volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@trans_caracal again, I would suggest that you see more of the world, expand your experiences.

No, I'm not a liar. I can bring references for anything I say.

If you think what I'm saying is false, that just really reflects that you haven't seen enough of the world, that you're view is very constrained to whatever echo chambers you have engaged in.

Broaden your world view! Question your authorities! There's a big wide world out there.

@magitweeter Well right, because it sounds like you are using a non-standard definition of wealth, so I ask what you mean when you use that term.

The thing is, a landlord cannot demand a rental agreement. They can only offer an agreement. If a potential renter doesn't like the agreement, they can walk away.

And that happens every single day.

So the landlord offers to give away control of their property in a rental agreement, and if you really want to focus on rental agreements then you are focusing on the ways in which "wealthy" people give away the thing that you consider core to being "wealthy."

If wealth is about control of property, then renting out property is 100% an example of a wealthy person giving up property rights to other people.

Even in that reduced model of wealth, you see that our culture promotes redistribution of wealth, the opposite of hoarding of wealth.

@Vincarsi

@magitweeter Right, and in the real world that's not how things work as property owners give up the power to their claims, handing power over to tenants through rental agreements.

And again, let me repeat for the 100th time, I don't know why you're obsessed with this corner of the world, but even this corner of the world that you are choosing doesn't support your case.

@Vincarsi

@magitweeter The landlord experiences a negative opportunity cost if the property goes vacant.

That's not even to mention the way property degrades when there's no one around to take care of it.

Tenancy grants the occupant the power to occupy the property, which is EXACTLY a form of the landlord giving up power to control occupation. You are flat out talking about the opposite of hoarding.

So even ignoring all of the other features of common virtual agreements, the landlord gives up no power... except for the extremely substantial power over the comings and goings of the tenant.

And that's the problem. To support your model of how this works, you have to turn a blind eye to the most important factors of the equation.

Your model is just not in line with reality of how the real world works.

@Vincarsi

@magitweeter I think the original proposition was that wealthy people hoard wealth, so the comparison would be between what happens without the rental agreement versus with the rental agreement.

Because apparently we are reducing wealth to renting for some reason.

So when wealthy people, defined as owning property for some reason, offer to rent their property to a tenant, they are giving up some of their control of the property.

If you want to set up the comparison, it is unrented versus rented, with the rental offer being the opposite of hoarding, giving up that control over the property.

So basically, the rental of property is exactly an example of how wealthy people don't hoard in modern societies, if you really want to frame it that way for some reason.

@Vincarsi

@CapitalB and yet that doesn't disclose the possibility that the country will fail.

Just because an eventuality is bad doesn't mean it won't happen.

It's even more reason to recognize that truth and work hard to make sure it doesn't happen. Even more reason to recognize the interface between institutions and humans because the worst case scenarios are pretty darn bad.

@Nazareno

@CapitalB what use of them comes down to the individual. Maybe they have no use. If the individual doesn't find any usefulness in them than they are useless.

They have to provide usefulness to people or else they are irrelevant.

@Nazareno

@Orb2069 wow, there are are SO many complications ranging from the political through the practical, from the steering of democratic processes through the literal moving of currency from one place to another.

If poverty was simple to alleviate then it would have been alleviated long long ago.

@gknauss

@CapitalB but that's still the nationalistic thinking.

I'm not convinced it applies to the new environment of today.

@Nazareno

@CapitalB but that pattern of thinking results in empowering organizations over individuals, institutions over the democratic process.

I don't think it works.

@Nazareno

@magitweeter That's correct, and the tenant also can't grow wings and fly around the room. So what?

The issue of whether the wealthy person is hoarding wealth is resolved by the wealthy person, apparently, in this context that you seem obsessed with, giving up their power in exchange for rent, regardless of whether the renter has absolute dominion over the property and all of God's creatures.

For whatever reason you seem to want to reduce the whole concept of wealth into landlord agreements, which to me is pretty dumb but whatever, but even at that reductionist point we see the opposite of hoarding as the landlord gives up power in exchange for rent, even if the renter doesn't have god-like authority over the world, which seems to be what you're aiming for, for some reason.

Yes, it's true that the renter only gets to live there and doesn't have the authority to resell the property for profit. No, that doesn't mean the smelly wealthy owner hasn't given up power through the rental agreement.

@Vincarsi

@magitweeter again, I was assuming that you were not living in some anarchocapitalist hellscape

If the rental agreement is uninforceable then all bets are off and you are talking about a different reality than I am.

At that point you're not so much talking about a renter as a squatter, so I'm assuming here that the rental agreement would be enforceable.

If you're talking about an agreement that's not legal then that's a completely different matter, one that's certainly divorced from modern societies.

@Vincarsi

@CapitalB I would say that the focus on countries really overlooks the more important factor of individuals, making sure that people are able to get honest information if they care about the situation.

The focus on countries instead of people promotes nationalism that all too often buys into the propaganda. Either put out by or supporting those countries.

@Nazareno

@AlisonW I would love to talk about those things! Since all of them have been really mischaracterized in popular media.

But I don't know what you think happened so I can't really address the myths behind them unless you lay out what you have heard.

@magitweeter and what makes a renter a renter is the ability to have their claims on property enforced by the state as well.

It's an agreement. It's not a unilateral dictatorial declaration.

And again, you've never not rented a place because you didn't like the terms? A landlord can't force a renter to rent.

You're really out on a limb with this one.

@Vincarsi

@Frances_Larina or good writing.

Some people expect better from content producers, and some give them a pass.

@magitweeter have you ever not rented an apartment because the rent was too high?

I think most people have rejected rental agreements in their lives.

But none of that matters because none of it changes that the landlord gives up control in return for rental.

Again, I think it's striking how the original point about wealthy people hoarding has been narrowed to some point about a rental agreement, but even at that point, the rental agreement represents the landlord giving up control, the opposite of hoarding, even under the narrow terms that you are setting here.

Even if we accept the strikingly narrow definition of wealth that comes down too landlord-renter agreement, the landlord allowing a renter is doing the opposite of hoarding, the landlord is giving away wealth, even in that stretched framing.

@Vincarsi

@mildpeach I don't see that in the public record, though. I think you misread that.

@BlueWaveSurfer@universeodon.com

@magitweeter unless you're living in some kind of anarcho-capitalist hellscape, no, these legal agreements are subject to enforcement by law enforcement. Once the landlord gives up control in return for rent payment, it is not purely up to their free will whether they honor the legal agreements they made or not.

Yeah, it's not necessarily the case that the renter cares about fixing problems. And I am very much appreciative of diversity of values, where some renters won't particularly care. That's just a difference between my values and theirs.

But that still highlights the agency of the renter and the control given up by the landlord subject to the wishes of the renter.

It's not necessarily the case that the renter wants the agreement that I or you would want, but that's up to them. Because they have that control.

And if the landlord wants money then the landlord has to give up their control in exchange for that income.

@Vincarsi

@AlisonW the US already elected Trump.

The world didn't end.

All of those crying wolf were debunked.

Crying wolf now isn't particularly compelling.