Also die Einbeziehung von Selbstständigen klingt schon sinnvoll aber bei den Beamten klingt das doch sehr nach linke Tasche, rechte Tasche.Statt den Beamten später Pensionen zu zahlen, muss der Staat jetzt die Rentenbeiträge berappen, die Kassen kriegen jetzt kurzfristig etwas mehr Geld rein und haben dann später höhere Kosten.
Isn't there also a "buy Canadian" movement in Canada?I agree that the focus should be on boycotting the US but it's a nice opportunity for businesses anywhere to promote themselves over international competition and it's a much easier message for politicians to rationalize.
Technically true but ideologically it's basically the same thing.Also German nationalism existed before a German nation state, so that is not a necessary prerequisite.
Für besonders lernfähig halte ich ihn zwar nicht aber evtl. kapiert er, dass er nicht einfach den großen Mann spielen und unbeliebte Politik durchs Parlament drücken kann.Sein bisheriges Auftreten ggü. anderen Parteien von denen er was brauchte, war ja nicht unbedingt von Diplomatie geprägt.
Teilweise vereinbaren Firmen mit ihren Werbepartnern spezielle Konditionen, die man nur beim Abschluss über diese Partner bekommt.Bei so was wie check24 nicht ganz ungewöhnlich, dass man da Angebote findet, die der Anbieter auf der eigenen Website nicht hat.
I honestly wouldn’t say they are keen to cooperate with the AfD, especially as long as it is possible to achieve their goals with a partner as malleable as the SPD
And when they don't get what they want from any of the other parties they will cooperate with the AfD.As they have done in Thuringia, as they have done in the Bundestag. Once voting together has been established as normal, forming a coalition is not a big next step.
Why did the landlords charge $300 20 years ago when they could have charged $500? Or was the supply of homes appropriate for the number of people?
Yes supply and demand limit how much they can charge. I've already conceded as much 8 hours ago.
People have always been greedy. [...] Is it a problem? Yes.
So that feels like an appropriate answer to your question from yesterday
Is it greedy landlords? Or is there a bigger issue at play, and landlords are the scapegoat?
I think you summarized it nicely, including your comment on the nature of capitalism.
It is not a coincidence, that basically all early criticism of capitalism is centered around landlords. Even Adam Smith criticized the "rentier".
Look, I agree with you. We need more housing supply. It reduces landlords ability to raise rents.But it does not change the underlying issue that landlords are greedy and will charge as much as they can get away with.
Fact is, the supply of homes is just as much to blame for high rent prices as greedy landlords.
Again, supply and demand only determine how much a landlord can charge, they do not force them to raise prices.If anything, supply not matching demand enables more greedy behavior.
If the landlords charged less than what the home is worth, you would never be able to find a place to live near where you want/need as everything would be sold out.
Only if you assume that only local landlords rent out cheaply while all others continue to raise rents. Besides that there are always factors why certain locations are more popular than others.
You're generally right that insufficient housing is a supply problem but housing is not like other goods that can just be substituted.If the price of steak goes up, I can just stop eating steak but if the price of housing rises, just becoming homeless is not a reasonable option.And sure, if the rent in the place you want to move to is too high then maybe don't move there.But if the rent in the place you already live in rises then what? Just move out, away from your home, away from friends and family, away from your job?
So yes, more housing supply might be the solution* but it still is no argument that greed is not the problem.
To be clear, I am making one statement in this discussion and that is that the price is being set higher than it needs to be.By stating that int he discussion about Landlord greed, it can be inferred that I equate this with greed.
It’s no different than any other product you could buy in a store.
Saying that other businesses operate similarly does not refute my point. As you yourself pointed out, at best your argument is that all "capitalism is greed".
It’s interesting that when talking about the people building homes, you totally get the profit driven mentality.
I never pretended not to "get" it. I'm just claiming that it's greedy.
The way I see it there are two ways to counter my argument:Either show that landlords have no choice and must demand the prices they do.Or argue that wanting more than you need (usually to the detriment of others) is not greed. In that case I would be very interested where greed actually starts.
The price is set by the landlord based on what people are willing to pay.
What people are willing to pay sets the upper limit of what he can charge. He is not forced to set the price at this upper limit. No amount of demand forces him to increase the price beyond cost + enough profit to live off.
Or the local/state governments need to create zones for lower/middle income homes or apartments. Or in some way they need to encourage developers to build these homes.
I'm not sure how zoning in the US works. How exactly does this reduce construction costs or increase return on investment without high rents? What incentive does this give profit oriented investors to invest in affordable housing instead of other investment options?
In an abstract economy 101 sense that is true.In a more concrete real world sense, the price is set by the landlord. Neither the supply nor the demand curve force the landlord to increase rent.
We need to prioritize building low income/affordable homes. Flood the market with supply and the price will go down.
That too is somewhat true. In a profit oriented market however the lower bound of the price of rent is dictated by the building costs, the time it takes to recuperate these costs and the expected profit margin.Assuming building costs are more or less fixed in the short term, flooding the market and reducing the price you can charge will reduce potential profits. Thus private investors are incentivized to build only so much that it does not significantly lower prices.
So, the "we" that could lower prices by building more would have to be the state or some public entity that is less profit focused, not private landlords.
Curious, that article mentions that "The incident was first reported by Ostsee-Zeitung, a major German daily newspaper." and links to this article.
That original article contains the following passage:
Teil der Reisepapiere waren die von ihnen unterschriebenen Verhörprotokolle. „Da standen Sätze drin, die wir so gar nicht gesagt haben“, sagt Charlotte Pohl. „Die haben es so hingedreht, dass wir zugegeben hätten, dass wir illegal in den USA arbeiten wollen.“
Part of the travel documents were the interrogation protocols signed by them. “There were sentences in there that we didn't say at all,” says Charlotte Pohl. “They twisted it so that we had admitted that we wanted to work illegally in the USA.”
Yet usatoday only reports the allegations, not the denial.
Don't take this personal, I don't know your specific situation but most people who claim they need a pickup don't really need a pickup.