1079
Fuck BlackRock
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2026
1079 points (100.0% liked)
Flippanarchy
2516 readers
270 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The law of supply and demand still applies whether you try to paint one of the participants as a villain or not. Even if every market participant were an individual, that (presumably not overly wealthy) single mother of four is still going to get out-competed.
The only actual solution is to increase supply, which means abolishing the wealthy-favoring laws that make it illegal to build (i.e. the laws mandating things like single-family houses and minimum parking requirements).
Edit: do you people not understand that your attitudes play right into the hands of the private equity oligarchs? Y'all are literally defending authoritarian laws that distort the market in their favor.
Where do middle men live in this equation? What about lenders, administrators, and housing developers?
Ten houses are on the market. These houses range from $250k to $5M in listed price.
I have $20k for a down payment and $200k in borrowing power.
You have $30k for a down payment and $300k in borrowing power.
Berkshire Hathaway has $373.31 Billion for down payments and functionally unlimited borrowing power.
How many extra houses need to be built before you or I can outbid BH for a home?
Let's find out!
Get cracking, scout!
Doesn't matter, because even if Berkshire Hathaway is eliminated from the bidding, when a dozen buyers with $200k or $300k in buying power are in the market and only one house is for sale because it's literally illegal for more to be built, only one of you is going to be able to get the house!
I really don't get your angle. Let's say there are 8 entities seeking a house, 3 of which are corporations. Ban corporations from owning single family homes, and there's an immediate drop in demand, so the current supply satisfies more individuals. Why are you arguing against this?
How many properties is BH sitting on unsold? How many are going to open up with the death of the Boomer homeowner generation?
Between 13.1 million and 14.6 million Boomers are projected to "exit homeownership" between 2026 and 2036. Who will own those homes when they are gone?
Show my the corner is the country where it is illegal to build new homes
We have, if anything, an enormous vacant housing surplus. What we lack is jobs paying at the going mortgage rate
There are dumb laws in some places privileging things like sfh over apartments, to the point of exclusion. But more to their point:
So suddenly the law of supply and demand conveniently no longer applies? By removing demand from the market, we're not lowering prices?
Do you think these investors just have magic unlimited funds to hoard vacant housing forever? No. They exist to make a profit, which means sooner or later they either have to get occupants into those units or sell them on to somebody who will. This "additional" demand from property hoarders who apparently (according to your logic) love vacant buildings because they're fucking morons who hate money is, in the long run, fictional.
That doesn't matter! They are still inducing extra demand, which still raises prices for normal people trying to buy homes.
So we should let bh get the house, instead of any of us?
What purpose does bh serve here? And what drugs are you doing to believe this shit?
https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/
But sure, we just need to build more poorly made, for maximum profit, homes that definitely don't make giant corporations lots of money whilst simultaneously destroying green spaces, communities, and any form of third places within walkable distance of the poorly made homes...
There's certainly no market manipulation that renders supply and demand utter bollocks.
None of those statistics ever take into account where the empty homes are. It doesn't matter if houses in the middle of nowhere are empty because nobody wants to live there. What matters is how many homes are allowed to exist closer in to the cities where people actually want to live.
That's absolutely ass-backwards bullshit. Back in reality, building density is what creates walkability, not what destroys it! Quit being dishonest.
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?
They make money through speculation. Property values increase over time as the surrounding area becomes more developed and economically advanced, even if the specific property remains exactly the same, allowing property owners to extract value from other people's work improving the area even if they never set foot there.
Keeping the building unoccupied avoids the hassle of evicting tenants, allowing them to trade more quickly.
I have friend that lives in Vegas. They are stuck in the house they bought since the private equity ownership seems to be keeping a ton of empty homes off the market to keep scarcity and thus prices high. These companies have deep pockets and can weather the storm over long periods until the market shifts in their favor again.
Supply is a problem and I agree about existing density-blocking laws. However this is not an either/or situation. Market effects on pricing are aggregate, not annectdotal. Taking private equity out of the market would certainly lower demand. Plenty of housing are sitting empty or underoccupied right now because of speculation.
And plenty of units are converted rentals that leverage the borrowing power of the owner to upcharge the tenant.
The effect of zoning laws dwarfs the effect of private equity, to the point that focusing on the latter is absolutely just making a scapegoat to avoid fixing the actual problem.
People just love to blame private equity because they want to eat their cake and have it too (own a single-family house in the middle of a city, for a price they can afford) and can't bear to face the reality that that is fundamentally impossible as a matter of geometry.
