Why did the landlords charge $300 20 years ago when they could have charged $500? Or was the supply of homes appropriate for the number of people?

Yes supply and demand limit how much they can charge. I’ve already conceded as much 8 hours ago.

People have always been greedy. […] Is it a problem? Yes.

So that feels like an appropriate answer to your question from yesterday

Is it greedy landlords? Or is there a bigger issue at play, and landlords are the scapegoat?

I think you summarized it nicely, including your comment on the nature of capitalism. It is not a coincidence, that basically all early criticism of capitalism is centered around landlords. Even Adam Smith criticized the “rentier”.

Look, I agree with you. We need more housing supply. It reduces landlords ability to raise rents.
But it does not change the underlying issue that landlords are greedy and will charge as much as they can get away with.

Fact is, the supply of homes is just as much to blame for high rent prices as greedy landlords.

Again, supply and demand only determine how much a landlord can charge, they do not force them to raise prices.
If anything, supply not matching demand enables more greedy behavior.

If the landlords charged less than what the home is worth, you would never be able to find a place to live near where you want/need as everything would be sold out.

Only if you assume that only local landlords rent out cheaply while all others continue to raise rents. Besides that there are always factors why certain locations are more popular than others.

You’re generally right that insufficient housing is a supply problem but housing is not like other goods that can just be substituted.
If the price of steak goes up, I can just stop eating steak but if the price of housing rises, just becoming homeless is not a reasonable option.
And sure, if the rent in the place you want to move to is too high then maybe don’t move there.
But if the rent in the place you already live in rises then what? Just move out, away from your home, away from friends and family, away from your job?

So yes, more housing supply might be the solution* but it still is no argument that greed is not the problem.

*with all the previous caveats

To be clear, I am making one statement in this discussion and that is that the price is being set higher than it needs to be.
By stating that int he discussion about Landlord greed, it can be inferred that I equate this with greed.

It’s no different than any other product you could buy in a store.

Saying that other businesses operate similarly does not refute my point. As you yourself pointed out, at best your argument is that all “capitalism is greed”.

It’s interesting that when talking about the people building homes, you totally get the profit driven mentality.

I never pretended not to “get” it. I’m just claiming that it’s greedy.

The way I see it there are two ways to counter my argument:
Either show that landlords have no choice and must demand the prices they do.
Or argue that wanting more than you need (usually to the detriment of others) is not greed. In that case I would be very interested where greed actually starts.

The price is set by the landlord based on what people are willing to pay.

What people are willing to pay sets the upper limit of what he can charge. He is not forced to set the price at this upper limit. No amount of demand forces him to increase the price beyond cost + enough profit to live off.

Or the local/state governments need to create zones for lower/middle income homes or apartments. Or in some way they need to encourage developers to build these homes.

I’m not sure how zoning in the US works. How exactly does this reduce construction costs or increase return on investment without high rents? What incentive does this give profit oriented investors to invest in affordable housing instead of other investment options?

supply and demand is driving these costs

In an abstract economy 101 sense that is true.
In a more concrete real world sense, the price is set by the landlord. Neither the supply nor the demand curve force the landlord to increase rent.

We need to prioritize building low income/affordable homes. Flood the market with supply and the price will go down.

That too is somewhat true. In a profit oriented market however the lower bound of the price of rent is dictated by the building costs, the time it takes to recuperate these costs and the expected profit margin.
Assuming building costs are more or less fixed in the short term, flooding the market and reducing the price you can charge will reduce potential profits. Thus private investors are incentivized to build only so much that it does not significantly lower prices.

So, the “we” that could lower prices by building more would have to be the state or some public entity that is less profit focused, not private landlords.

Because after construction costs have already been paid off everything that exceeds maintenance costs is pure profit for landlords.

Wanting to increase profis beyond the inflation rate to cover their own costs of living is greed.

There are [email protected] and [email protected]

Have you ever seen a giant, flying, fire breathing dragon IRL that didn’t have boobs?

Curious, that article mentions that “The incident was first reported by Ostsee-Zeitung, a major German daily newspaper.” and links to this article.

