemen have been making the rounds on late night and political shows. They seem nice enough and I appreciate their efforts. However, I haven't heard them suggest a single functional/practical change to move toward "abundance". We have to overturn Citizens United and get unlimited corporate money out of politics. This is far and away the most important barrier to having a government that works for people.

100% agree. The only way to enact any meaningful change is to put the power back in the hands of the people, especially given the US's insane, borderline anti-democratic, 2 party political system. Both sides are effectively completely captured by the wealthy elites and entirely beholden to their corporate / wealthy donors, lobbyists and PACs.

Its why neither the Democrats nor Republicans really ever make any significant, meaningful changes that would materially improve the lives of working class people in big ways.

Neither party really represents the working class, and they'll never do anything to restrict the power or reduce the wealth of the rich folks they actually work for, so until corporate (Wealthy elite) money is purged from politics, it's just going to be more of the same for the foreseeable future.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#292

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Thu, Mar 27, 2025, 10:24 PM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #130

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that I'm not trying to sell my house, its market value is meaningless to me. Meanwhile, that house is in the midst of an growing group of increasingly desperate people. Desperation has very real consequences for the people living nearby. The effect you're describing is not nothing, but I think you're overstating it. I'd rather see the homeless housed than see my property value go up by another 10k. It would be…

Not for $10k? How about $100k?

Ok yeah, I'd consider moving if I could sell my house at $100k above market. But that's not how it works. Realistically, the whole market moves together, so I'd just end up paying $100k extra wherever I move into. It's not real.

Whether I get mugged while I'm walking home from the grocery store... that's real, and it's a function of whether there's affordable housing available.

Also, these are not independent variables. My house would be worth more if it were not in an area where you get mugged on the way home from the grocery store.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#293

Post by pclmulqdq » Thu, Mar 27, 2025, 10:25 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #181

pclmulqdq wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a fringe wing of the democrat party that loves social issues and is an outsized fraction of the "community organizing" base they use to do things like canvassing and other forms of volunteering. These people need politicians to at least prove their "purity" on social issues, even on issues that are very unpopular. This is analogous to the hyper-religious wing of the republican party. They also like to get in…

There's a lot of effort to conflate basic civil liberties with fringe social issues, tie them together, and burn down the civil liberties because they're just 'fringe social issues.' There are some fringe issues supported by some democrats, but the real base of the party is black voters and their civil rights are the real target. Conservatives still haven't forgotten about being forced to end segregation in schools,…

I honestly think this take on conservatives is pretty unhinged. It's completely baseless, too. Why not talk about one of the civil rights that they openly oppose?

The number one civil right that American conservatives are after is your reproductive freedom. Number two is your right to access [medicine/drugs/foods] you choose.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#294

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Mar 27, 2025, 10:29 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #293

mullingitover wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of effort to conflate basic civil liberties with fringe social issues, tie them together, and burn down the civil liberties because they're just 'fringe social issues.' There are some fringe issues supported by some democrats, but the real base of the party is black voters and their civil rights are the real target. Conservatives still haven't forgotten about being forced to end segregation in schools,…

I honestly think this take on conservatives is pretty unhinged. It's completely baseless, too. Why not talk about one of the civil rights that they openly oppose? The number one civil right that American conservatives are after is your reproductive freedom. Number two is your right to access [medicine/drugs/foods] you choose.

> Why not talk about one of the civil rights that they openly oppose?

They openly oppose black civil rights; that's what the war on “Woke"/”DEI” is about, its what the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act protections (also through the courts, but gets less attention than dismantling of abortion rights) is about, and there are many other aspects of it.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#295

Post by e40 » Thu, Mar 27, 2025, 10:31 PM UTC

ReptileMan wrote: post #81

e40 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* There's a general fear of being a landlord. Tenants have a lot of legal rights, and the risk of inviting someone onto your property who could start squatting or doing drugs and not being able to evict them is beyond the pale for most families.* This is a big problem in a lot of places. It's really hard for cities to strike a good balance between renters and owners, and I think few do it well. Especially for the ed…

The balance simple - renters have total rights as long as they pay on time and there is no damage on the property except normal wear and tear and 0 when when not paying. You as landlord can't say anything as long as the property is not damaged for the duration of the contract. You always renegotiate at market rates. There is no concept of squatting and evictions are fast. That's it. Works like a charm. No bullshits l…

Berkeley, CA in the 80s (90s?) a lady went into the hospital for an extended stay and rented her place. She had a verbal agreement that they'd leave when she got out. She got out, they didn't leave. Last I heard about the case it was 10 years later and they were still there.

