Kaffe (cough-uh)

I’m a cup of coffee

New Afrikan

Read Walter Rodney!

Chunka Luta Library

  • 17 Posts
  • 305 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 23rd, 2022

help-circle
  • Besides their “War on Russia” and multiple times hacking the PRC, a big example would be them attacking Syria for claims that the government took out communication infra during a “crackdown”. It turns out, it was the US NSA that took down Syria’s telecoms during an ISIS invasion so Anonymous went out of their way to prevent any messaging between the government fighting ISIS and the civilian population.











  • Rural land is organized in communes, you can move to the countryside from the city, but you must be invited into the commune or rent from it as a tenant, costing you for the privilege of using their land.

    The cities are only so big as they are developed, and growth takes time and energy. Due to the market, living in the cities costs more, so you can move from the countryside to the cities, if you can afford it (i.e. stable job), which is hard because the city can only plan for so many jobs in any given time.

    Moving like that is difficult, and is more expensive than staying put, because the real economic cost of such a move has an expensive impact on the whole economy. This applies everywhere, which is why some lineages haven’t left Southside Chicago or South Central LA since it those neighborhoods were redlined, and the life expectancy is almost a decade shorter than the metro average:

    Movement only “feels free” in the US, because much of the population is able to pay for the freedom of movement (using surplus labor).

    This system is also partially why many of the big cities are provinces in their own. It gives provincial, and hukuo powers to the urbanites to decide how they want to grow (within the constraints of the overall state plan). In the US, instead it’s often people with freedom cash pushing out existing urbanites, sometimes into the outskirts, sometimes into more concentrated enclaves, sometimes onto the streets.








  • For tailing it’s falling for the 80% of landlords that are “small” crying about corporate competition in their little dictatorships: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6510977/5686588

    The thought that they’d buy single family homes to rent out is novel to me at least; I’d never heard of such a thing before.

    They started getting involved in SFH after the foreclosures of 08, because they did not lose much relative net worth compared to people who own 1-10 homes, who lost net worth on all their assets at that time. They didn’t get involved before that because not many people were renting SFH in the 80s and 90s and prior, those homes were only for the middling strata and up. Also, by just financing homes in the past while prices continued to rise, there was no reason to get their hands involved to add more work when they can just seek interest on all development. When hundreds of thousands of homes suddenly became available, that’s when they took the opportunity to turn it into a business. And yeah I’m minimizing them because they are indeed a minimal (0.6% of all SFH stock) component of the market and concentrated in a few markets, but that is not tied to the overall indeces of those markets whatsoever. Any investor who owns the home would have the same position as any other, corporate or “mom and pop”, the resulting market will be the same.

    Liberal/Petty Bourgeois media is taking advantage of the novelty of corporate investors in SFH to use us to fight for protections backing “small investors” worth millions against competition.

    Housing costs (and building) are raising extra fast post 2009 because they received basically 0% interest rates to finance more homes to “recover” from the financial crisis. That corporate investors got in at that time is a simultaneous symptom of the crisis, which always benefits the highest bourgs as they eat up small capital owners (good riddance).

    There is finally the last aspect that SFH cities or neighborhoods have become the “standard model” of US housing culture since the early 2000s, this is related to the eventual financial crisis too.


  • Artificial scarcity isn’t real in the housing market

    There has never been more houses to workers in the US than ever before, supply and demand is hardly a factor in the price of ground rents, those are directly tied into Imperialism’s health.

    Corporate investors cannot raise prices above the whole market, and if they do, all homeowners (the majority of which are “proletarians”) benefit the same, so they all engage in price raising politics.

    Housing prices == rents and vice versa. If housing prices collapse so will rents, because they are the same thing. As long as someone or something is able to purchase at an ever increasing price, housing costs will continue to rise.

    This battle over purchasing houses, is between the petty Bourgeoisie and the haute Bourgeoisie. The only difference between mortgaging out and paying rent is whether a so-called worker can profit from their investment in years time, it’s a class transition into the petty Bourgeoisie. You can look at historical charts that the price differences for renting vs loans is most often favorable towards renting, but the differences are slight.

    These are also SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, 15% are rented out, 4% of those are rented out by corporations, so 0.6% of all SFH are owned to rent by corps, that 0.6% of landlords is raising the prices of all homes country wide? Besides, SFH should be for the most part destroyed for climate reasons when Socialism comes.