|
Larry Parrish posted:Yeah i think people forget that the US emulates typical South/Central American racism where the dumb 'Im not racist, but' sector of whites absolutely distrusts mestizos and mullatos. So their friend the equally racist White Latino is just adding a little cultural spice with their Thai/Peruvian fusion place or whatever im pretty pumped that ancestrydna told me i'm 3% iberian so i can now be a white latino and claim a culture i have zero connection to. also i guess the best way to fight gentrification is to move somewhere that was built with restrictive covenants against any non caucasian so as to never displace anyone else
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
mastershakeman posted:im pretty pumped that ancestrydna told me i'm 3% iberian so i can now be a white latino and claim a culture i have zero connection to. By the act of moving to another place you're committing white flight. Checkmate, white boy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
Retromancer posted:By the act of moving to another place you're committing white flight. yeah but white flight is morally superior to gentrification
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
classy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:yeah but white flight is morally superior to gentrification yeah but killing yourself is morally superior to white flight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:gentrification is a somewhat complicated subject and the blame for driving out the locals is ill-targeted on the slightly richer person moving in. the blame lies on the slumlords and politicians who had no intention of cultivating a neighborhood to begin with. they sellout as soon as the offer is large enough, then you have good old capitalism appealing to the lowest common denominator, and the neighborhood becomes McMansions. new people move in because their only other option is to not move to the city at all. city councils don't give a gently caress about poor people, tho government by the rich, for the rich
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:city councils don't give a gently caress about poor people, tho yeah that's his point you should be blaming the inaction of the local government and the slumlords that take advantage of this
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:yeah that's his point you should be blaming the inaction of the local government and the slumlords that take advantage of this it looks to me like he's saying we should blame the slumlords for selling their properties to rich people instead of poor people. that's why he called them sellouts i'm not really sure what policy you'd put in place to prevent that, short of communism and rent controls
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
tax credits for rent seekers (nationalize housing)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
rent control and blocking developments based on tier of housing, so instead of "No you can't build a 5 story building," it's "No, you can't build 5 stories of luxury condos, but 5 stories of median rent is okay." Of course that would require a city to say 'no' to higher tax revenue from the luxury condo building.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:i'm not really sure what policy you'd put in place to prevent that, short of communism and rent controls creating walkable communities via zoning for increased density and availability of pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and pedestrian signals and amenities such as parks as well as providing and supporting other non-car modes of transportation such as public transit - the "urban villages" concept of planning is an attempt to address this rent controls are also good but aren't anywhere close to enough on their own, if they're proposed in isolation to other policy
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:tax credits for rent seekers (nationalize housing) *points to earth* "nationalized"
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
zeal posted:so you're a gentrifier, huh Nah, I refuse to pay over market rate for places I live, even if they are "up-and-coming." Additionally I'll never be rich enough to gentrify anything. But if I ever did get that rich, I would buy carriage house, and do something highly unusual, I would just live in it. Not turn it into "an investment" or whatever dumb poo poo people do to ruin the neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:rent control and blocking developments based on tier of housing, so instead of "No you can't build a 5 story building," it's "No, you can't build 5 stories of luxury condos, but 5 stories of median rent is okay." Of course that would require a city to say 'no' to higher tax revenue from the luxury condo building. I'm also not convinced that they get higher tax revenue in the first place. At least in NYC luxury condo's usually don't have to pay taxes for decades. The most expensive residential building ever built (432 park) has a tax abatement worth hundreds of millions because of crony-capitalism. http://gothamist.com/2013/07/14/exemption_gives_rich_people_obscene.php
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
yeah, it's not the tax revenue the city is going for there, it's the hefty bribes the developer is paying out doesn't matter, though, because the bigger point is that the city loving hates the poor people and wishes they were gone. they loving love attracting wealthy white people and chasing out the minorities. that's why the city actively helps to do things like chase out the homeless people. the city wants to attract wealthy whites because they think a rich white neighborhood is superior and a poor black neighborhood is trash. institutional racism, etc. that kinda mindset is deep in local governments, and the mayor is ultimately the ally of ambitious real estate developers first and the white professional class second, while they regard the poor people who are getting gentrified out as a mere nuisance like, the ultimate problem is the same as anywhere else: American institutions believe that poor non-whites are essentially non-human, and vastly prefer and privilege the wealthy whites who dominate every single power structure anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:rent control Too drat high
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Gentrification is also helped along by the myth that "a rising tide lifts all boats." For example, one might think that a bunch of wealthier white people moving into a poor area and leading to it getting fixed up would be good for the people who already live there and for the local businesses. But the problem is that those wealthier white people aren't patronizing those local businesses. They're going to the new, "trendy" places opened up by white people like them, they're doing all their shopping outside the neighborhood, all of that--most of the money they spend isn't supporting the people who lived in the neighborhood before them. So as rent goes up and more of the poorer non-white residents move out, the local businesses that used to be supported by those residents close because the new, white residents aren't going there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
I’ve talked to many guillotine worthy folks who own investment property and prefer lower income renters to high income cause they can up the volume like buying quad units instead of duplex’s. (And poor tenants are obviously easier to gently caress over) If tax revenue was the goal you’d probably do better building a large tenement of affordable housing and make up the revenue in volume, but have fun selling “1,000 poors are gonna move in to the neighborhood”’to the city council.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
apparently gaming the market value compensation for section 8 housing can be lucrative but my understanding is that it requires both ongoing competent management and a large initial capital outlay that together makes luxury construction more feasible expanding section 8 would likely quickly reverse this trend
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
Why is this thread dead https://twitter.com/ekingc/status/980226144007081985?s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
orange sky posted:Why is this thread dead Needs a Reskin with CEOs, bank execs and Kardashian type socialites
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
Guillotine is a real fuckin good game
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:crony-capitalism hmmmmm yes, would you say that you are a social liberal and fiscal conservative??
