GPU scalping isn’t technically scalping either by some definitions, but the layman usage of the word is “buying up a product and selling it back at an inflated price”. Someone is still a GPU scalper even if it takes them 2 years to resell some stock.
By this definition, housing scalpers are scalpers too. I’m not in the business of prescribing how people should speak, so if you have some academic issue with the word “scalping” I can choose a different one. We’ll call it “yeegstrafing”, but my contention is still the same despite what you call it.
People correctly have an issue with GPU yeegstrafers, because they’re not providing any value, they’re just hoarding excess goods and reselling to make a profit. Housing/land yeegstrafers are doing the same thing with necessities.
You may claim that housing or land more generally (you need land for housing/shelter) is not a necessity, but larger society disagrees. People generally regard shelter+food+water as the basic necessities. If someone successfully hoarded all the land, nobody would have access to shelter.
You can call it scalping, yeegstrafing, investing, whatever. I recognize that depending on what you call it, people will have different emotional responses to it. If you call it scalping, it’ll be negative. Investing it’ll be positive. Yeegstrafing, probably just confusion.
But playing with words isn’t the game I’m trying to play, I have a contention with the action, not the word choice. People shouldn’t be allowed to invest in certain things, you can agree. Like you shouldn’t be able to buy up humans at a low value and sell them at a higher value later. Even if you called it investing, it’d still be impermissible.
Similarly, restricting access to land/shelter, driving up prices by reducing supply, and then later selling your hoarded supply at an excess due to said price driving is problematic. It’s restricting cheap access to housing so some people can “make” money.
Using “scalping” as the word to describe this highlights its parasitic nature, they’re siphoning value out of the economy and restricting access to shelter/land while doing it.
Using “investing” instead ignores the negative societal ramifications, and only focuses on the positive personal outcomes (generating money for yourself).
The reasoning (as I’ve clearly outlined several times) is that restricting access to land/shelter in the name of extracting money from the working class is a bad societal outcome. I would imagine you agree with that, but if you don’t we’re having the wrong conversation.
I have to guess what you mean because you are not actually saying anything. If you’re not interested in the conversation, don’t have it.
I don’t know what “extract wealth from the working class means” in this context, because working class people aren’t exactly real estate investors, so I guessed rent.
This is what happens when you communicate with Twitter platitudes instead of actual thoughts.
Is calling me insane an “actual thought”? You expect more from me than from yourself.
Just because you don’t understand what I’m saying doesn’t mean I’m not saying anything. Not to say it’s not my fault, language is a two way street. But similarly, it’s not only my fault, you shouldn’t just assume that your misunderstanding necessarily means I don’t have a position. Maybe you think you’re infallible and incapable of misunderstanding, but I assure you you’re not, and I hope you understand that.
When you scalp land, you’re reducing the supply of land. I assume you have an at least rudimentary understanding of supply/demand, so you know that reducing supply increases cost with no changes in demand (fun sidenote, demand for housing is actually increasing as population increases, so this effect is even more pronounced).
This increased cost in housing/land will be felt by the working class. So as an externality of your profitting off increases in land value (caused in part by this scalping), the working class will have to spend more on housing.
So owners get more money and workers get less money.
What we see in societies that don’t have this gross feedback loop is housing costs that remain healthily at 5-10% of median income. Our society is instead at 30-80%, and it’s growing relative to wages (not just inflation).
GPU scalping isn’t technically scalping either by some definitions, but the layman usage of the word is “buying up a product and selling it back at an inflated price”. Someone is still a GPU scalper even if it takes them 2 years to resell some stock.
By this definition, housing scalpers are scalpers too. I’m not in the business of prescribing how people should speak, so if you have some academic issue with the word “scalping” I can choose a different one. We’ll call it “yeegstrafing”, but my contention is still the same despite what you call it.
People correctly have an issue with GPU yeegstrafers, because they’re not providing any value, they’re just hoarding excess goods and reselling to make a profit. Housing/land yeegstrafers are doing the same thing with necessities.
You may claim that housing or land more generally (you need land for housing/shelter) is not a necessity, but larger society disagrees. People generally regard shelter+food+water as the basic necessities. If someone successfully hoarded all the land, nobody would have access to shelter.
The correct term for buying a thing at a lower value than you sell it for after a period of time is “investing”
What you need isn’t stealing from people, it’s changing zoning laws.
You can call it scalping, yeegstrafing, investing, whatever. I recognize that depending on what you call it, people will have different emotional responses to it. If you call it scalping, it’ll be negative. Investing it’ll be positive. Yeegstrafing, probably just confusion.
But playing with words isn’t the game I’m trying to play, I have a contention with the action, not the word choice. People shouldn’t be allowed to invest in certain things, you can agree. Like you shouldn’t be able to buy up humans at a low value and sell them at a higher value later. Even if you called it investing, it’d still be impermissible.
Similarly, restricting access to land/shelter, driving up prices by reducing supply, and then later selling your hoarded supply at an excess due to said price driving is problematic. It’s restricting cheap access to housing so some people can “make” money.
Using “scalping” as the word to describe this highlights its parasitic nature, they’re siphoning value out of the economy and restricting access to shelter/land while doing it.
Using “investing” instead ignores the negative societal ramifications, and only focuses on the positive personal outcomes (generating money for yourself).
You keep assuming that things you say are true but without any reasoning whatsoever behind those things. It is not “problematic” to own land.
If anything, what’s problematic is legislating that people can’t build on land they own
The reasoning (as I’ve clearly outlined several times) is that restricting access to land/shelter in the name of extracting money from the working class is a bad societal outcome. I would imagine you agree with that, but if you don’t we’re having the wrong conversation.
Your proposal is that the idea of rent, itself, is a negative?
Yeah that’s an insane take.
This is fun for a couple of reasons:
Your reasoning? “Your insane”.
Stop being a hypocrite. It’d be great if you could both explain your position, while also not strawmanning mine.
If you don’t want to, that’s fine too, but then you should stop dragging on a useless conversation and do something you want to do.
I have to guess what you mean because you are not actually saying anything. If you’re not interested in the conversation, don’t have it.
I don’t know what “extract wealth from the working class means” in this context, because working class people aren’t exactly real estate investors, so I guessed rent.
This is what happens when you communicate with Twitter platitudes instead of actual thoughts.
Is calling me insane an “actual thought”? You expect more from me than from yourself.
Just because you don’t understand what I’m saying doesn’t mean I’m not saying anything. Not to say it’s not my fault, language is a two way street. But similarly, it’s not only my fault, you shouldn’t just assume that your misunderstanding necessarily means I don’t have a position. Maybe you think you’re infallible and incapable of misunderstanding, but I assure you you’re not, and I hope you understand that.
When you scalp land, you’re reducing the supply of land. I assume you have an at least rudimentary understanding of supply/demand, so you know that reducing supply increases cost with no changes in demand (fun sidenote, demand for housing is actually increasing as population increases, so this effect is even more pronounced).
This increased cost in housing/land will be felt by the working class. So as an externality of your profitting off increases in land value (caused in part by this scalping), the working class will have to spend more on housing.
So owners get more money and workers get less money.
What we see in societies that don’t have this gross feedback loop is housing costs that remain healthily at 5-10% of median income. Our society is instead at 30-80%, and it’s growing relative to wages (not just inflation).