people will bash blackrock for owning houses but really, what is actually happening here?
governments all around the world have the liberty and possibility to build houses and rent them out to people at-cost. Like, your city can do that. Where do you live? Seattle? Have you considered looking into how many houses the city of seattle has built in the last 20 years? And how many of them it rents out to people for cheap?
You can’t ban corporate houses if there’s no alternative. There needs to be an alternative first, otherwise you’re just creating a vacuum, and as the proverb goes, a vacuum always sucks.
Blackrock isn’t a housing company or developer, it’s an investment group. What’s happening here is that a group that hires a lot of very smart people to manipulate market values has found an easy mark in housing.
The housing shortage is fueled by artificially high prices, not square footage or bedrooms. That’s what you’re missing.
BlackRock also doesn’t buy up housing. Blackstone does, BlackRock catches all the flak because nobody knows they’re separate companies. Blackstone is able to continue with zero criticism.
i’m literally advocating for higher housing creation. i specifically stated
governments all around the world have the liberty and possibility to build houses and rent them out to people at-cost. Like, your city can do that. Where do you live? Seattle? Have you considered looking into how many houses the city of seattle has built in the last 20 years? And how many of them it rents out to people for cheap?
Which is as direct a request of municipalities to build social housing as it can be. I don’t get how people interpret that as “corpo dick sucking”?!?
This is why BlackStone/BlackRock and places like it buy them.
There are enough empty homes now to end homelessness completely, but putting them into circulation would lower costs by reducing demand, so they make money by keeping them empty so the ones that are available will be valued much higher.
And thats fine, but no city is going to build new social housing; would be communism. The landlords would crucify anyone who tried. Maybe literally.
Gotta use that slick fatty landlord blood to lube up those locks, get people housed. Including corpo landlords. Their very existence implies political oressure.
Your solution (city owned properties) does help solve the issue but it works because it skips the step where a developer builds a property and then it goes to market where we must compete with blackrock to purchase it. It sounds like you are for cutting institutions out of the equation and agree they are a problem so I’m a bit confused. Banning companies like blackrock from competing with residents would similarly help.
this whole thing just doesn’t add up in my head.
people will bash blackrock for owning houses but really, what is actually happening here?
governments all around the world have the liberty and possibility to build houses and rent them out to people at-cost. Like, your city can do that. Where do you live? Seattle? Have you considered looking into how many houses the city of seattle has built in the last 20 years? And how many of them it rents out to people for cheap?
You can’t ban corporate houses if there’s no alternative. There needs to be an alternative first, otherwise you’re just creating a vacuum, and as the proverb goes, a vacuum always sucks.
Blackrock isn’t a housing company or developer, it’s an investment group. What’s happening here is that a group that hires a lot of very smart people to manipulate market values has found an easy mark in housing.
The housing shortage is fueled by artificially high prices, not square footage or bedrooms. That’s what you’re missing.
BlackRock also doesn’t buy up housing. Blackstone does, BlackRock catches all the flak because nobody knows they’re separate companies. Blackstone is able to continue with zero criticism.
But mainly fuelled by lack of supply increasing demand and therefore price
The supply is being artificially restricted.
so what you’re saying is that market manipulation (= monopolies) is the problem, not companies owning houses?
I’m saying that companies owning houses is the market manipulation, neighbor.
How do you type so much while deep throating corpo dick? Do you just have absolutely no gag reflex? How does one learn this skill?
You realize ownership isnt creation, right? I genuinely have to ask here.
i’m literally advocating for higher housing creation. i specifically stated
Which is as direct a request of municipalities to build social housing as it can be. I don’t get how people interpret that as “corpo dick sucking”?!?
This is why BlackStone/BlackRock and places like it buy them.
There are enough empty homes now to end homelessness completely, but putting them into circulation would lower costs by reducing demand, so they make money by keeping them empty so the ones that are available will be valued much higher.
that’s exactly what a monopoly does. one should look into how to apply anti-monopoly laws on the housing market more effectively.
Antitrust enforcement has been a joke in every sector as long as I’ve been alive, sadly.
And thats fine, but no city is going to build new social housing; would be communism. The landlords would crucify anyone who tried. Maybe literally.
Gotta use that slick fatty landlord blood to lube up those locks, get people housed. Including corpo landlords. Their very existence implies political oressure.
Your solution (city owned properties) does help solve the issue but it works because it skips the step where a developer builds a property and then it goes to market where we must compete with blackrock to purchase it. It sounds like you are for cutting institutions out of the equation and agree they are a problem so I’m a bit confused. Banning companies like blackrock from competing with residents would similarly help.