Uh… okay, bro. You know that Donald Trump is also running in this election, right? Biden could be running single digits, and it still wouldn’t change the calculus: If a Biden alternative can’t beat Trump, they’re not going to put an albatross around the neck of their political career just to lose in November.
Newsom was on MSNBC singing Joe’s praises, just like he would have done regardless, because Newsom wants to be president, but Newsom also polls worse than Biden. That’s not hypothetical. Those polls already exist, and a drop in Biden’s numbers isn’t automatically a boost for Newsom. If Newsom thinks losing in 24 hurts his viability in 28, he wouldn’t do it. And who could blame him? It’s five months to the election.
The point is: It’s possible that all of the options are bad. Biden was in the mid-forties before the debate and the thirties after. He went from near toss-up to probably losing if the election were yesterday/today. Newsom might out-poll Biden today, but that’s not the contest.
The contest is with Trump. It’s not good enough to poll better than Biden. You have to actually carry all of Biden’s states and then some. If I’m Newsom and deciding whether to try to cobble together a five-month campaign and limp to November to save the DNC from itself and protect Amtrak Joe’s legacy when I’m starting 15 points in the hole or run my own campaign against the likes of a Haley or DeSantis also-ran once Trump is term-barred, dead, or both in four years, I’m not taking a risk at the convention unless someone makes me very, very confident that I could win.
And there’s the rub. Newsom wants to be president, and he’d love to be president in six months, but he’s not going to take over a campaign that’s already lost. If the party thinks Trump wins no matter what–not an unreasonable conclusion–why on earth would they burn their best shot of a rebound in 28?
Ratings and clicks–same thing they wanted with the debate.
This probably doesn’t work, and it’s probably not as good idea as anyone hopes (genuinely or not). It might happen anyway, but no matter what, we’re coasting toward a second Trump presidency, just like all the Russian agitprops here wanted all along.
If Biden is polling down 10 points or worse at the convention, they could drag someone else onto the stage, but my suspicion is that no one else outperforms him on short notice, even after his abysmal performance in the debate.
A few reasons:
Really? Didn’t stop me…
Just cheat? Whatever happened to class cheating? In the old days if the game was too hard and you didn’t have a big brother to do it for you, you just put in the godmode code or turned on a trainer or something.
Some games are just hard. That’s what makes getting good at them feel rewarding. The Souls games haven’t really been for me either (due to the pking–not so much the difficulty), but it’s not like the game makers owe me anything.
They decided to sell access to the content in exchange for user information, thereby forcing human readers to choose between surrendering privacy or using other means to access the content, all in order to make up purportedly for a perceived slight by bots. Maybe their motives are pure as the driven snow–and it’s their content, so they can wall it off however they please–but I’m confident you don’t genuinely mean to suggest that this measure will stop the content from being scraped and fed to LLMs.
Datawalled. >(
That’s a game of legal Russian roulette I wouldn’t want to play. Eventually he’s going to rip off the wrong person, and in the meantime all his victims have the option of sitting on their claims (SOL notwithstanding) to find out if he ever makes any money.
Say more about this? Why is it a worse profession? Anywhere I can get a layperson-friendly deep dive on this (that doesn’t require a graduate degree in mathematics)? I’m fascinated by the nuance between niche academic disciplines and the “politics” of academia.
They actually don’t care if the kids are religious. They just need them to be uneducated, pliable, and poor. Then when the religious mood shifts, the owners can just move public opinion wherever they want it.
This isn’t about ideology: It’s about money. They want the tax dollars in the private schools because they own those schools. They don’t want the Catholic Church or the UMC getting their hands on that money. They want it going into standardized tests and “accredited” curricula–nice, private, for-profit industries the owners can use to fatten their portfolios.
Indeed. Of course, at least some of the folks left holding the bag will inevitably be the ones who either just placed a bad bet (e.g., got the property at a steal and are hoping for remediation/relief/miracles) or came to their misfortune honestly and just can’t afford to bail themselves out (e.g, inheritors of uninsurable coastal land who can’t sell it for any price).
I’m sympathetic to the latter. --less so the former, but even so, the difference between six inches of sea level rise and a meter is the difference between saving or losing a lot of properties. I could understand how someone might guess wrong about how bad it will be for their favorite beach.
Like land reform in general, the policy needs to protect residents first, small investors next, and large investors last or not at all. This is going to create citizen refugees, whether they’re at fault or not. Bankrupting speculators and gamblers is fine, but adding millions of new homeless is still a societal problem. The best time to prepare was 20 years ago, and the second best time is immediately and without delay.
As a young teenager: Do not start working until you have to. Once you start, you’ll never stop.
Fuck Leandro. Never forget.
Thank you for this. That was a fantastic survey of some non-materialistic perspectives on consciousness. I have no idea what future research might reveal, but it’s refreshing to see that there are people who are both very interested in the questions and also committed to the scientific method.
The hog farm is a hypothetical example. Getting hung up on it doesn’t change the reality that there are alternative uses of property that don’t require new zoning. In places where they don’t exist they will be made to exist, because people will sooner burn down their properties than give them away.
And you’re now suggesting that instead of renting, property owners should hold the notes on subprime mortgages? Your position is “If you’re creditworthy enough to own a second home, you should be forced to sell it to someone who can’t afford it and carry a note yourself at tremendous risk that an American bank knows better than to hold.” You were alive in 2008, right? You want a Depression? That’s how you get a Depression. When you find yourself advertising subprime mortgages in order to make your scheme work, don’t you think that might be a good time to reevaluate?
