This economy is so bad

[thegeneral 2,897]

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Cut your own grass lazy fat 

You looking to pickup some shifts? What about weeding.

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

It sounds great. I’d pitch in some bucks via my taxes for a test trial. 

So what other ideas are out there? How are you addressing rent, housing prices, when places like NYC have like a 1% vacancy rate?

New York would be a slog, a Democrat-dominated environment means we cannot use common sense, and anything we propose will be vilified.  The best/first step to help New York is to allow conservatives to be elected, not saying that liberals will tolerate any other ideas, but there could be some moderation and allowance for simple common sense.

At the end of the day it is mostly driven by supply and demand, but also too taxes and regulation.    Costs are always passed along, and the government needs to get out of the business of making things more expensive.

[thegeneral 2,897]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

New York would be a slog, a Democrat-dominated environment means we cannot use common sense, and anything we propose will be vilified.  The best/first step to help New York is to allow conservatives to be elected, not saying that liberals will tolerate any other ideas, but there could be some moderation and allowance for simple common sense.

At the end of the day it is mostly driven by supply and demand, but also too taxes and regulation.    Costs are always passed along, and the government needs to get out of the business of making things more expensive.

“Common sense” the market seems to be doing its thing there. How would you manipulate people willingly paying to live in an area?

This sounds like a bunch of vague mumbo jumbo you are spitting out. Linking random years old opinion pieces. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,930]

11 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I went to see Dead and Company on its opening night at the Sphere.  The next morning the Dow Jones hit 40,000.  The Dow retreated for a bit but is back above 39,000.  Gasoline has not risen in my arer this summer, hovering around $3.29 a gallon.  It did not even rise over the 4th of July weekend which is rare.  Those things are pretty good.

 

On the other hand insurance rates are kiling me.  Food prices are ridiculous, especially for beef and eggs, and locally (has nothing to do with this Administration) they are raising property taxes exhorbitantly.  As long as the markets hold I am doing fine and would have no difficulty with four more years like the last four. 

Yeah. The market didn’t go up the four years prior to that. 

[edjr 6,578]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

I did not. If it’s trying to tell me airports are only filled because of illegals sleeping in benches, well I’m not buying it

Oh, I took you for a serious person. my bad.

[thegeneral 2,897]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah. The market didn’t go up the four years prior to that. 

The stock market has killed it and made millionaires many, many times over sense that socialist foreigner took over in 2008. 

Before that Clinton. 

That dope W is the only scrub in the bunch. 

[TimHauck 2,614]

25 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I was hoping you might be inclined to disparage the idea.....but since Biden is on board.....    shouldnt you be on board?

Are you in favor of the idea? At first glance I would be 

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah. The market didn’t go up the four years prior to that. 

I understand the Nasdaq and S&P 500 are at all time highs.  I am doing alright in the markets.  Nothing to write home about, but alright and alright is good enough.  I do worry some about inflation.  If it can stay below 3% as an average I will be satisfied.  At rates above that, particularly when it goes above 5% I become concerned.  

[TimHauck 2,614]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

It’s bad hotels, airports, restaurants are filled. Stock market at all time highs. Property values through the roof. Things are so hot the Fed can’t lower interest rates.

 

1 hour ago, Jose M said:

Fok the poors!

Dullard doesn't understand this is all bad news for poor people.   

Uh, those things mean there are more jobs for the poors, dumbazz

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

There is a way that Biden could lower inflation significantly right now- remove the tariffs on China. Endorse free trade. He should have done this years ago. 
 

If Trump is elected he’s only going to make inflation far far worse. I just don’t understand how people can’t see that. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,930]

3 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I understand the Nasdaq and S&P 500 are at all time highs.  I am doing alright in the markets.  Nothing to write home about, but alright and alright is good enough.  I do worry some about inflation.  If it can stay below 3% as an average I will be satisfied.  At rates above that, particularly when it goes above 5% I become concerned.  

So what if it’s at an all time high if it started at an all time high? It’s the amount it went up by, not the level it got too. Sheeez.  

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It’s the amount it went up by, not the level it got to. 

Classic example of a word salad. 

[Strike 5,186]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

There is a way that Biden could lower inflation significantly right now- remove the tariffs on China. Endorse free trade. He should have done this years ago. 
 

If Trump is elected he’s only going to make inflation far far worse. I just don’t understand how people can’t see that. 

Do you accept the possibility that you could be wrong Tim?  You have been in the past on a lot of big issues. 

