Red Mosquito

What Harris will face from this is the choice whether to continue what Trump started with the Abraham Accords and finish Biden’s work to get an equivalent agreement between Israel and the Saudis (remember the October 7th attack was timed to disrupt this from happening) or prioritize Palestine which will strengthen Iran’s leadership at the expense of Israel and SA.

tragabigzanda wrote:

tree_ wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Good lord no

Oh wow

I mean, even if I did think the WWII bombings were necessary — which, yikes, you’d first have to presume that a war calculus that simply equates bodies piled with dollars made is perfectly fine — wouldn’t that suggest that the Geneva conventions were sound, and that Israel’s repeated violation of those conventions made for illegal warfare?

somone should Chernobyl the holy land so no one wants it anymore

spike wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

tree_ wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Good lord no

Oh wow

I mean, even if I did think the WWII bombings were necessary — which, yikes, you’d first have to presume that a war calculus that simply equates bodies piled with dollars made is perfectly fine — wouldn’t that suggest that the Geneva conventions were sound, and that Israel’s repeated violation of those conventions made for illegal warfare?

somone should Chernobyl the holy land so no one wants it anymore

This is literally why the US behaves the way it does:

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/israel-samson ... ted-world/

BurtReynolds wrote:I can't imagine a poll in the middle of a war being accurate. If someone bombed my family, then asked me if I thought people who attacked my attackers committed atrocities, I'd probably spit in their face and stab them in the neck. i certainly wouldnt say "yes".

As would most people. This doesn’t get factored in, though. People see those surveys and that’s all they need to justify all this. The Muslim fanaticism is a weak argument, too. Most religions, Christianity included, provide an easy path to extremism if pushed in that direction. It doesn’t just sprout from nothing.

"When I am President, we will end the housing shortage by building 3 million homes and rentals."


How is this possible? Who will do the work? Where? With what land? With which materials? Or are we finally at 'live in ze pods'?

there is lots of open land in the Midwest and are plenty of aspiring construction workers too

tragabigzanda wrote:I think the incentives for developers are reasonable. Materials are available but generally more costly and require longer lead times, and therefore more conservative cost estimates and market pricing…

Where I get lost is what regulations will prohibit serial RE investors from owning the new housing stock and renting at high rates.

Supply and demand?

Bi_3 wrote:How is this possible? Who will do the work? Where? With what land? With which materials? Or are we finally at 'live in ze pods'?

Not to mention what federal power exists to do such a thing?

I mean I'm glad that there's an understanding that this is a supply issue, putting aside the typical pandering about corporate greed, of course. Aside from Congress leaning on states and localities to ease zoning restrictions through grants and incentives, it's tough to know exactly what the federal government could do. Housing is overwhelming a state and more so local issue. But I'd rather her promise supply fixes as opposed to the $25,000 demand subsidy that would only make the problem even worse, so I guess that's good.

Of course, if she wanted to make housing more affordable she could promise to repeal Trump tariffs that contribute to obscene materials costs.

I'm looking forward to her providing details of this plan and others in the future. Until now, we can only speculate. She said "we can". Let's hope it's true. If not, if it'll get her voted in over Trump, let her lie until the sun comes home.

tree_ wrote:there is lots of open land in the Midwest and are plenty of aspiring construction workers too

It's about 2000 additional new homes constructed every 24 hours if you start on inauguration day. Certainly not impossible in aggregate across the country, but not realistic and the best bet is conversion of empty commercial office space into "euro dorm style" rentals/condos given the logistical/infrastructure/schools/power/water challenges and that the people who need these (and their jobs) are not located anywhere near where the unused space is. Just look at Cali's high speed rail or the public EV charger network for an example of what will probably happen.

I can't believe someone would try to tie Harris to Biden.

tragabigzanda wrote:

4/5 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I think the incentives for developers are reasonable. Materials are available but generally more costly and require longer lead times, and therefore more conservative cost estimates and market pricing…

Where I get lost is what regulations will prohibit serial RE investors from owning the new housing stock and renting at high rates.

Supply and demand?

lol when has that ever stopped speculative investors before?

I mean rents have been falling for a little while now, haven't they? I feel like you're conflating speculative investors who definitely can bid up home prices with their ability to charge rents which is absolutely constrained by supply and demand. As rental supply outstrips rental demand it literally doesn't matter how speculative or greedy they are, rents will fall.

I reread your post, I shouldn’t have said you conflated anything. In my reply to you, I was suggesting supply and demand specifically as what would regulate rents. You’re of course right that speculators can drive up home prices to their hearts content. I missed that you mentioned both home prices and rent.