• @masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      317 months ago

      Oh look… a capitalist shill using homeless people as a propaganda prop to do apologetics for the capitalists that caused all the homelessness.

      Yawn.

    • @argarath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      267 months ago

      The reason those houses are vacant is because companies bought them and are now pricing them out of the reach of most consumers

        • @Syrc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          77 months ago

          Free market can work in fields where competition is plenty and entering is cheap.

          When the amount of “players” in the market is so small they can collude to keep prices high it all falls apart.

          • prole
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            No, free market never works, because all people cannot be experts on all subjects at all times.

            Because of that, you end up with people dying as “collateral damage” while the free market “corrects itself.” Things like: “Well they should have done their research and known that brand of car has faulty brakes, and went to a different company instead, so it’s kind of their own fault.” Or, “this is just part of the process. Now everyone will know (lol right) that this company makes cars with faulty brakes and stop buying their products,” while completely ignoring that these are fucking people that are dying. That’s not ok.

            And what if a company decides to hide things about their product from the public? What happens when that very product ends up giving people mesothelioma, but because that’s an illness that can take decades to manifest after exposure, there’s no clear causal link to the regular consumer. How does the free market correct that one? Or do we just let people suffer and die horrible deaths so that we can keep using the cheaper kind of insulation and save a few bucks?

            Sorry but the loss of human lives is not ever acceptable “collateral damage”. Especially not when the loss is 100% unnecessary.

            • @Syrc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              That’s not price regulation though, it’s more about quality control. I’m assuming there’s already laws in place that prevent glaringly faulty products from being sold (…unless the lobbyists start messing with stuff, but regulations wouldn’t really solve that either).

              It was more about the “free market keeps prices low” argument. It does if we’re talking about easy-to-access markets, but it falls apart if the entry barrier is so high and the only parties can easily collude.

        • prole
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 months ago

          Do you know that real estate investment exists? A house is an asset, and unless the entire economy crashes (like in 2008), then owning homes (even if empty) will make you easy money. It’s an appreciating asset. I could be wrong, but I also believe it’s very good for laundering money.

          Wealthier Chinese nationals have been doing this for years in the US and Canada (look at what Chinese real estate investment has done to the housing market in Vancouver, for example).

      • @Aleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        107 months ago

        So far they actually have nothing to say beyond “nuh uh you’re wrong”, which is effectively nothing at all. I’ve asked them to explain, we’ll see what we get.

          • prole
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            They don’t know. Look at their comment above, the book they recommended to everyone was “the basics of economics” or something.

            I really hope it’s a troll, because holy shit the narcissism it takes to read an Econ 100 level (if even that) book, and think you’re an expert on the subject. Wild.

    • @orrk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      87 months ago

      so, you think the reason that the homeless people don’t live in these homes is because… they wouldn’t be able to pay rich people money if they did?

      how high do you have to be to make the statement “look I would love to not freeze to death, but only if I get to pay half my income to Amazon” seem reasonable?

    • I Cast Fist
      link
      fedilink
      77 months ago

      A surplus of homes does not equal less homeless people. If their prices, either as rentals or for buying, is too high, it can actually increase the number of homeless people.

    • @Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      67 months ago

      Vacant does not mean unowned.

      Plus I’m pretty sure Amazon doesn’t want thousands of crackhead row houses in shit areas.

    • @rainynight65@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      27 months ago

      If there are 15 million vacant homes now, then a company made up of wealthy investors buying up heaps of them at the current inflated prices isn’t going to change anything. Those houses won’t become living spaces for poor and homeless people - they’ll sit vacant until someone comes along who’s willing to pay the exorbitant rent.