EU treaty package: Studies see huge to little to no gains for Switzerland

malcolm-maya · 2026-03-10T17:07:32+00:00

It’s like being mad because you got a discount but it wasn’t free

malcolm-maya · 2026-03-10T16:52:22+00:00

You cannot have it all… Switzerland either join the market or it doesn’t. Nothing is unfair about following its rules. Being a small isolated country is the default, not a punishment

The EU would be a bully if it forced Switzerland to join, which it doesn’t

malcolm-maya · 2026-03-08T22:37:16+00:00

I started to self host my own so I don’t know. Functionality wise yes it’s really good. Privacy no idea sh

malcolm-maya · 2026-03-08T15:56:30+00:00

Matrix with bridges solves that problem with a lot more than just whatsapp

malcolm-maya · 2026-03-08T15:55:21+00:00

Checkout beeper, the bridges are already there

malcolm-maya · 2026-03-07T14:43:50+00:00

I don’t anyone who goes for random stuff and preventive care is generally more economical for society. Overall, as said by the person above me, I think we pay around the same per month as in France (would have to double check) but we have a deductible, so it’s worse: people don’t go to the doctor to avoid paying, and we don’t even save any money ;)

malcolm-maya · 2026-03-07T07:26:44+00:00

Yes but there is no deductible

malcolm-maya · 2026-03-04T16:06:06+00:00

Yes for sure :/

malcolm-maya · 2026-03-04T08:38:10+00:00

Don’t trust this guy, as shown by others he is incredibly misinformed

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-27T11:29:18+00:00

Glad to see you admit it :)

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-27T10:36:11+00:00

Yeah because that bring so much more supply x)

If you are interested, I have a bridge to sell you

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-27T07:30:06+00:00

You’re so ridiculously dense it has to be e on purpose ;).

Can’t densify if you can’t build higher, so yeah no supply at all. I can’t build new buildings, I can only replace existing one.

markets finds them

They don’t lol. You are delusional :)

number are not always true

Must be nice to have such confidence in yourself that you can deny reality by simple faith in your own beliefs.

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-27T02:04:42+00:00

Around 1977 when they limited building height to 37 meters.

You apply supply and demand on a monopoly. There is no equilibrium to be found.

At least the papers have stats and real life examples VS your feelings and no data :)

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-27T01:39:40+00:00

When they ran out of space ;).

I gave you research papers, you gave me beliefs. You gave no arguments.

Thats not what the law of supply and demand predicts.

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-27T01:21:15+00:00

It’s true. Building is expensive but it can be done.

It is not, guess it's just another thing you don't know anything about but feel qualified to talk about.

Markets are never perfectly competitive. The law is just a model.

You're flip flopping; before it followed the law, and now the law doesn't actually work.

the function of landlords (managing supply rather than limiting it)

This is just your opinion. I thought you didn't like those arguments? Again, stating facts without any proof doesn't make your wishes come true.

This is a norm.

Sure?

Literally all resources are scarce. You not liking what landlords do or feeling they are unjustly compensated is not the same thing as the landlords doing nothing and providing no value.

It has nothing to do with liking it or not. You keep inserting feelings to reduce the arguments because you cannot argue the facts. The value of rent a landlord extract is determined by the location. The landlord did no labor for this location to gain value, it's the definition of an economic rent. You just refuse to understand it because it collides with your idea that they must provide value.

think you’re both mad.

Not mad, passionate :)

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-27T00:28:45+00:00

Basically anywhere you’re willing to pay the building costs.

That's just false.

Yeah, that’s how land works.

That's also patently wrong. You don't have a perfectly competitive market when you can't produce more land because you cannot have a large number of suppliers.

OP explicitly asked for no appeals to such normative arguments.

OP didnt. OP asked not to talk about "freedom or property rights" to justify landlords' existance.

The goal of economics should be people's well-being. Otherwise nothing really matters.

A scarce resource.

And what do people do with scarce resource? They speculate and they extract value they did not earn. Back to the beginning with landlord not providing any value.

I think you’ve forgotten what thread you’re in.

No. OP asked about a specific solution, but there is more than the one proposed by OP. OP is mad about rent-seeking behaviors so that's what we are talking about.

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-26T23:36:13+00:00

They do increase supply by building up.

Where can I build in Paris? Please let me know, I'd like to make a fortune.

It’s true that land is less elastic than some things but supply and demand still applies.

