this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
1756 points (96.6% liked)
Political Memes
5508 readers
2685 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Realtors with more property to sell make more than realtors with less property to sell. Do you know actual realtors? The vast majority are not selling a few multi-million houses and calling it a year.
Look at what they lobby for: https://www.nar.realtor/advocacy/federal-advocacy/all-federal-issues
Multi-family housing proposals are a core plank of their program, for instance - and yet politicians don't listen to them because their constituents don't want them to
I'm not sure what you think you're arguing when you call me out my link then share data that agrees with my link.
Your preconceived notions are incorrect, and lying about data doesn't make it correct
Yes I do. None of them are selling affordable single family homes.
As a matter of fact multi-family housing is leading a housing construction "boom" as of articles published 6 days ago.
Here's a quote from MReport:
So they are building "multi-family homes", but targeting, wait for it, people with lot's of money.
So you quit lying.
Come to think of it, you're singling out the and focusing on the real estate angle pretty hard. Why is that?
It doesn't matter who they're targeting, because they're increasing supply
You're so desperate to have all lobbyists be inherently bad that you're not thinking things through.
Real estate is easy because local ordinances prevent building, and congresspeople are held accountable locally. We can discuss any lobbying if you'd like and are willing to learn.
I'm a climate lobbyist, for example.
Continuing with the real-estate discussion (I know, now I'm focusing on it ;-) ), I whole heartedly disagree. When ignoring the needs of the lower 75% of the country's wage earners, and focusing your efforts on the upper 25%, something is glaringly, obviously wrong, and saying things like,
shows a level of privilege that most people in the US cannot fathom or afford, myself included. That statement says...a lot, but I don't want to devolve into ad hominin bs because now you've piqued my interest.
Honestly, and I genuinely mean this, yes, I would love to know what a climate lobbyist does.
I know tone doesn't translate via text very well, but I can assure you I'm not desperate to have all lobbyists be inherently bad. Am I angry? Yes, but never desperate, and I'm not angry without reason. I've seen it directly, more than once in my lifetime, politicians and policy be influenced by the efforts of lobbyists and their money. Not just something I read in the news, heard on the radio, or saw on a website. I've seen funding pulled from one project to another because of lobbyists. Not because the project the funding was being pulled from wasn't worthy, but our lobbyists weren't as good (or willing to donate as much) as their lobbyists.
It's a system that allows to much room for abuse, is abused every single day. Even if for something as noble as a climate lobbyist, the quote "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I would think still rings true (religious connotations notwithstanding).
Now don't ask me how to fix it all because I have no clue. Maybe it's the best we have. I dunno. 😂 I just choose, like I said earlier never to trust a politician. They're all owned in some way by the money that puts them in power.
Edit: I do want to say, I am enjoying this discussion. Thank you for making a long day at the office a little bit more interesting.
If I make a house that sells for a billion dollars, someone with a 900 million dollar house will buy it, and their 900 million dollar home will be bought by someone in an 875 million dollar home, ND that continues all the way down.
No amount of emotional appeal (not an insult to you/your argument) beats supply and demand. I'll take new housing anywhere and anyway I can get it. I'm also for subsidizing weird ways of getting housing like converting office space, though that has potential boondoggle written all over it.
Problem with ending lobbying outright is it is guaranteed as a right in the constitution. I'm all about lobbying reform however, and a general leveling of he playing field. Would love to see more citizen-lobbies, too, and I think it's arguably in the best interests of government to make that easier to do.
And I agree! Nice conversation
I absolutely know what I'm talking about, and it isn't "trickle down" b cause it doesn't involve any additional mechanics other than an increase in supply in a market defined by a massive shortage in supply.
Also rent seeking doesn't mean what you think it means.
Lots of things sound similar. Socialized costs and socialism sound similar, and are not similar at all.
You not understanding the concepts or criticism of "trickle down economics" just means you shouldn't use it as a comparison until you learn more about it, and why it fails.
As a tip, the principal difference is that TDE assumes that cutting taxes for the wealthy will inherently result in business reinvestment, when it clearly does not. This does not rule out all supply-side economics, as renewable energy subsidies and grants have clearly demonstrated. However, demand-side policies are also necessary at times, as in 08 or during COVID.
Increasing supply does always change the supply/demand curve, and we have a massive shortage of supply in the housing market.