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:hmmmmm yes, would you say that you are a social liberal and fiscal conservative?? No.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
Crony capitalism is a term coined by smart assholes to condition stupid assholes to not question the underlying structure of capitalism, it doesn't actually mean anything
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Crony capitalism is a term coined by smart assholes to condition stupid assholes to not question the underlying structure of capitalism, it doesn't actually mean anything It is literally exactly what cuomo is doing and bloomberg did with new york city housing development. It doesn't paint the underlying system in a positive light at all. quote:Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
lollontee posted:If you make an effort once in a while, i guess seatlegentrifier posted:Unknown. I haven't been diagnosed, if that's what you're asking. But empathy is over-emphasized as a positive quality. BENGHAZI 2 posted:Guillotine is a real fuckin good game bawfuls has issued a correction as of 09:04 on Apr 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 08:51
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:It is literally exactly what cuomo is doing and bloomberg did with new york city housing development. It doesn't paint the underlying system in a positive light at all. that's just plain capitalism
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 11:22
|
|
|
all women should work out so they can slam their legs shut like a bear trap to crush rapists
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 11:32
|
|
|
perhaps something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZwYadmgPw
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:that's just plain capitalism I think the legal term we use is "corruption", but yes that's basically capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 13:58
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:It is literally exactly what cuomo is doing and bloomberg did with new york city housing development. It doesn't paint the underlying system in a positive light at all. That's literally just the logical endpoint of networking. "Crony capitalism" implies the person who orchestrated the deal or whatever didn't follow the rules of the system. What Cuomo and Bloomberg did (along with anyone else who gets accused of engaging in crony capitalism) was them being good capitalists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:That's literally just the logical endpoint of networking. "Crony capitalism" implies the person who orchestrated the deal or whatever didn't follow the rules of the system. What Cuomo and Bloomberg did (along with anyone else who gets accused of engaging in crony capitalism) was them being good capitalists. Couldn't you define "pure capitalism" as always going with the choice that can be justified on basis of pure economical analysis of the situation ( something like deal {A involving resources i,j,k and capital exchenge x} versus deal {B involving l,m,n and capital exchange y}, chose one) and anything that looks beyond the enumerable, quantifiable variables and starts working with fuzzy non-transactional poo poo like "I'm gonna choose this guy over the rest because it will bolster my political position even if they don't have to explicitly bribe me" is already defying the basic principle even if not to an illegal degree? What about stuff like cartels and crushing competition with dumping prices and whatnot; is that good capitalism or is it not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 14:15
|
|
|
Teal posted:Couldn't you define "pure capitalism" as always going with the choice that can be justified on basis of pure economical analysis of the situation ( something like deal {A involving resources i,j,k and capital exchenge x} versus deal {B involving l,m,n and capital exchange y}, chose one) and anything that looks beyond the enumerable, quantifiable variables and starts working with fuzzy non-transactional poo poo like "I'm gonna choose this guy over the rest because it will bolster my political position even if they don't have to explicitly bribe me" is already defying the basic principle even if not to an illegal degree? Yes, I would. Just because it's technically an illegal market doesn't mean it doesn't abide by the same forces and motivations as the legal market. The only difference between criminal organizations and the likes of Wall Street or Silicon Valley is that the latter have created a convoluted social and legal framework that makes whatever they want to do technically legal (also they don't personally torture their enemies to death). Edit: Lol, just got what you're trying to say in that first part. You are aware that "markets" and "trade" existed well before capitalism and will almost certainly exist after whatever replaced it is replaced? MizPiz has issued a correction as of 15:01 on Apr 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Edit: Lol, just got what you're trying to say in that first part. You are aware that "markets" and "trade" existed well before capitalism and will almost certainly exist after whatever replaced it is replaced? Of course they did but what I'm wondering is if personal favoritism and other various practices that defy the basic formula do count as part of capitalism as a term or are external phenomena that influence it but aren't part of the definition, if it makes sense?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
Please define "pure economical analysis" for us and see how far you get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
Minge Binge posted:Please define "pure economical analysis" for us and see how far you get. Okay again this is pretty much pure semantics in my head; my point is: for "crony capitalism" to make sense that's not just "capitalism" I need to have it clarified what if really these parts are just accepted as part of the original deal. If they are then great, sure, it's nonsense and the new term is unnecessary (and possibly loaded?) but I guess I'm asking what exactly does the word "capitalism" include on its own, because I don't know. Let me be clear I'm literally just asking for clarification, I don't mean to imply I know anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Teal posted:but I guess I'm asking what exactly does the word "capitalism" include on its own, because I don't know. among other things “capitalism” includes capitalists using state power to pursue their class interests
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Crony Capitalism is worth defining on it's own as a subset of capitalism because it demonstrates a failure in government systems that are supposed to be "fair." I.e. If a government needs to build highways, those contracts are supposed to be available to the public at large to bid on and potentially secure on an even playing field for all bidders. Crony Capitalism ensures that is never the case. It's a much more insidious and harmful application of capitalism. Regardless, the Crony Capitalists and especially the elected officials that enable them will obviously be put to the guillotine all the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
Capitalism with Crony Characteristics
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 16:56
|
|
