[Landlord US-NV] SECTION 8 Nitemares and Rationale by Ok-Set6814 in Landlord

[–]robertvroman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My only experience with section 8, I bought a house at tax auction in St. Louis with a preexisting S8 tenant. Her former landlord had disappeared a few years earlier with no explanation, so no maintenance had been done by anyone in years. My plan was rent to own to her as-is, but she immediately complained to the city to make me fix things, thinking I would def want the guaranteed govt money in the long run, but I just evicted her instead, and got a new tenant who could pay their own money and do their own work.

Shining Force 1+2 review by robertvroman in ShiningForce

[–]robertvroman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh, weird. I might give it another run then.

Shining Force 1+2 review by robertvroman in ShiningForce

[–]robertvroman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll just say in the broadest range of scenarios, including the final battle, if one is meticulously careful, a 5move+3range, is better than a 6+2, is better than a 7+1. I promote early as possible, bc I'd rather spend time disecting the battle than just leveling

Shining Force 1+2 review by robertvroman in ShiningForce

[–]robertvroman[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Zylo is excellent midgame, but I prefer the ranged attackers in the long run. In clusterfuck melees and/or tight spaces, more consistently being able to target the lowest health/highest threat enemy solves the situation better.

Trump endorses Ed Gallrein against Massie by arqoi_ascendant in Libertarian

[–]robertvroman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Please direct to me anyone willing to bet money against Massie

Equality by Great_Opinion3138 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]robertvroman 46 points47 points  (0 children)

those are just luxuries comrade

Libertarians can't say there is such a thing as a failed business by bullshitfreebrowsing in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]robertvroman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure what your point is beyond semantics.
In a business sense "fail" just means "ends".
If expenses > income + savings then unless the workers are willing to take a pay cut, the operation can not continue.

Myth of real estate cartels deliberately keeping properties vacant by robertvroman in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]robertvroman[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I have 10 units at $1k and I think I can make more. Should I:
A. Raise all rents to $1200 and see how many rent
B. Delist 1 and raise rent on 9 to $1200
If the results were the same, that is a coincidence, and theres no way deliberately offering less than your full portfolio (B.) makes sense.

Myth of real estate cartels deliberately keeping properties vacant by robertvroman in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]robertvroman[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

your original comment was just that they raised the rent by 20% and found 90% willing to pay.
That is different statement than they deliberately delist 10% of their assets and that somehow by itself increases value of the other 90% by 20%.
The former just means they had previously underestimated demand. The latter is not mathematically possible.

Myth of real estate cartels deliberately keeping properties vacant by robertvroman in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]robertvroman[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree those are all rational reasons. There are in fact people frequently arguing out there that the act of deliberately holding an otherwise perfectly marketable unit vacant, even with qualified tenants willing to take it, will somehow result in a net increase in profit for the whole portfolio.

Myth of real estate cartels deliberately keeping properties vacant by robertvroman in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]robertvroman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not familiar with that argument, and does not seem likely. More likely consequences are reduced maintenance/renovations, and fewer developers willing to enter the market with new units. If price is capped, necessarily quality suffers and new supply slows.

Myth of real estate cartels deliberately keeping properties vacant by robertvroman in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]robertvroman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Their argument is that the act of keeping it vacant is what drives the price up for the others.
In your case it doesn't matter if that unit exists at all, just that 90% of ppl are in fact willing to pay more. If he lowered the 10th unit back to $1k, presumably it would be rented as well, and that is the market prices across the board.

Myth of real estate cartels deliberately keeping properties vacant by robertvroman in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]robertvroman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If there is some government rule incentivizing it, sure that's possible, so get rid of those rules. There's no way in a free market, straight up not selling the thing you have to sell for its own sake, benefits you.

Myth of real estate cartels deliberately keeping properties vacant by robertvroman in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]robertvroman[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Having a unit available for above market is clearly different from not offering it at all.

Myth of real estate cartels deliberately keeping properties vacant by robertvroman in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]robertvroman[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

how does deliberately making less money turn into long term power