Investment Capital buying up homes to rent is partly to dodge a repeat of the subprime crisis, imo. The problem is human capital and governance (30 year fixed rate seems...unnatural).
"oh, we're going to make sure that people do are totally incapable of paying a mortgage can live outside the hood" can only take so many paths before running into religious conflicts.
Blackrock is buying 200k homes in mediocre neighborhoods? Buying nice homes in nice neighborhoods? Buying old homes? New? My mortgage (with taxes) isn't much higher than the rent on an apartment 2/3 the size of my house around here.
This is *entirely* untenable, and is changing in ways that I've been expecting for years now.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I do consider myself fairly economically populist (left economically ideologically if you need that frame), but this sort of nauseous midwittery is making me reconsider.
I wonder, what came first, progressivism taking over the bureaucracy, or progressivism taking over capital?
This is the tell that the whole "debate" is a total MacGuffin. Owning is obviously better than renting *for people who are capable,* but a lot of the people buying homes are not naturally inclined.
As with all our b*llsh*t "debates" on here, this is easy downstream of anything that matters. If you're upset about this stuff and you're reading any of my tweets, you're misguided. You absolutely can buy a nice/decent house on a middle class income right now*
This might be changing with inflation, immigration, etc, and there are some markets where it's impossible, but *right now* you can do this.
What hadn't occurred to me until now is that an old argument I've seen and used, that "green" people are actually watermelons (environmental veneer on communist center) is an insufficient explanation of the green movement.
The green movement is now circling in on a divine (unfalsifiable) locus (human driven climate change) that is reverse engineering Gaia worship. If you view "environmentalism" as an idea or ideology encompassing healthy stewardship of nature, you're going to be exasperated.
Trying to find a way to articulate the spectrum of cargo cult to idolatry that is useful. Many cargo cultists who realize that the divine exists within a thing, but aren't forced into faith.
Not sure I have the language and reading to articulate this, so I will try to work around my limitations.
If we look at an idol, we have a (relatively) well delineated idea, represented by a single figure, a mythos that articulates the boundaries of the idea or ideas through narrative.
Everyone is fired up over this, even typically even keeled mutuals. What's happening (ignore the specifics for a moment), is that this gentleman is insulted, but the insult is *imperceptible* to many (most?).
Her tone is flat to joking, and she's phrased her insult with sufficient plausible deniability that it's possible that she herself does not perceive the insult.
"I always found it funny when other people consider themselves members of a noble lineage, while I live in their ancestral seat and am therefore queen" is an insult. It's basically the straw man for "cultural appropriation" being bad.
One of the smartest leftists I've interacted with on here had a take that amounted to a restating of a right wing position while pointing and sputtering. We're approaching a leftist singularity.
The leftist response to this observation would very likely be a "no true Scotsman," which is what all their "I'm a leftist, not a liberal" pleading ultimately amounts to.
This is most stark when you look at an internally consistent "leftist" like Greenwald or Aimee. The distance between them and a Jim Lindsey is quite consistent, whereas the majority of the left is lately a scattered mess.