The seller isn’t holding the house when the buyer defaults. The seller is holding the house, the buyer’s damages to the house, the cost of the foreclosure, and the cost of deficiency litigation against the defaulting buyer who is probably judgment-proof, and that’s assuming the seller doesn’t also lose the house at foreclosure, since a foreclosure is a public sale. So the seller carries all of the risk while the unqualified buyer gets the equity. I don’t even own any land to rent, but fuck that. I’d sooner let it sit empty. The only people making money in that environment are real estate lawyers.
And none of this even considers that currently, a creditworthy seller statistically has given her own mortgage on the rental property in the first place, and that means the seller can’t finance the house herself because she can’t transfer good title to anyone without paying off her own note first. That’s a problem that doesn’t exist for, you guessed it, landlords. That scenario exists to currently enable people to buy second homes and generate wealth for their families, and it’s impossible in your regime in which apparently the upper middle class should not exist at all.
The bottom line is that your scheme is a disaster. I don’t say that to be mean. It’s just out of touch with economic reality. People can’t afford houses, and forcing landlords to sell their land doesn’t make people able to afford it. Credit and lending isn’t made up. It’s based on actual risk assessment, and forcing landlords to bear that risk while also losing their land isn’t a transfer of wealth to vulnerable populations or younger generations. It’s an erasure of wealth by procedure, bureaucracy, and waste.
And the owner-occupier thing? You know people can lie about their residency and building occupancy, right?
Your scheme, if implemented, would not solve the housing crisis. It targets the wrong people, it’s economically indefensible, and most importantly, it destroys class solidarity thay would otherwise exist between small landowners and renters. The only thing you might accomplish is a tremendous wave of violence, because I think I can speak for a lot of Americans here:
I have been tremendously, exceedingly fortunate and privileged to buy land. I wish everyone were so fortunate. I worked very hard for it. Other members of my family have also, and as much as I dread it, eventually I may inherit a second home that has been in my family for generations and was paid for by decades of backbreaking labor by my ancestors. When that day comes, I may rent one of these properties until my son is old enough to live there with his family. That’s the entirety of my retirement and investment strategy. My savings will simply not be enough on their own.
And your scheme suggests instead that I should be forced to sell to someone who may well fail to pay for it. No thanks. That’s a nonstarter, and it’s a nonstarter for everyone whose story even remotely resembles mine. In my part of the world, that’s the story of every house in the county. Your scheme doesn’t work for the simple reason that people here would sooner overthrow the government than let it stand.
I will never deed these properties away. They are paid for with my family’s blood. If you want to take the land from me or anyone similarly situated, you’re going to have to do it with guns.
That’s an attitude that can only exist for small landowners. Maybe we should try a scheme that doesn’t put them on the same footing with institutional investors. I really don’t like being on the same side of an issue as an investment bank. --but I like it a lot more than your plan to set the middle class back a hundred years.
Either way I think we’re done here. Take it easy.
A land contract is a sale. So is a private mortgage. I don’t want to be condescending here, but it’s not unreasonable to expect that you know what those terms mean when you use them as examples. Your regime also expects that the seller carry the note (which in every or almost every jurisdiction is how a land contract works now–it’s almost indistinguishable from a mortgage as a matter of law–and in any jurisdiction where I’m wrong about this, it’s worse for the buyer anyway). If the seller is put in a position where you’re trying to incentivize them to sell, demanding that they bear additional risk and cost isn’t going to do that. I also assume you understand that this scenario increases the likelihood that the seller is the one left holding the bag if the bad credit purchaser defaults. Is it fair to assume the purchaser has bad credit? Yes, because purchasers with excellent credit and assets can already buy property now.
Doubling property taxes doesn’t get you the result you want either. It just hurts the small owners, because property tax doesn’t care how many properties you own; it only cares about the property to which it’s attached. Large corporations don’t care about a doubled property tax, because they can just eat it and raise the rents. They’re already colluding to fix rents, and that’s the whole problem. Tax credit for an occupier? Terrific. We’ll put the CEO in the penthouse, put the rest of the C suite in our other penthouses downtown, and use the extra cash for stock buybacks.
What’s actually needed is a wealth tax. Don’t penalize someone for owning a nice house. Penalize them for owning thirty houses.
Now, I agree in principle that more people should be able to own land, and I also agree that the current situation in which land is being increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer ultra-rich entities is unsustainable (and heinous, besides). But the “if you’re currently a landlord, you should be forced to sell your property to whoever you might otherwise rent it to” just doesn’t work. You simply can’t make it attractive enough, because you can’t change the reality that most renters just can’t afford to buy the property. If they could, the problem wouldn’t exist. If I own valuable property, there’s no magic hand-waving you can do that is going to make me want to sell to someone who can’t afford it, because I know they can’t afford it! All putting their name on the deed does is ensure that the property gets sold when they default on the note, and whoever’s holding the note has to cry foreclosure (and guess what? That does cost money and labor to the mortgagee, since the defaulting buyer is probably bankrupt/judgment proof).
So I’ll just turn the place into a hog farm instead. Now instead of renting the house I inherited from the last generation to another family while I wait for my kids to grow up (a situation I expect to find myself in within the next decade or two), I’m instead going to find another way to make it valuable. There’s no universe in which I’m going to sell it. I feel like that kind of scenario accounts for a lot of the upper middle class in the next fifty years, all else being the same. Putting those folks in the same boat with the corporate landlords is shooting your agenda in the foot.
Oh there are plenty of ways to make a property profitable. Selling it–which is both of the examples you offered–is one of the worst ways, however, and that’s why those fortunate enough to own land tend to pursue alternatives first. If you stop them from being able to rent by fiat, they’re not going to sell as a result. They’ll do something else profitable–and probably unsavory–instead.
Good for them. At least somebody did.