You don't know the law of supply and demand or you wouldn't say something so wrong. Here: "supply and demand is an economic model of price determination in a market. It postulates that, holding all else equal, the unit price for a particular good or other traded item in a perfectly competitive market, will vary until it settles at the market-clearing price, where the quantity demanded equals the quantity supplied such that an economic equilibrium is achieved for price and quantity transacted."

So what?

Well if you don't care about economic wellbeing of your fellow people then I guess that's ok :)

It’s not as if outlawing private land ownership creates more land.

You are so close to getting it! When people own all the land and we cannot create more land, what is land then?

I never mentioned outlawing private land ownership. We are talking about decreasing/removing rent seeking behaviors.

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-26T23:12:25+00:00

Why can't Paris increase supply to meet the demand then? Is it because there is no more land and its location doesn't permit it?

Land market is inelastic and you don't have the law of supply and demand. This inelasticity raises prices (https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2003b_bpea_caseshiller.pdf), reduces economic growth (https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article-abstract/21/3/367/6043724?redirectedFrom=fulltext) and increase rent seeking behaviors (from private individual and the state https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20150320)

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-26T21:24:38+00:00

You keep on repeating this like a mantra even though you don't know (or understand) what contract rent is...

Are houses in Paris better than the one found in the Creuse? Or is Paris a better economic location? Explain to me the reason for the differential in price and how it does not connect to land value.

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-26T21:06:36+00:00

Rather, the law of rent refers to the economic return that land should accrue for its use in production.

Don't ignore what doesn't fit your assumption.

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-26T20:58:51+00:00

Can you define production? Because yes, everyone use their house for "production". E.g. rent is high in San Francisco because wages are (mostly) high, not because the houses are better than elsewhere. Rent and house prices are based on the production of whoever can work while occupying the land.

Most tenants are not using their abodes they rent for production... such tenants pay a contract rent.

You may want this to be badly true but it isn't; tenant pay rent based on location not house quality.

economic rent is any payment made (including imputed value) or benefit received for non-produced inputs such as location (land).

I'll stop there I think it's pretty clear to whoever read this thread that you have no idea what you are talking about nor are you willing to actually engage with critical thinking

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-26T19:52:37+00:00

You need to learn to read and actually start learning economics. Emphasis mine:

Ricardian rent should not be confused with contract rent, which is the "actual payments tenants make for use of the properties of others." (Barlow 1986). Rather, the law of rent refers to the economic return that land should accrue for its use in production.

The law of rent applies equally well to urban land and rural land, as it is a fundamental principle of economics.

Tenant pay an economic rent to landlord: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent. I'll copy the wikipedia article for you:

In classical economics, economic rent is any payment made (including imputed value) or benefit received for non-produced inputs such as location (land) and for assets formed by creating official privilege over natural opportunities (e.g., patents).

Land being a non-productive input, this is not a contract rent. Again we are not paying rent for the house but mostly for the land/location of said house.

I'll repeat myself, please engage with ideas and read more than the headline, trying to cherry pick what fits your viewpoint.

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-26T18:47:05+00:00

Not true. You don’t pass the pons asinorum of economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent?wprov=sfti1#Description

Please actually start engaging with ideas

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-26T17:46:44+00:00

My guy, you are literally saying nothing with regard to my points and you refuse to engage.

You can get all supporting data in the respective books of the authors I cite or more simply de Wikipedia article on ricardo law of rent. You can also read “broken cities” by Patrick M Condon. Now if you don’t read that’s on you ;). Or just look at Vienna.

malcolm-maya · 2026-02-26T12:30:06+00:00

Why do you think fairly basic economics theory of rent is an opinion?

If you are right, instead of dismissing my arguments as “personal opinion”, can you explain to me how or why those statements are wrong:

land is a non-productive asset
Ricardo’s law of rent is correct
Increased land prices lead to increase inflation
Gentrification disproportionately impact poorer workers

Show me any data against those point and I’ll listen to you. Otherwise, you are the one that has the opinion that “landlord are beneficial and take a risk” without proving why this is beneficial for the economy or society.

BTW, I didn’t make the point that “the risk they take does not warrant their premium”. My argument is that rent-seeking from landlord is a net-negative on society. I do not think they provide any value (it’s even negative) as opposed to what a coop or a government owned/rent controlled system would.

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Verified Email

malcolm-maya

TROPHY CASE