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So what if it’s at an all time high if it started at an all time high? It’s the amount it went up by, not the level it got too. Sheeez.  

I was merely noting the facts of the matter.  Noting that things in the markets were not dire.  Also, if it had already achieved the current level it would not be an all time high, that would be a return to its record high.

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Do you accept the possibility that you could be wrong Tim?  You have been in the past on a lot of big issues. 

On free trade? No. 
This isn’t a story about who did what. It’s a principled position. Either you understand economics or you don’t. 

[Strike 5,186]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

On free trade? No. 
This isn’t a story about who did what. It’s a principled position. Either you understand economics or you don’t. 

Well you don't.  You never have. 

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

Just now, Strike said:

Well you don't.  You never have. 

If you believe tariffs are a good idea for our economic prosperity then you’re simply a fool. Sorry. 

[thegeneral 2,897]

18 minutes ago, edjr said:

Oh, I took you for a serious person. my bad.

Sorry man. If I open a vid and that time bar at the bottom is more than a minute I’m likely not watching…unless it’s women surfing or doing pole vault or something ,

[RLLD 4,143]

29 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

“Common sense” the market seems to be doing its thing there. How would you manipulate people willingly paying to live in an area?

This sounds like a bunch of vague mumbo jumbo you are spitting out. Linking random years old opinion pieces. 

I do not think we have to manipulated people. Again, its about supply and demand primarily, so when you have demand, supply needs to increase for costs to lower  Now, people want places to live, so we take space that is no longer needed for commercial activity, and rezone it to meet the need.

There is an opportunity before us here, and if government can stay out of the way, this could work really well.  Consider the ancillary benefit to foot traffic business as well

[RLLD 4,143]

19 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Are you in favor of the idea? At first glance I would be 

It is an idea I support. I think it meets the need.  Demand is high, so reallocating this space to the demand meets the housing need as well as the need to moderate the market.....through market forces.

I could see existing real estate entities on the residential side having an objection of course, and there will also perhaps be some from civic groups and government.

Too many people abandon simple solutions with odd objection.

[purdygood 334]

Just now, RLLD said:

It is an idea I support. I think it meets the need.  Demand is high, so reallocating this space to the demand meets the housing need as well as the need to moderate the market.....through market forces.

I could see existing real estate entities on the residential side having an objection of course, and there will also perhaps be some from civic groups and government.

Too many people abandon simple solutions with odd objection.

I live in the Bay Area, there is hella empty office space. But those buildings are owned by somebody... who is fine carrying that cost.  Joe Biden cant simply call the owner and be like "Heyyy bro, (stammer stammer) it would be cool if you could like (stammer stammer) pump $5Million upfront and make those apartments instead?"   Again, I agree with you it's wasted space, but realistically could any politician do??

[thegeneral 2,897]

8 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I do not think we have to manipulated people. Again, its about supply and demand primarily, so when you have demand, supply needs to increase for costs to lower  Now, people want places to live, so we take space that is no longer needed for commercial activity, and rezone it to meet the need.

There is an opportunity before us here, and if government can stay out of the way, this could work really well.  Consider the ancillary benefit to foot traffic business as well

Right a lot of rich people want to live in big cities. Again, you are telling me a Dem or Progressive would be the ones to stop this one idea you read about? 

That seems unlikely to me. 

[thegeneral 2,897]

2 minutes ago, purdygood said:

I live in the Bay Area, there is hella empty office space. But those buildings are owned by somebody... who is fine carrying that cost.  Joe Biden cant simply call the owner and be like "Heyyy bro, (stammer stammer) it would be cool if you could like (stammer stammer) pump $5Million upfront and make those apartments instead?"   Again, I agree with you it's wasted space, but realistically could any politician do??

I’m sure commercial real estate guy would love getting a bunch of checks or write-offs to make this happen

The all the poor people can move off the streets and into downtown SF (one of the best locations in the country BTW!)

[seafoam1 2,799]

11 minutes ago, RLLD said:

It is an idea I support. I think it meets the need.  Demand is high, so reallocating this space to the demand meets the housing need as well as the need to moderate the market.....through market forces.

I could see existing real estate entities on the residential side having an objection of course, and there will also perhaps be some from civic groups and government.

Too many people abandon simple solutions with odd objection.

biden would just fill them up with illegals. newsom would fill them up with homeless. Whoever acts first.

The owners have nothing to gain and everthing to lose.

