• 0 Posts
  • 56 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 23rd, 2024

help-circle
  • To be fair, before Trump took over the party, the Republicans were generally considered to be in a death spiral.

    The prevailing idea was that the party just didn’t have a future. Their brand was this basically an unappealing mix of boring religious people and self-professed ‘sensible’, common-sense stewards of the status quo. Looking at demographic trends at the time, they were trending towards irrelevance.

    Then Trump took over and brought back the enthusiasm. They also started to court minority votes (Hispanics, Blacks) which tend to be very socially conservative. At the same time, the democrats slipped into the ‘boring status quo protectors’ role.

    Hopefully the Dems wake up, but it might take a while.





  • Status-quo politics is dead, many major western parties just haven’t realized this yet. People want firmer political leadership that promises fundamental change and isn’t afraid of breaking things along the way.

    It’s just fucking unfortunate that (in most countries) it’s only the far right who are ahead of the curve at realizing this.

    Center to left parties need to reinvent themselves and focus less on pleasing everyone or fighting losing battles. They also need to present a much clearer vision.




  • ECB@feddit.orgtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldLine go up
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 days ago

    (Most) stocks represent partial ownership (read: control) of a company and most of their value is derived from that.

    For an extreme example: if the stock price were to drop below the amount of money that could be made by just selling off all of the assets, then someone would (in principle) just buy all the shares, sell the assets and make a profit.

    Each share represents a small bit of control over the company and their assets.





  • I recently moved to Vienna and don’t qualify for the public housing (you need to have lived here for a certain amount of time)but the sheer amount of it (and relative quality) means that even in the private market, competition is much less.

    Compared to other cities we have lived in, the rent is much lower and the quality much higher.

    Something like 60% of the population lives in either public or subsidized housing!



  • Sure, here’s a paper which explores the effects.

    Essentially, housing prices have hugely inflated (in much of the developed world) because demand is much higher than supply. Prices in the real-estate market are generally really reactive to changes in supply or demand because each ‘product’ is unique and limited, as well as being worth a lot of money so there is more pressure to maximize the potential gains.

    This sort of plan increases the resources available to the demand side without increasing the supply side. This drives up prices since there are more potential buyers.

    Anyone who couldn’t buy a house without such a program is being added the the pool of people competing for a limited supply of houses. It won’t increase supply because supply is heavily limited by other factors, most notably zoning.

    It’s unfortunate, because the thought behind such a policy is admirable. It’s trying to make buying a house more fair and more easily achievable for a broad segment of the population that currently is effectively shut out from owning a home.



  • In the UK a similar scheme just led to the entry-level segment of the real-estate market inflating faster than the rest.

    It also led to a rise in more ‘luxury’ entry-level properties being built.

    Again, it’s not exactly the same concept, but in the case of the UK, most economists agree that most buyers actually would have been better off if the policy had never been introduced, since the price rises ended up outpacing the value of the assistance.