I was having trouble understanding what you meant because you didn’t think about the obvious implications of millions of properties being unloaded in a short time.

If the number of landlords drastically increases, which would happen when you have mass property sales, then there’s more competition, and rent goes down.

Or, depending on your setup, the government seizes some of the properties that people refuse to sell, and turns them into public housing. This also drives rent down.

So then, what happens? Oh yeah, both buyers and renters win. Was that clear enough? Perhaps I should write in all caps.

I feel that you missed one basic aspect of economics. Competition is one reason prices might go up. There are other reasons, which are relevant here. Monopolies, collusion, price fixing, goods that people can’t live without, speculation, those are also reasons that prices go up.

In the housing market, it’s not fair, it’s not free, this isn’t a basic supply and demand situation.

I think we agree, with the caveat that you need to be careful when stating a position like yours, because it’s often used as an excuse to do nothing at all.

I like how they already frame it as him taking the bait. Because they’re desperate to have an excuse, and they want to blame the moderator or his opponent for tricking him into being an a******.

They know that he will, they know that he’ll say ridiculous things, and they’re trying to come up with as many preemptions strategies as they can.

I don’t think your definition of middle class is what most people use when they talk about it.

This is really obvious if you think about people remarking on the death of the middle class. They’re not saying that the mean or the median doesn’t exist. They are saying that families like the Simpsons are much less common than they used to be.

What a joke of a headline. That’s not what making ends meet means. They are wealthy, by definition they can afford to make ends meet.

Comedy in general. Others have given specific examples of things that are discriminatory, including racism and sexism.

On the one hand, it’s sad to realize that your old favorite movie is no longer that, but when you realize why I think it’s actually uplifting. You can feel that you’ve learned something, you’ve improved as a human being, that you care more about society.

And because there are many genres other than comedy, it’s not like you lost all of your favorite movies.

Yes. My interpretation is that the above person knew that, but they didn’t think it was even a remotely funny joke, not that they didn’t understand what the implication was.

Historically that’s not true. We have had disastrous governments and Supreme Courts in the past, and yet the country somehow survived. It’s just that they do so much damage while they’re around.

And just because things held together in the past is no guarantee that they will hold together in the future.

Rather than saying that the system has failed us, I think it’s more accurate to say that the system has been failing the vast majority of Americans for many years.

Since long ago, my friend. Citizens United was a landmark in my opinion, although there are probably older rulings that showed how little they care about basic functionality in a democracy.

My interpretation of the article is that it’s a question of timing. If you offer me money in order to hook you up, that’s a bribe. But if I hook you up and later you give me money in thanks, that’s not a bribe.

Obviously both of them are corrupt. But apparently this law can only target the former.

Wait a second. You think that if large-scale landlords have to sell property, that will magically make it harder for other people to buy it? Now now. You can do better.

I’m down with anything. The point is that your rent is not high because Bob has two houses. It’s because the real estate speculators own five thousand.

The sarcasm might have been lost on the author. One can never be too sure these days. :-)

What a terrible article. The solution is throwing more subsidies? Of course it’s not! The solution is making it illegal to own more than a few properties. It really is that easy.

To hell with Utah.

If you have an idea about the Japanese economy that predates 2010, you probably want to look into the situation again. There were many changes under Abenomics that significantly worsened the situation for the average worker, and therefore for the average family.

And in the last year or two, the cost of living has gone up significantly, but for the most part wages have not risen to match it.

Your information is slightly out of date. In the last year or two, the cost of living has rapidly increased, but wages have not gone up proportionally. So all the things are cheaper than much of North America and europe, in fact right now the situation is getting worse for the average Japanese person.

They’re looking after wealthy supporters. Rich folk, not middle class folk.

Right, but the whole process is the issue. If the vote counters lie, or use counting machines that are broken, voters still lose. Only fixing one part of the process is insufficient.

Also, a lack of voter turnout is a huge issue, especially in countries where voters work hourly jobs and polls have meh hours or bad locations. I mean, less wealthy voters, of course.

Never focus on one step at the expense of the rest. People with bad intentions certainly won’t.