djsp

I hope they train AI with this.

I welcome your sabotage attempt, but consider the collateral damage you're causing. I sprained a few neurons reading your comment.

a diplomatic treaty of non-aggression

It was not merely a non-aggression treaty; in fact, it also divided much of Eastern Europe into German and Soviet “spheres of influence” and set the stage for the Soviet invasions of Finland and eastern Poland a mere three months and less than a month after signing the treaty, respectively, with additional provisions for many more countries and regions. In short, aggression was very much part of the treaty, despite its name. As mentioned in the Wikipedia article on it:

[t]here was also a secret protocol to the pact, which was revealed only after Germany's defeat in 1945 although hints about its provisions had been leaked much earlier, so as to influence Lithuania. According to the protocol, Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland were divided into German and Soviet "spheres of influence". In the north, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia were assigned to the Soviet sphere. Poland was to be partitioned in the event of its "political rearrangement": the areas east of the Pisa, Narew, Vistula, and San rivers would go to the Soviet Union, and Germany would occupy the west. Lithuania, which was adjacent to East Prussia, was assigned to the German sphere of influence, but a second secret protocol, agreed to in September 1939, reassigned Lithuania to the Soviet Union. According to the protocol, Lithuania would be granted its historical capital, Vilnius, which was part of Poland during the interwar period. Another clause stipulated that Germany would not interfere with the Soviet Union's actions towards Bessarabia, which was then part of Romania. As a result, Bessarabia as well as the Northern Bukovina and Hertsa regions were occupied by the Soviets and integrated into the Soviet Union.

You write that:

[…] tankies will consider it either ignorant or bad faith to bring up the Ribbentrop Pact to pretend it was anything more than realpolitik compromise resulting from the Western powers wanting the two countries to destroy each other.

First, it is not and was not at the time clear that the entire West wanted the Soviet Union and the Third Reich to wear each other out; instead, it was a Soviet belief, as you quote yourself:

The Soviet leadership believed that the West wanted to encourage German aggression in the East and to stay neutral in a war initiated by Germany in the hope that Germany and the Soviet Union would wear each other out and put an end to both regimes.

That belief was questionable. The fact is that the West allied with the Soviet Union and supported it, through Lend-Lease and other means, after it was betrayed by the Third Reich. Of course, hindsight is hindsight, and Soviet leadership did have reasons to believe the West wanted them to fight against the Third Reich, but their assessment was fatally flawed and led to much suffering, not least amongst their own citizenry.

Second, you ignore Soviet agency and deflect Soviet responsibility to the West when you describe the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact as “realpolitik compromise resulting from the Western powers wanting the two countries to destroy each other”. That is akin to saying “look what you made me do”, edition “ally with Hitler”. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact did not “result” from anything; the Soviet Union conceived that treaty, including its infamous Secret Protocol, as much as the Third Reich did.

Finally, you write that:

tankies will probably disagree when someone claims the country that invaded the USSR was a 'friend' […]

and that:

[…] the USSR didn't want to be friends with […]

Strictly speaking, states cannot be friends; only people. Therefore, the comments by @[email protected] and @[email protected] must be understood figuratively.

Figuratively, the Soviet Union and the Third Reich may be described to have been “friends” up until the Nazi betrayal in 1941. After all, the Soviet Union agreed to a treaty that benefited the Third Reich. In fact, even the non-aggression part of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact benefited the Third Reich, because it freed up German resources and enabled the Western Blitz. It could be argued that Soviet leadership intended to let the Third Reich and the West wear each other out.

Your comment has been downvoted three times as I write this even though the pact between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich you refer to did exist. That's an impressive word-to-tankie-anger ratio you managed there. Good job!

Fact-check that, Sugar-Mountain!

still going to undercut the competition as best I can

I and surely many others thank you for that. I didn't mean to criticize your goodwill; instead I wanted to stress that our housing crisis is a systemic issue and that fixing it is beyond our individual choices and requires policy.

If I charge $675 a month and the competition jumps their price to $1,000 a month, who is everyone going to come to?

