[mattmaroon]

It’s also just impossible. To pay an amount that even meaningfully improved the lives of 10% of the people it was aimed at, we’d bankrupt ourselves. If your government printed enough money to give let’s say 12% of the population an amount to make up for lost income over several generations, it probably wouldn’t help much, and even if it did, that money would be worthless due to hyperinflation and government bankruptcy.

It’s a well-meaning idea that’s proven stupid by even elementary school math. Anyone who suggests it is clearly incapable of rational though.

[sinistersnare]

I am not saying the solution here is by giving people dollars. But creating a system where landlords (by disallowing this kind of price centralization) can't screw over their tenants.

And saying that people who argue for reparations are incapable of rational thought is quite rude.

[mattmaroon]

You may be right that it’s rude, I apologize. But it’s not incorrect if we’re talking about reparations the way, it is typically used in American discourse, but perhaps you meant it some other way also

[cscurmudgeon]

What does landlord collusion have to do with reparations?

[sinistersnare]

I'm using reparations as a general term of making people whole. The landlords, whether or not they did anything morally wrong, have taken what they should not have (collusion). Therefore, reparations are called for. This is the argument I am making, predicated on the Justice Department's agreement of the complaint given leading to this case.

[anigbrowl]

Have you tried reading the subthread you're posting in?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38297746

[cscurmudgeon]

Have you tried looking up who I posed the question to?

[anigbrowl]

I didn't have to, because I paid attention the first time. You should try it instead of clapping back.