your weekly dose of hankschannel libshit. the description is pure "the president couldn't possibly have lied or made a mistake" copium
HOW IS HIS TAKEAWAY FROM ALL THIS THAT TWITTER IS BAD BUT BIDEN IS GOOD
to be clear, twitter is bad, but not because it tells people when biden is lying without giving Hank enough Details and Context. I mean ffs this all happened ages ago and I could have told you exactly what he spent the whole video researching and whinging about how complicated it was. It's not that complicated.
hahahaha its the original soyjak who "fucking loves science"!!!
I remember he recently shat out a video about how the solution to homelessness is to build more houses because: "akkording to muh soyience, supply must be down because demand and price lines go up!"
Built by who? Owned by who? What's stoping those homes from immediatly being bought up by investment capital and being rented out at the "fair market rate"?
Fucks sake I'm sick of the "I don't understand why they don't just..." solutions
Fucks sake I'm sick of the "I don't understand why they don't just..." solutions
I don't understand why we don't just abolish the landlord class
They dont have solutions for housing or homelessness without abandoning their politics. They get very mad when you point out their Build More Housing No Matter What Kind is just trickle down economics from the 80s applied to an inelastic good.
rented out at the "fair market rate" *to aquaman FTFY
Fucks sake I'm sick of the "I don't understand why they don't just..." solutions
Liberals, naiive people who think they know the "cold hard truth about the reality(TM)".
I remember he recently shat out a video about how the solution to homelessness is to build more houses because
Hot take, I agree with the Libs on this one, we should be building more housing. The country is increasingly urbanizing, which should be a good thing, but local petite bourg real estate owners want to restrict supply to make their assets more valuable. Hence the affordability crisis. Throwing up more high rises in Cali would do a lot to help lower housing costs and reduce homelessness.
I don't agree with libs on this one. More housing doesn't directly relate to more affordable housing. If it was affordable high rises, sure. But the housing we're building is "market rates" and higher and that just doesn't push down prices, it drags prices up.
Housing is an inelastic good and landlords will charge whatever they "can" which is based off other available houses.
I should have prefaced, as a socialist I think we should build more PUBLIC housing. That would address the problem more quickly and directly.
However...
landlords will charge whatever they "can" which is based off other available houses.
Part of the reason they can charge so much is they don't have much competition, any open space is going to have a lot of people competing for it so you can Jack up prices, somebody will probably be able to pay. If there was more selection people could go for cheaper options and landlords wouldn't be able to ask exorbitant prices for subpar properties.
If it reaches the scale of Red Vienna then it definitely starts to have an effect
Yeah part of the reason the Karl Marx Hof worked is because private landlords now had to compete with this really nice, affordable, housing bloc. You can't charge exorbitant rents if your tenants have a decent affordable option on the plate.
That is until nobody can afford to pay, then all that land is overvalued and the bubble gets scary again
like making more housing is kinda of the solution, the problem is that you don't need to build houses as much as should retrofit existing buildings that are empty in dense urbans spaces into housing, as they would have access to much better infrastructure and would be cheaper and less damaging to de enviroment as building materials have such a fucked up carbon footprint due to their production, like i am from brazil and i think the best thing lula did was his proposal to use old federal buildings that have lost their use into housing (for example, a bunch of stuff in rio that is on the most valued land with a bunch of transportation and infrastructure already built in that lost their function when the capital moved to Brasilia) which is incredibly better than the other program that we already had from his first term that builds houses because those tend to be so far away from where people actually live on the areas that have the least job oportunities
In areas where that's viable, I agree. Issue is in a lot of newer, usually Western US cities, restrictive zoning resulted in a lot of low density, single family development. In some cases it probably would be more efficient to replace some of it with higher density apartment complexes.
There's plenty of houses already. building houses doesn't work if the new house immediatly gets bought by an investment firm that rents it out for 1.5x the areas median income.
The whole thing with investment firms buying up housing as a speculative asset is really only a problem in places like NYC, on the Marco scale they're a drop in the bucket. This is really more caused by upper middle class people who want to drive their home prices up to fund their retirement than it is BlackRock.
It doesn't really matter who is buying the properties and charging more money to live there than people make. It's just an example of how streamlined the process of "just build more houses" being ineffective has become.
We need to build houses but they need to be explicit subsidized lower income housing and then once that hurdle is cleared you need to be able to push back against the corporations that want to buy them AND the 80% of Americans who don't believe people intrinsically deserve a place to live.
We need to build houses but they need to be explicit subsidized lower income housing and then once that hurdle is cleared you need to be able to push back against the corporations that want to buy them AND the 80% of Americans who don't believe people intrinsically deserve a place to live.
I agree that's what we really need to do to solve this problem on the nation wide scale. I do think in the super in demand cities, like LA or Austin, building ANYTHING probably would help a bit because the market is just that restricted.