[RLLD 4,143]

5 minutes ago, purdygood said:

I live in the Bay Area, there is hella empty office space. But those buildings are owned by somebody... who is fine carrying that cost.  Joe Biden cant simply call the owner and be like "Heyyy bro, (stammer stammer) it would be cool if you could like (stammer stammer) pump $5Million upfront and make those apartments instead?"   Again, I agree with you it's wasted space, but realistically could any politician do??

Concur with your assessment, notably since it echoes what I have already stated.  But I remain hopeful that the potential can eventually be exploited.

[TimHauck 2,614]

5 minutes ago, purdygood said:

I live in the Bay Area, there is hella empty office space. But those buildings are owned by somebody... who is fine carrying that cost.  Joe Biden cant simply call the owner and be like "Heyyy bro, (stammer stammer) it would be cool if you could like (stammer stammer) pump $5Million upfront and make those apartments instead?"   Again, I agree with you it's wasted space, but realistically could any politician do??

Aren’t many of them for sale?  I would assume the incentive for change would come in the form of tax incentives for a potential buyer (or maybe the current owner).

[RLLD 4,143]

4 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Right a lot of rich people want to live in big cities. Again, you are telling me a Dem or Progressive would be the ones to stop this one idea you read about? 

That seems unlikely to me. 

I think it could happen, but then again obstacles could come from almost any area. The biggest problem presented by Democrats would be burdensome regulations, and then past that there would likely be claims of racism etc..... we know the drill. 

[thegeneral 2,897]

Just now, RLLD said:

I think it could happen, but then again obstacles could come from almost any area. The biggest problem presented by Democrats would be burdensome regulations, and then past that there would likely be claims of racism etc..... we know the drill. 

And business guy when it goes titts up says thanks for the money, we tried, here’s your mess to clean up.

I think the answer to this particular question is no…there is not any progressive politician who would be all about this kind of deal.

[purdygood 334]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Aren’t many of them for sale?  I would assume the incentive for change would come in the form of tax incentives for a potential buyer (or maybe the current owner).

No, most of them aren't "for sale", they are "for lease" but the rents are insane. The owners because of Prop 13 pay such low property taxes because they have owned them 30/40 years they just sit on them and wait for a tenant stupid enough to pay them what they want.

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

And business guy when it goes titts up says thanks for the money, we tried, here’s your mess to clean up.

I think the answer to this particular question is no…there is not any progressive politician who would be all about this kind of deal.

Not sure I follow what you are trying to say

[thegeneral 2,897]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Not sure I follow what you are trying to say

There are no Dems who would be standing in the way of this plan. They love giving shet away, remember. Hell this idea is probably in AOC’s deal. 

 

[RLLD 4,143]

8 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

There are no Dems who would be standing in the way of this plan. They love giving shet away, remember. Hell this idea is probably in AOC’s deal. 

 

Time will tell, I am rather confident they will.

[thegeneral 2,897]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Time will tell, I am rather confident they will.

How would one prevent just “rich” people from moving into those new places we just collectively funded to get built?

[RLLD 4,143]

20 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

How would one prevent just “rich” people from moving into those new places we just collectively funded to get built?

It is wrong to prevent people from accessing something, regardless of their wealth.  If a wealthy person decided to live in a low cost abode then they should have the freedom to do so.

[thegeneral 2,897]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

It is wrong to prevent people from accessing something, regardless of their wealth.  If a wealthy person decided to live in a low cost abode then they should have the freedom to do so.

Well I think I see a potential budding problem. 

[Jose M 125]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

Sorry man. If I open a vid and that time bar at the bottom is more than a minute I’m likely not watching…unless it’s women surfing or doing pole vault or something ,

Of course, longer than a minute might mean complex ideas that you're not equipped for.  

[thegeneral 2,897]

1 minute ago, Jose M said:

Of course, longer than a minute might mean complex ideas that you're not equipped for.  

Thats probably it! 

[Jose M 125]

Had to make a stop today.  Gas prices are always 20 cents higher in the ghetto.  

[RLLD 4,143]

4 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Well I think I see a potential budding problem. 

Not sure. I am not aware of wealthy people striving to access low-income housing. Perhaps its possible, but more often then not those folks seem to be striving for more expensive housing.

[thegeneral 2,897]

Just now, RLLD said:

Not sure. I am not aware of wealthy people striving to access low-income housing. Perhaps its possible, but more often then not those folks seem to be striving for more expensive housing.

How are these going to be low income housing? 

In any case what about people purchasing these to then rent out?