das ist ein guter punkt. vielleicht sollten fediverse-inhalte leichter einzubinden sein auf anderen websites.

die frage ist halt ob du über Xitter überhaupt jemanden erreichst. die wahrscheinlichkeit schätze ich nämlich hoch ein dass die beiträge vom algorithmus einfach nicht gepusht werden, d.h. die reichweite ist wahrsl gering und man schwimmt dann gegen den strom an.

besser ist es tatsächlich nützliche und hilfreiche kommunikationsplatformen zu verwenden. und das ist auch der erste wichtige schritt dahin.

von der CDU darf man keine schnelle anpassung an neue umstände erwarten …

ich bin mittlerweile der meinung, lemmy ist besser als mastodon weil

• es übersichtlich ist welche communities es gibt. währenddessen gibt es auf mastodon nur hashtags und das finde ich weniger übersichtlich.
• und weil man downvoten kann.

wenn’s jeweils ne einzelne community ist dann lässt sich das auch gut blockieren … idealerweise bekommen wir irgendwann bessere content recommendation algorithms (CRAs) der dich entscheiden lässt überhaupt keine personen-/parteien-kulte hinterherzuhängen.

sehr gut. falls sie zum fediverse kommen würde ich mich freuen fleißig zu kommentieren!

Umweltverbände kritisieren die Maßnahme. Was sie wollen.

Ich würde gerne anmerken, dass ich kein Umweltverband bin aber trotzdem den Ausbau der Öffis fordere. Weil sie sind bequem, man steigt ein und fährt wohin, das kurbelt die Wirtschaft an wenn menschen unterwegs sind. Vielleicht kommen sie auf die Idee spontan was einzukaufen. “Wirtschaftspolitiker” bitte züge bauen.

it’s a type of ring of mushrooms all standing in a circle. it’s a natural phenomenon. pretty cool!

considering it’s mushrooms, they destroy some organic material, thereby releasing minerals into the environment which other plants absorb and grow faster that way.

I think the emphasis here should be on “gave everyone equal say”. That is still not the case today. Consider that children, foreigners, and some mentally ill cannot vote.

Until a few decades ago it was also customary that women can’t vote.

I think it’s not a difficult concept to come up with to collect all the people you know in a group and make decisions that way. Lots of societies historically did it that way. I’m pretty sure the germans had their Thing which is just a general assembly for general purposes (including making law). The main difference is that they only included people in the decision-making process who they thought were able to make good, meaningful decisions. Meanwhile today we include everyone in the process.

From giving majority credit for showing your full work in maths

i think every good maths teacher does it like that.

that’s exactly what a monopoly does. one should look into how to apply anti-monopoly laws on the housing market more effectively.

thank you for your comment. just to add to it:

If you have a 1 km² (one square kilometer, = 1 million square meters) area. And the law dictates that only single-family houses can be built on it, with a minimum lot size of 500 m² each, then assuming 4 people per house, you can build 2000 houses in that area or house around 8000 people.

If you allow multi-family houses. Such as i live in one in Austria. Close to the city. The house has a lot size of about 1000 m² (with a big park in the middle), and 25 people live in it. If you build houses like that, you can house around 25000 people. More than triple!

Property values increase over time as the surrounding area becomes more developed and economically advanced,

they will actually decrease long-term (in most areas) as the population is shrinking, meaning less demand for housing.

i think the problem of institutional investors is mostly that they’re unnecessary middle-men, taking a slice of the cake while not actually providing anything of value.

they buy the house, then rent it out to the local population. in the end, they make a profit that way, otherwise they wouldn’t do it. that is money that could have gone into the local community instead.

either you need local middlemen, like the municipality (which i am advocating for!) or people need to buy the houses directly themselves. i remember reading an article that renting is often better for inhabitants since they don’t need to do a down-payment and also they carry less risk that way. also interestingly many can build more wealth by renting+investing instead of house buying. ~~https://www.moneydigest.com/1580083/renting-vs-owning-both-can-help-you-build-wealth-according-to-personal-finance-expert/~~

edit: damn it i can’t find the article anymore

I mean sure we can ban institutional investors from buying up houses in your area, but the question is: will new houses stlil continue to be built? or are houses mostly built because the developers intend to sell them to institutional investors that can pay high prices for it?

in any case, the opposite of institutional investment is social housing. you can’t only ban one without also pushing the other.

First of all, that would only apply to companies with a build-and-hold business model, not to ones that develop a property and then sell it off to owner-occupants. Clearly, there do exist people who want to be owner-occupants, so the real issue is how to construct the regulations etc. to incentivize the latter business model.

fair point. i had completely not considered that. especially as we were discussing blackrock which is a buy-and-hold business model.

Also what i find very interesting about this topic is how demographics plays into this

i personally think that the UN predictions about how the population numbers are going to evolve are utter bullshit. it is well known that the population pyramid looks something like this:

and it’s going to get thinner and thinner at the bottom as time progresses.

anyways, i think a lot of organizations that could build housing are a bit reluctant mostly for that reason. a company thinks “if i build a house today, there’s a good chance that there won’t be demand for that house in 30 years, so it might not pay off”. and municipalities, i’m afraid, are way too under-invested in building social housing in general because that would be communism or sth.

after a quick search on the internet, about 1.6 million people live in public housing in the US in 2024. that’s about 0.5 percent. Source

Meanwhile in Europe, about 9.3% (45 million people) people live in public housing according to this article, with some countries like Austria having 24%. (8% of EU according to this OECD study).

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”?!?

so what you’re saying is that market manipulation (= monopolies) is the problem, not companies owning houses?

10% of houses being unoccupied sounds like a lot to me. I would guess that a maximum of 3% would be a healthy amount.

I wonder, how do companies actually make money from owning houses that they don’t use? If you are a company, how do you get more dollars per year from a house that’s empty than one that is occupied and giving you rent?

Let’s make an example. Rent let’s say is $1000/month, which is $12k per year. How do you make $12k per year from owning a house without renting it out?