Exactly, that just enforces the idea that the ownership itself is meaningless, and the investment aspect is the only thing of value.
A landlord owns a house like a hedge-fund owns stocks: its not about the houses or the stocks themselves. Obvious problems arise since houses are actually rare things people want for their own sake, and stocks are not.
I feel like the discussion often trends towards criticizing legislature, but we should not forget that choosing the darwinist approach is still very much a choice made by the individual in their own favor.
Why is lowering risk/maximizing gain at the expense of others a defendable choice because it produces/saves money for an already wealthy individual. Why is this not viewed similarly to other things which are legal but unethical, say cheating on a spouse?
Why is it that the government needs to produce ever smarter and more complicated legislature to prevent people from exploiting others for wealth?
Is government really to blame for this rat race? I don't think so.
> Why is lowering risk/maximizing gain at the expense of others a defendable choice because it produces/saves money for an already wealthy individual. Why is this not viewed similarly to other things which are legal but unethical, say cheating on a spouse?
Most people I know absolutely hate landlords. I've hated 3/4 of mine. But what are you going to do? I can sneer at my landlord all I want but I still have to pay him my rent. I don't want to move out of New York (not yet at least) and buying seems nonsensical.
I don't think anyone is defending them, but do you expect the investor who owns 100 units to not attempt to maximize profit? Most people who get into that business can be assumed to prioritize money over community. The only realistic way to change things is to make it not profitable to sit on these.
> Why is it that the government needs to produce ever smarter and more complicated legislature to prevent people from exploiting others for wealth?
Humanity has kind of always been that way. And even if most people aren't, a small number can disproportionately affect many.
Credit score is not a thing outside of US. Sure if you borrowed something and you didn't pay you may land on some blacklist but usually nobody can see if you borrowed something and paid it without issue. Nor does anyone take it into account.
When you need to buy an apartment and have a job you go to the bank and the bank assesses if you earn enough to pay back the mortgage and if you do they pay for your new apartment which might be just being built.
A landlord owns a house like a hedge-fund owns stocks: its not about the houses or the stocks themselves. Obvious problems arise since houses are actually rare things people want for their own sake, and stocks are not.
I feel like the discussion often trends towards criticizing legislature, but we should not forget that choosing the darwinist approach is still very much a choice made by the individual in their own favor.
Why is lowering risk/maximizing gain at the expense of others a defendable choice because it produces/saves money for an already wealthy individual. Why is this not viewed similarly to other things which are legal but unethical, say cheating on a spouse?
Why is it that the government needs to produce ever smarter and more complicated legislature to prevent people from exploiting others for wealth?
Is government really to blame for this rat race? I don't think so.