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
276 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
That doesn't matter! They are still inducing extra demand, which still raises prices for normal people trying to buy homes.
Look, if you want to do something about the investors because of inequality or unfairness or whatever, have at it. I'm just saying that if your goal is to fix housing prices, zoning reform would be vastly more effective as a strategy.
I did the math in another comment. The TL;DR is that the maximum benefit you could have by eliminating investors is limited to the amount they're participating in the market in the first place (which is much less than 100%). Meanwhile, simple zoning reforms are capable of doubling, 10x-ing, or more the amount of supply.
You didn't do any math, and your assertion that the change in pricing is proportional to the market share is completely wrong. That's not how pricing in markets works.
That's not at all what I said. If you're going to claim that I'm wrong at least have the decency to not misrepresent my argument.
How else am I supposed to understand this quote?
Since we were talking about the price, I assumed that the "maximum benefit" was referring to that. Otherwise you'd be ignoring my point, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
The maximum it can increase the supply of housing is much less than 100%.
(Also, I realize now that's not quite right because of the way percentages work: e.g. if the investor owned all the houses and left them vacant, then eliminating the investor and putting them back on the market would technically increase the supply ∞%. The more correct way would be to say it could increase back to 100% of what it was originally.)
The point is, the amount of housing that could be made available has an upper bound of the amount that the investors are keeping vacant, which is only some fraction of the total that currently exists. Meanwhile, allowing higher density could allow orders of magnitude more housing to be created.
Are you incapable of understanding that there is more to this discussion than just the supply of housing? Why do you keep ignoring my point?
Why do you keep ignoring mine?
I'm not! I keep explicitly telling you that your point is wrong: banning property hoarders changes more than just increasing the housing supply by the amount they've hoarded, it also reduces the price of housing - and your response to that is to repeat your point.
When presented with a counterargument you should respond to it, instead of just repeating your point over and over.
The effect on the price by banning property hoarders (which, as I've said multiple times in this thread, cannot exist in the long run anyway so the problem will eventually solve itself) is so much smaller than the effect of zoning reform increasing the supply as to be damn near negligible in comparison.
Y'all keep talking about marginal gains; I'm talking about transformative ones.
ooh boy.. many of the issues of capitalism in the US stems from this outlook
Sure, you've said it multiple times, but it's still wrong. Unless you're trying to argue that the law of supply and demand doesn't hold for house prices (spoilers, it does!) it's simply wrong.