Yeah, I know, Berkeley. Rent control was very anti-landlord. But "rents have total rights as long as they pay" sounds too harsh to me.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#296

Post by archagon » Thu, Mar 27, 2025, 10:42 PM UTC

e40 wrote: post #295

ReptileMan wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The balance simple - renters have total rights as long as they pay on time and there is no damage on the property except normal wear and tear and 0 when when not paying. You as landlord can't say anything as long as the property is not damaged for the duration of the contract. You always renegotiate at market rates. There is no concept of squatting and evictions are fast. That's it. Works like a charm. No bullshits l…

Berkeley, CA in the 80s (90s?) a lady went into the hospital for an extended stay and rented her place. She had a verbal agreement that they'd leave when she got out. She got out, they didn't leave. Last I heard about the case it was 10 years later and they were still there. Yeah, I know, Berkeley. Rent control was very anti-landlord. But "rents have total rights as long as they pay" sounds too harsh to me.

I feel for the lady, but the problem is that she didn’t get it in writing. Renter protections are almost orthogonal.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#297

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, Mar 27, 2025, 10:44 PM UTC

CivBase wrote: post #201

knowknow wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s amazing that this gets upvoted while it is completely uninformed about what liberal politicians actually run on. This is what the Kamala campaign ran on, it didn’t work. People love getting tangled on social issues as it’s the most provocative. This conception that most people actually care about rational policies is false and has been false for at least the past decade.

Is that what she ran on? My perception was that she ran on "more of the same but also different... nevermind, look at all these celebrities telling you to vote for me!" and something vague about protecting women's rights. It's almost like you need more than a couple months to run a serious presidential campaign. Despite being the VP for 4 years, most people didn't know what to expect from her. Almost nobody was enthu…

Did you look up her platform at all? Or do you insist this because it wasn't spoon fed to you?

There was a platform document pretty early on in her campaign.

Meanwhile Trump in 2020 did not have a platform at all and yet the voters didn't give a shit.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#298

Post by archagon » Thu, Mar 27, 2025, 10:45 PM UTC

Aloisius wrote: post #177

TimorousBestie wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You always renegotiate at market rates. As long as RealPage and friends exist, market rates are whatever they say they are. There’s no free market in real estate.

There are now eight antitrust lawsuits against them by seven states + the DOJ. The DOJ and some states have started adding major landlords to their suits as well (since it is a cartel). Sadly, courts move slowly so it will probably be years before a decision.

Trump’s DOJ will side with capital.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#299

Post by tptacek » Thu, Mar 27, 2025, 10:47 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #269

jakelazaroff wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if you cherry pick data you get different results. Prop 16 was rejected by around 57% of the voters — hardly overwhelming, but there’s a reason that you’re citing a 74% figure when it supports your argument, vaguely gesturing at an election result when it’s more even and outright ignoring the poll where a majority of people explicitly say they support affirmative action for racial minorities .

People support the nice sounding abstract phrase until you tell them specifically what you mean by it. And I didn’t cherry pick anything. I quoted the portions of the article that said support depends on context, and then the paragraph discussing the college context and the employment context. The article itself happens to specify a percentage in text for one but not the other. Then I mentioned Prop 16 as a concrete…

You knew what it meant very clearly when you repeatedly stuck up for it here, so I think you could stand to be a little more candid about the point you're trying to make.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#300

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, Mar 27, 2025, 10:56 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #141

tormeh wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be real. The Republicans would absolutely ruin any such institution the moment they'd get the chance. Better to keep health care private and instead socialize insurance. A hollowing-out of insurance is far easier to reverse than a hollowing-out of hospitals and clinics. An NHS led by an openly antagonistic government is not long for this world. Look at what the Trump admin is doing to other government services.…

They’ve been saying they want to repeal Obamacare since Obamacare and they haven’t been able to do it.

They genuinely tried but enough old dumbasses finally realized that the ACA they loved WAS "Obamacare" to yell at them for it (look at the town hall videos) and McCain was upset enough about the way the party was going (that he had no problems with before mind you) to kill the attempt.

The republicans STILL claim to have "A concept of a plan" when it comes to healthcare. The one time they claimed to have an actual bill, it wasted 10% of it's text to strip government healthcare from people who win the lottery, like that's fucking worth it.

But they STILL get elected, because the same electorate who didn't want to lose their healthcare to goons killing it for profits for some reason go right back to them just a few years later, despite republican politicians lying TO THEIR FACES about it from day one.

Meanwhile, Democrats can come in with an entire presentation and plan and stats and graphs and all sorts of things and the electorate doesn't care because Fox News didn't tell them to vote for it.