It wasn't. Fisker's shitty response is what made it an even bigger deal.
teejay
joined 1 year ago
Friend, I've read this three times and still have no idea wtf you're trying to say.
Are we talking about eliminating renting altogether?
I've asked this very question before on reddit in a genuine attempt to understand what alternative the anti-landlord crowd is advocating for. Aside from the onslaught of personal attacks on my character, the best I could decipher was some sort of system where a landlord could only rent at actual cost of their mortgage, taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. No profit could be earned. I said no one would be a landlord for free, especially considering the risks of owning land (natural disasters not insured, market crash, etc).
Their "landlords shouldn't profit off of renters" argument fell apart when I asked profit for who? Was the bank allowed to make a profit on the home loan? Was the insurance company allowed to make a profit on the policy? Could the maintenance and repair folks earn a profit on their services? Could the home remodeling companies make a profit if the home needed updating? Or is every person and entity involved in home ownership allowed to profit from the rental except the landlord? They stopped responding.
We don't compete with them
"Yes you do, and you're losing." Then walk out.
You may already know this, but just be careful. Don't mix the bleach with ammonia or acidic chemicals, and don't use it on porous surfaces. Also try not to get it on your skin or breathe in the spray.
Here you dropped these: , . ; , . . , , , . , . , . .
Incredibly well said. I'm saving this.
I had the same thought. I'm viewing on mobile Firefox with UBO, but I couldn't get the comments to load. So I loaded the url in another browser and now I have cancer.
This needs to be higher. Management only remembers you working late if you failed to do so.
Why is this getting upvoted? OP is using irony. The No True Scotsman fallacy requires refuting a counterexample as well as "The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc." Check out the "Occurrence" section.
Why would he even bother with all of the red tape and process to pass laws? He would just issue ~~imperial edicts~~ executive orders to do whatever he wanted. Laws have never meant shit to him. And why would they? He breaks them with impunity and never faces any real consequences. If he has an unfriendly congress, he'll ignore them.
You still didn't answer the question. So get rid of the landlords means what exactly? You realize there's about two dozen or so industries whose entire commercial existence is tied to landlords and rental properties, right? Do we get rid of all of them? Or just some? Or just the landlord, who is one small cog in a very big capitalist renting wheel?
Everyone is so oddly and furiously fixated on the landlord as some sort of big bad, and therefore assert that getting rid of the landlord position entirely will just magically make everything awesome. It's odd to observe otherwise intelligent people stop so outrageously short of the complete picture.