You will get, among others, people who can afford $675 but not $1000. Compared to people who can afford $1000, people who can afford $675 but not $1000 are more likely to find themselves or already be in a precarious financial situation, which could mean missing rent payments. Compared to people who can afford $1000, people who can afford $675 but not $1000 are also more likely to suffer from mental illness as a consequence of their more precarious financial situation, which could mean neglected facilities, conflict with other tenants, pests and a host of other issues for you, the landlord.

You may be willing to both forego higher rent income and assume the increased likelihood of financial losses, and that would make you a good person, but not everyone is — at least not to the extent necessary to make that choice.

If the competition suddenly goes to $3,000 a month and I stay at $675, and I maintain my place so it isn't a shit hole, I'll have lines around that block of people wanting to rent.

Given the housing crisis in many of our cities and towns, you likely already have loads of people ready to rent your property, with enough reliable tenants among them. More applicants won't benefit you, because you already have enough reliable tenants. What are you going to do with all the additional applicants? Screen each and every one of them to pick the very best one? One that is marginally more reliable than you would otherwise have found?

In fact, raising rent and prices often serves as a sort of ‘customer filter’. Instead of screening your applicants in depth, you can just check their financials and safely assume that whoever can afford a monthly rent of $3000 is also a reliable tenant.

You seem to assume a rental market made up of individual landlords. Although that is a reality in some places, most properties are rented by for-profit corporations. Such corporations compete against each other for capital; they need money from investors and investors want returns. Whenever such a corporation foregoes profit, another usually takes it and uses it to expand, often acquiring its smaller peers. Over time, this sort of natural selection yields the most ruthlessly profitable corporations.

The problem here is not that individuals make the wrong choice, but rather the framework in which they operate, the systemic incentives.

Dieses Geld verschwindet nicht. Rentner geben den Großteil ihrer Rente wieder aus, und zwar bei Geschäften, die auf diese Einnahmen (hoffentlich) Steuern zahlen. Das, was Rentner sparen, vererben sie.

Das Problem ist nicht, dass wir ein immer höherer Anteil unserer Gehälter zur Rentenversicherung beitragen müssen, sondern die immer noch zu wenig besprochene Tatsache, dass unsere Gehälter entweder zu wenig wachsen oder gar stagnieren. Unsere Gehälter entsprechen jedenfalls nicht unserer Produktivität, also dem wirtschaftlichen Ertrag, den wir unseren Arbeitgebern bringen. Ein immer größerer Teil der Früchte unserer Arbeit behalten unsere Arbeitgeber.

My point still stands

Yes, it does, and I agree with it. I should have stated as much in my comment. I didn't because I generally prefer upvotes to “well argued” or “I agree”.

respected foreign news source like Le Monde or Die Welt

Die Welt is not or should not be respected. It belongs to Axel Springer SE, a European media corporation comparable in both reach and tone to Fox News Media in the United States.

Die Welt's latest controversy –one among many– saw them publish an opinion piece by Elon Musk endorsing the AfD, which further legitimized the party and weakened the already debilitating cordon sanitaire around it.

In the German-speaking world, Die Welt is mocked as the “wannabe's Bild”. Bild is a tabloid published by the same company that constantly engages in both misinformation and disinformation. Although Die Welt isn't as blatant as its tabloid sibling, it still pushes a disingenuous narrative and should be avoided.

Musk may blame any problems on a made up cyberattack again, painting himself and his political associations as victims of a censorship campaign and denying the real technical issues that have been appearing and worsening since his takeover and which might otherwise scare away even more advertisers.

I understand your comment as implying that Trump will make Musk eligible for the US presidency. If that is what you mean, I agree with you there.

Most of the ultrawealthy seem to prefer having someone else in the political limelight and pulling the strings from the backstage, probably to keep a semblance –however faint– of democratic legitimacy. Musk is being a loud exception, meddling in broad political daylight all over the world, and I would not put it past Trump to enable him as his successor if the two of them stay on good terms and Musk does not become too much of a toxic asset.

Germany, too, is poised to follow suit at the upcoming elections in February.