ProbablyKaffe

Nah the math still checks out, just don't take his political conclusions for shit

Worldwide Law of Value - Samir Amin

MIM's Imperial Class Structure 1997

Divided World Divided Class - Zak Cope

Labor Aristocracy, Mass Base of Social Democracy - HW Edwards

Lenin at the international: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x03.htm#fw4

Likely, Israeli society has castes based on national origin, Muslim and Christian Palestians are at the bottom:

Really interesting video from a "Mizrahi" Jewish person and anti-Zionist: https://youtu.be/5MVIh6Rnzog

In fact you can think of much of the way the state and bourgeoisie has acted since 2008 has been to ensure that line recovers to where it should have been if no collapse. Yes, Obama foreclosed on people (mostly "new wealth" Black and Latino people), but he "saved" hundreds of millions of (mostly white) portfolios.

The Bourgeoisie knows that line is necessary to deflate class struggle, they know they'll struggle with military recruitment if soldiers can't expect to own a home at the end of their service.

For tailing it's falling for the 80% of landlords that are "small" crying about corporate competition in their little dictatorships: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6510977/5686588

The thought that they’d buy single family homes to rent out is novel to me at least; I’d never heard of such a thing before.

They started getting involved in SFH after the foreclosures of 08, because they did not lose much relative net worth compared to people who own 1-10 homes, who lost net worth on all their assets at that time. They didn't get involved before that because not many people were renting SFH in the 80s and 90s and prior, those homes were only for the middling strata and up. Also, by just financing homes in the past while prices continued to rise, there was no reason to get their hands involved to add more work when they can just seek interest on all development. When hundreds of thousands of homes suddenly became available, that's when they took the opportunity to turn it into a business. And yeah I'm minimizing them because they are indeed a minimal (0.6% of all SFH stock) component of the market and concentrated in a few markets, but that is not tied to the overall indeces of those markets whatsoever. Any investor who owns the home would have the same position as any other, corporate or "mom and pop", the resulting market will be the same.

Liberal/Petty Bourgeois media is taking advantage of the novelty of corporate investors in SFH to use us to fight for protections backing "small investors" worth millions against competition.

Housing costs (and building) are raising extra fast post 2009 because they received basically 0% interest rates to finance more homes to "recover" from the financial crisis. That corporate investors got in at that time is a simultaneous symptom of the crisis, which always benefits the highest bourgs as they eat up small capital owners (good riddance).

There is finally the last aspect that SFH cities or neighborhoods have become the "standard model" of US housing culture since the early 2000s, this is related to the eventual financial crisis too.

Artificial scarcity isn't real in the housing market

There has never been more houses to workers in the US than ever before, supply and demand is hardly a factor in the price of ground rents, those are directly tied into Imperialism's health.

Corporate investors cannot raise prices above the whole market, and if they do, all homeowners (the majority of which are "proletarians") benefit the same, so they all engage in price raising politics.

Housing prices == rents and vice versa. If housing prices collapse so will rents, because they are the same thing. As long as someone or something is able to purchase at an ever increasing price, housing costs will continue to rise.

This battle over purchasing houses, is between the petty Bourgeoisie and the haute Bourgeoisie. The only difference between mortgaging out and paying rent is whether a so-called worker can profit from their investment in years time, it's a class transition into the petty Bourgeoisie. You can look at historical charts that the price differences for renting vs loans is most often favorable towards renting, but the differences are slight.

These are also SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, 15% are rented out, 4% of those are rented out by corporations, so 0.6% of all SFH are owned to rent by corps, that 0.6% of landlords is raising the prices of all homes country wide? Besides, SFH should be for the most part destroyed for climate reasons when Socialism comes.

Home-ownership is hardly related to healthcare costs besides both being financialized sectors that seek rent, I'm not sure what your connection is.

1. Housing prices and rents always go up, because it's mandated by state policy. Rents == Prices because home values are tied to expected rents.

2. "Institutional Investors" own at most 4% of SFH rental housing, this is not total SFH just the 15% that are rented out. Corporations are a minor factor of homeowners, whom nearly all are bourgeois. No matter who is speculating, the result is the same. Rents have always risen and rises are not at all tied to the % of corporate investors involved.

3. Of all SFH, less than 10% is owned by "investors" 8/10 of those are "mom and pop".

"Corporations" are a red herring in the housing question, the fault is the bourgeois structure of US housing culture which empowers tens of millions of people to surplus value and property rights.

Y'all need to read Engels on the Housing Question, don't tail the petty bourgeoisie on this.

good 🫡 I hope nobody is able to afford so the prices of homes plummet and tens of millions of speculators lose their "investment"

Gerald Horne, Torkil Lauesen, Samir Amin passed away in 2018 but he has some fairly modern works (post 08)

Aren't there 2 distinct types of landlords? There's the communes which act as a unified landlord and the peasants can choose to rent their property to outsiders/firms. Then there are people who own buildings (but not the land) in urban areas. This latter group are like people who own condos and may rent them out, but unlike the US the provincial states don't have any interest in protecting the rental and sale prices of these units.

There's also the migrant work situation, I'd guess that most renters in either urban or rural housing are migrant workers. These workers cannot purchase homes (PRC's ownership rate exceeds 90%) outside of their home province. Many rent from nearby communes or building owners, or pay very little for dorms provided by the firm/organization they work for. The housing situation relies heavily on this "market" not only for what types of housing get built, but to meet the demands of fluctuating migrant work, which is tightly coupled with outside facing industrial demands in and around the Special Economic Zones.

The last thing to say is in China's economy, landlords are actually providing a service, funny enough. Somebody wants a temporary home, and they are selling them time in it. Remember in Engels on the Housing Question, you are not exploited by a landlord on a market, which is wholly different from exploitation by a Capitalist speculating on your labor, or sharecropping and semi-feudal work. In China, most people's fear of landlords is what the Russians and Ukrainians were calling Kulaks or the military rulers who the Kulaks served, this class has been replaced by the rural communes and urban municipalities/provinces.