ennemi

joined 2 years ago
[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 22 points 2 years ago (21 children)

Actually, you could rent out at a deficit, and still come out winning. I'm sorry but that was a trick question.

Tank the loss using personal income. Do this for a couple of years, and you have built enough equity on your homes to act as security for another mortgage. Now you have two renters paying you every month. Rinse, repeat.

Real estate is the safest investment, bar none. Do you want me to walk you through the implications of that?

[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (23 children)

You're no longer saying "owner", we're making progress.

Now do tell us : if the combined revenue and appreciation of assets are not greater in value than the expenses (eg mortgages, services, taxes, opportunity cost), what point is there to being a landlord?

(This is a trick question, by the way)

[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (25 children)

Yeah sure the money flows like this : renter -> mystery black hole -> landlord -> bank

I was right not to take you seriously

[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Even ignoring the fact that the necessity of doing so is still hotly debated to this day, in my opinion that was always a hard argument to defend. We're talking about upwards to two hundred and fifty thousand civilians.

[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 32 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (27 children)

The point is that renters pay for home equity. They just don't earn home equity. Landlords retain 100% of that and 100% of the value gained by the asset. You are catastrophically wrong about that.

Whether or not you think that's ethical, it's still a fact.

[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 36 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (29 children)

The money does not disappear when it changes hands, nor is it laundered. Most landlords cannot afford any of these things if the houses that they own are not occupied by paying tenants.

[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 36 points 2 years ago (31 children)

I could give you the benefice of the doubt. However, this is the calibre of argument you're throwing at us :

Did you pay half the down payment? Did you pay half the mortgage and interest to the bank? Did you pay half the property taxes? Did you pay half the maintenance?

The obvious answer is that yes, the tenant pays for all these things, because that's why the landlord charges rent to begin with. This is such an obvious thing, irrespective of any political beliefs, that the mere fact of you having asked it makes you suspect. I'm not even trying to be mean to you here, I'm just describing the situation as I see it.

[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 29 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (23 children)

Well, we either ignore deaths or we don't. The United States of America ran the largest slave trade in history and nearly wiped out the native population of an entire continent, nuked two cities, overthrew countless democracies, and bankrolled/trained fascist and/or religious fundamentalist militias all over the world. This is all historical fact.

But it also represents one of the strongest cultures in history, as well historical advancements in science, technology, civics, etc. Just like the USSR. Whereas the Nazis only represent industrialized genocide, eugenics and fascist oppression, the Soviet Union and the USA represent both the good and bad of humanity in extreme amounts. Their evils can be denounced just as much as their successes can be celebrated, and more usefully both can and should be studied and not completely discarded on weak ideological grounds. That's why they're both admissible in civil discussion.

Hexbear is very into counter-narrative, and I'm guessing a lot of them would disagree with my take here, but I think that if liberals and communists can't find middle ground in that then liberals are simply not representing themselves honestly.

[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 45 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (38 children)

This is a good post, but I think the person you're replying to is trying to bait a ton of belief statements out of you so that they can then piss you off by contradicting each one with effortless status-quo normalizing, and use that as a justification to defederate Hexbear. That, or they're just going to dig their heels in and you'll have wasted your time.

[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 25 points 2 years ago

I can definitely see why you would want to be protected from us

[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 34 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Iraq which, famously, possessed no actual WMDs. But this time around western media can totally be trusted to report on US state enemies reliably, even though absolutely nobody was held accountable and nothing has changed.

[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I don't think you make a bad point, but it takes years to develop a leftist, collectivist, anti-imperialist world view. Vulgarizing leftist theory to anyone who will listen is a colossal waste of time when 95% of you are not interested in interacting in good faith to begin with. As much as loaded political slogans, easy gotchas and plain old derision suck from a debate-fan point of view, they are too useful to ignore. Even more importantly, you are doing the exact same thing when you talk about "kremlin propaganda" like there's ever any substance or truth behind that accusation.

view more: ‹ prev next ›