AND the 80% of Americans who don't believe people intrinsically deserve a place to live.
that's why this society is doomed.
Throwing up more high rises in Cali would do a lot to help lower housing costs and reduce homelessness.
Is there any example of this occurring, because these high rises in California are all exclusively going for 4-5k a month for a 1 bedroom, which im not sure is very helpful for a population thay struggles to pay any rent
The libs are not right because they do not agree with you on public housing, its all mArKeT bAsEd SoLuTiOns.
Never mnid thats fair enough then, idk much about "the economy" other than its function according to the POSIWID* maxim, its a bit weird that we need to build way more houses than physically necessary otherwise people will die on the streets.
but local petite bourg real estate owners want to restrict supply...
However, there seem to be other more video game based solutions to the problem...
its a bit weird that we need to build way more houses than physically necessary otherwise people will die on the streets
The issue is the areas people are moving to don't have enough supply generally. Yeah there's a lot of vacant homes but a lot of them are in like, Bumfuck Nebraska. Thing is there actually is a lot of affordable housing in the US, it's just far away from all the job and infrastructure, that's why a culture of "super commuters" who drive like two hours to an office in LA to work exists now, and why during the pandemic a bunch of workers who went remote decided to go buy houses in West Virginia and Idaho.
no shinkansen from mcmansion suburb concentration in inhospitable desert to actual workplaces
well, theres your problem
lmao so technically the problemo is because american urban planners (best in world) built all the houses over 9000
kmmiles from where the economy functions, fucking genius. Therefore, it is an issue of building more homes... but closer to urban centers. Where I live, there is a lot of property development (suburbification) going on... but its in the areas 2+ hours from the city center. We truly are america's 51st state.
tbf there are localized supply issues. But there's also a "rich fucks have lost their basic humanity and ability to live in a society" problem that requires fixing before any serious solutions can really be entertained :gui:
housing first does not mean we must jerk off to trickle down economics. also its projected half of all homes will be owned by corporations in 2030
half of all homes will be owned by corporations in 2030
We need him back
Hank Green is just that guy from Mentopolis. You can’t convince me he’s a Youtuber.
Thesis: Biden is doing his best.
Antithesis: Biden is ethnically cleansing Palestinians.
Synthesis: Biden is doing his best ethnically cleansing Palestinians.
Are there any YA authors who aren't either Libs or weirdo midwest conservatives?
Ursula K Le Guin wrote Earthsea and has very cool politics.
Probably, yeah. There are a ton of different YA authors out there. Off the top of my head, the book Feed by M.T. Anderson is a great depiction of a techno-capitalist dystopia. In the book,
spoiler
a girl with an aftermarket brain chip is denied healthcare because her consumer spending patterns make her an unprofitable target for advertisers.
I’ve seen YA authors get derided a few times on this site (once, it was aimed at male YA authors in particular), and it comes across as reactionary to me. I just don’t understand.
Fair enough, it's just every well known YA author I can think of off the top of my head has shit politics. Also most examples of YA I know of have shit politics story wise too. Also I've found the whole existence of the genre kinda weird, what specifically about them makes them for "young adults"? People in that age range are generally mature enough they could just be reading regular literature, outside of them having younger protagonists (which there is plenty of non-YA literature with younger protags) idk what is specifically is "YA" about them besides maybe having a bit easier to digest prose?
young adult is misleading cause it sounds like it could apply to teens (who should probably be graduating to regualr 'adult' lit) but i think its reasonable for there to be something between learning-to-read baby prose and full hog literature
That's fair, but most YA lit I know of usually already have some fairly adult ass stuff on them that's as bad as anything you'd read in most regular adult literature.
never too soon for adult themes and subjects, i say, YA is just abt proficiency level
every well known YA author I can think of off the top of my head has shit politics. Also most examples of YA I know of have shit politics story wise too.
This is true for books of all genres in the global north I think.
what specifically about them makes them for "young adults"?
That’s a good question, and I’m sure the definition is controversial (like all genre definitions). I haven’t read this too closely because I’m hexbearing at work, but I found this article which is probably a good starting place: https://www.tckpublishing.com/young-adult-fiction/
feed slapped so hard, honestly played a part in my radicalisation. getting horrible rashes from the polluted climate became a fashion trend in that book iirc
Oh yeah, Cory Doctorow has written a few YA books too. I forgot about him when I was writing my other comment.
what sucks is he has described having been a radlib or anarchist or something in the past when he was super focused on climate change, reading Andreas Malm, etc.
I still don't get what changed his mind. Success, I guess. And probably a lack of theory
Not an uncommon journey for a vibes based radlib, but I have no idea
didn't stop him from being a fucking dolt about it but yea
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