It's real fucking simple, people: if 10 families want to live in the same acre of land, they don't all get to each own a single-family house on a one-acre lot! One of them gets to (for a huge price), and the rest get physically displaced. The only way for something else to happen is for the law to change so that more housing units can be built on that acre, but the spatially-inevitable consequence of that is that each family doesn't get their own house with a 1-acre yard.
You fundamentally cannot have it both ways, but people don't want to accept that so they blame private equity instead.
I'm not defending private equity in the slightest, mind you! By all means, fucking murder them all if you want; IDGAF. I'm just saying y'all are gonna be all surprised_pikachu.jpg when it turns out to do fuck-all to solve the actual problem.
Edit: the irrational downvotes on my comments only help prove my point. People just can't deal with reality, so they childishly lash out instead.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-ban-wall-street-buying-houses-not-solution-home-prices-2026-1
The best proof you can come up with is that mega landlords "may have contributed?" It can't even state it definitively or quantify how much?
Forgive me if I'm not persuaded.
Meanwhile, I actually live in one of the cities you mentioned, so let me give you some real perspective: even if we assumed that every single one of the 25% of homes owned by institutional investors were being kept vacant for some stupid reason -- which, to be clear, they are not -- transferring ownership to owner-occupants would only increase the amount of housing available by 33%. In contrast, even just the relatively minor reform of allowing ADUs on all single-family properties would increase it by up to 100%. Rezoning the R1 properties (rich people's mansions on minimum 2-acre lots) to R4 ("normal" middle-class housing on minimum 9000 sq. ft. lots) would increase it by up to 900% in those formerly R1 areas. And those two zoning changes still remain single-family! If we actually abolished it, we're talking about thousands of percent increases.
So having read that, which idea do you think actually would have a bigger effect: abolishing institutional real estate investors or zoning reform?
There isn't a single person here saying that zoning laws don't need to be changed. The only person here with their undies in a bunch is you, who just can't seem to accept the fact that ending corporate ownership of single family homes would increase the housing supply and reduce prices. "But it doesn't do it as much as this other thing!!" Wtf dude what are you even arguing for
Just so you’re aware, downvotes have never proven someone’s point.
I’m sure when we build more properties Blackrock won’t continue to buy them as well as the 1/3 they already own in my city. Maybe they don’t have enough money to invest in more properties? Or maybe more housing will drive property values down enough so they’re not a good investment for blackrock anymore? What exactly is the success outcome you envision without banning investment properties?
Exactly that. Pretending that zoning restricting the supply isn't the problem plays right into the investors hands, because the supply shortage is what juices their investment returns!!!
And by the way: sure, fine, we could ban institutional investors from owning housing -- whatever, I literally do not care. What actually matters is the fact that even with them gone, if the zoning doesn't change we will still have all of the same problems because everyone will still be wanting to cram themselves into cities and the law will still be preventing the housing from accommodating them all. The unmet demand will continue to make prices skyrocket even if every bidder is a would-be owner-occupant, and everyone else will be forced out and have to commute back in, with all the negative consequences in terms of traffic, pollution, obesity, etc. that entails.
So you think we can build enough housing to drive housing down so much that it’s no longer useful as an investment therefore it doesn’t matter if we’re competing with companies on the market?
There are enough empty houses in the US to give FOUR to every unhoused person. It is NOT a supply issue.
Shouldn’t be a market for housing or healthcare
https://thepremierdaily.com/200-nebraska-farmers-remain-silent-during-auction-so-a-young-man-can-buy-back-his-family-farm/
A farm auction in rural Nebraska, where the land is exactly the polar opposite of scarce, has fuck-all to do with my point about density in cities.
I think your attitude is missing an even bigger picture on top of your bigger markets picture. People can be black rock assholes masturbating with their invisible hands or they can be nice to each other. Markets will adapt...
That was a plot on Little House on the Prairie.
Good luck with that
If you really think 'authoritarian' laws help them, it's because the laws don't go far enough.
There are four empty homes for every homeless person in this country. I can think of a few laws that would fix it overnight.
no, unfortunately people don't seem to get that. there's a serious shortage of mathematics and statistics skill in the average lemmy user. i think to actually improve the world one must study mathematics and use it to properly interpret the data about our world that we need to understand and handle it. which i hope somebody does more of. In fact it would be nice to see more lemmy posts about this.
You could start by practicing what you preach and actually substantiating any of these claims.
Who is defending which "authoritarian laws that distort the market in there favor" here? I legitimately have no idea what that's referring to. Zoning laws? Are there any comments on here that are actually saying that?
There is a supply problem. There is some dumb shit.
But like fixing the climate, none of it matters while a billionaire still draws breathe