That original article contains the following passage:

Teil der Reisepapiere waren die von ihnen unterschriebenen Verhörprotokolle. „Da standen Sätze drin, die wir so gar nicht gesagt haben“, sagt Charlotte Pohl. „Die haben es so hingedreht, dass wir zugegeben hätten, dass wir illegal in den USA arbeiten wollen.“

Part of the travel documents were the interrogation protocols signed by them. “There were sentences in there that we didn’t say at all,” says Charlotte Pohl. “They twisted it so that we had admitted that we wanted to work illegally in the USA.”

Yet usatoday only reports the allegations, not the denial.

Could you perhaps share one?

Einfach den Freibetrag bei der Einkommenssteuer erhöhen, dann bekommt wenigstens jeder was ab.

Jain.

Zum Einen bekommen nur die etwas davon ab, die mehr als den Freibetrag verdienen.
Zum Anderen verschiebt eine Anhebung des Freibetrags die ganze Steuerkurve nach rechts. Damit werden hohe Einkommen mehr entlastet als niedrige.

Eine Senkung oder Abschaffung der Mehrwertsteuer auf Grundnahrungsmittel würde Allen, vor allem aber niedrigen Einkommen zu Gute kommen. Und im stark umkämpften Lebensmitteleinzelhandel dürfte diese Steuersenkung, anders als in der Gastro, fast 1:1 beim Verbraucher ankommen.

Ja, statt mit Zahlen zu argumentieren, was andere hier schon geschafft haben, lieber inhaltslosen Sarkasmus bemühen.
Ist viel überzeugender. Von welchem Punkt mich das überzeugen soll, den ich nicht schon eingeräumt habe, bin ich mir zwar nicht sicher aber es war natürlich trotzdem ein sehr wertvoller Beitrag.

Ach ja, und bitte gibt den existierenden Läden, die nur Kartenzahlung akzeptieren, Bescheid dass sie gefälligst zuzumachen haben. Da bin ich der falsche Ansprechpartner.

Und die App dazu schreiben die Ladenbetreiber dann selbst?

Wieso ist das jetzt die Messlatte?

Machen Läden, die Barzahlung anbieten ihre Kassensysteme, Geldkassetten und Bankkonten selbst?
Mein Argument war nur, dass man nicht notwendigerweise “teure digitale Bazahlterminale” braucht. Stimmt das, ja oder nein?

Das zweite Argument war, dass auch Bargeldzahlung Kosten verursacht.
Natürlich ist es dann immer noch legitim, die Kosten zu vergleichen wie es der Kommentar von @Aufgehtsabgehts tut. Aber so zu tun als wäre das Eine suuuper teuer und das Andere komplett kostenfrei, ist naiv.

Als Generalsekretär kann er auch weiter dafür sorgen, dass seine Partei schön weiterhin die beschissenste Politik macht, die man sich ausdenken kann.

teure digitale Bazahlterminale

Wie andere schon geschrieben haben, kann jedes NFC-fähige Handy Karten auslesen. Was man dann noch braucht, ist ggf. ein Drucker für Kassenbons.

Den braucht man bei Bargeld aber auch. Auch Kassensysteme wachsen nicht umsonst auf Bäumen. Dazu braucht man dann noch idR einen Geldschrank/ Safe um die Einnahmen irgendwo zwischenzulagern. Jemand muss das Geld dann auf die Bank bringen, das Zählen und Einzahlen kostet auch.

While I have no expectations of progressive policies from Merz, it has to be pointed out that the statement in this article came from the old government.

1. there are other elections besides the federal ones
   https://www.wahlrecht.de/termine.htm

2. Politicians should always care about the political opinions of the population and not only 6 months before elections

Socialism has other elements

I think your argument might be more convincing if you actually mentioned these elements.

Marx did not think it was socialism

Other people had other definitions even before Marx, so I’m not sure why his should be the only valid definition.

Just my two cents.

That’s not a superpower, that’s just witchcraft

If the thing that user asked to happen doesn’t happen then the thing won’t happen?

My understanding was that they asked that politicians with bribery convictions are blocked from running in elections (aka the topic of this thread).

Which can not happen if the prerequisite bribery convictions - which is something different from being blocked from the elections - have not been met.