“privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

That’s the wording in the constitution. They just say that undocumented migrants amount to an invasion and they can suspend it.

It’s not like the supreme court is going to override them on that.

It’s not even that entirely

You can’t build X here unless every component is also produced… here. The component factories can’t be built here here until there’s factories building the subcomponents for them, AND a buyer for them here.

A button up shirt needs cotton -> chemical treatment -> dyes -> fabric, base chemicals > plastic pellets -> buttons, AND the machines to do all of those processes. It’s like 7 or 8 different factories just to produce a shirt with buttons on it. Imagine how many factories it is for anything more complex.

Then in comes your point of needing commitment when it’s not even certain for more than a week, nobody is going to build out entire supply chains in that scenario.

America is a joke.

The rest of the world is actively rejecting your bullshit, and you are going to be worse off for it.

You’re right that this is a rock and a hard place. Which is why I don’t expect it to change anytime soon. What needs to happen is that home ownership rates need to drop, meaning more voters will be renters, then they will have the political clout to push through policies that make things more affordable for them by destroying home values for the now minority of owners.

I give it about 30 years or so before we see that.

Because when you look at the total ownership, individual home owners are making the vast majority of the profit from keeping prices high. Around 65% of homes are owned by the family that lives in them, and the second largest chunk of the market is dedicated rental apartments which need to be owned by corps or they would never get built in the first place and are a needed part of the economy, then a smaller chunk is the landlord who own their home plus one rental.

Corporate ownership of non-dedicated rental buildings (houses, townhouses, etc) is still a very small percentage of the overall market.

Should it be happening at all? Probably not, but at the end of the day most of the profits of housing and land appreciation are being reaped by single home owners.

There was a news article a few days ago about a new development land purchase that just went through in Vancouver, BC. 25ish lots were purchased from individual home owners, for a total of $100 million or about 4 million dollars per lot. That cost gets passed onto the people buying the new condos going in, and the profit is going to individual home owners who probably bought those lots for hundreds of thousands over the last twenty or thirty years.

It’s a very fundamental concept that almost everyone is missing.

If houses increase faster than wages, the price of them relative to incomes will slowly go up forever making them less and less affordable.

If housing prices go up less than wages (or even go down) then the people owning the houses are losing money each month, but the housing costs will stabilize at a price level that is balanced by how much money people are willing to lose each month just to have a home.

The second option isn’t as bad as most people think, it’s how cars work right now. You’re willing to buy a car and spend money each month because it benefits your life, not because it gives you money back.

How do we achieve prices going up less than wages? There are about a dozen different possible ways for the government to do it. Options include the Government owning all land and just renting/leasing it to people instead of selling it, putting a 100% capital gains tax on the land (not the buildings), or my personal favorite which is a yearly land value tax (not a property or building tax) and using that revenue to pay for a basic income leaving a net zero tax change for a person who uses an appropriate amount of land for a given area.

WE ARE THE PEOPLE CREATING THE EXTRACTIVE MARKETS

You really don’t understand finances at all.

Rich people borrow money at low rates all the time, in order to make larger returns on other investments. If I borrow 500,000 at 4%, and then invest it, I can make a lot of money. For example, If I had borrowed against my property in 2024 and invested it in the S&P 500, I would have made a 22.3% return, minus the 4%, so 18% profit on the value I pulled out of my house. There’s obviously risk involved, but this is not an uncommon practice. You can even re-invest it in real estate itself by borrowing the money to buy more properties.

Proportion doesn’t matter at all, If I had bought a million dollar house, and sell it for 1.7 million (70% increase) and downsize to a $600k house that went up to $1020k (also 70%) in that same time, I’ve made 700-420=$280k more than if I had just bought the smaller house to begin with, minus a bit of interest difference (much less than the $280k)

You say that renting it out is the problem, but both of the options above are also generating money by stripping wealth from other people (whoever buys the house, or whoever is buying houses that cause my house to appreciate in value)

Housing appreciation IS the problem, without housing appreciation, housing wouldn’t have become unaffordable in the first place and we wouldn’t be complaining about the current cost of living issues.

In order for us to have affordable housing, property cannot appreciate faster than wages. Otherwise over time, it will ALWAYS become unaffordable.

One of the easiest ways is to determine which industries are most prone to the failures of the market.

Things that are inherently monopolies like roads, or power lines or things that don’t allow reasonable consumer information/choice like healthcare, etc.

Why do people keep saying that I can’t get that money out of the house?

• I can use the equity as an asset to borrow money at low interest rates compared to unsecured loans.
• I can sell the property and move to a lower cost of living location, or even just a smaller home if I wanted.
• I can rent part of the property out at a rate commensurate with it’s current value.

And, to top off your stupid assumptions, you say my tax payments will increase. That’s not how property tax is calculated at all. People see “Taxes per 100k” and assume that if your house price goes up, so do the taxes. Instead, municipalities set a total budget, and just divide it by the total value of all the homes in the area to come up with something called the “Mill rate.” If the municipal budget doesn’t change year to year, and all the house prices go up evenly, the mill rate simply goes down.

I still think that regulated capitalism works best for certain industries, and socialism works best for others.

It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing choice.

I’ve made a million dollars in appreciation on my home in the last 15 years.

Are you telling me just because I own one home, that I’m not part of the problem?

That’s observablt false. Capitalism has lead to a massive improvement in living conditions for countries that have implemented it

Yes it also has downsides, but pretending it doesn’t do anything good is rediculous.

The billionaire fortunes pale in comparison to the trillions of dollars of unearned appreciation owned by regular home owners.

It’s the unearned part that matters most, at least capital investment has some benefit to the economy. Real estate appreciation adds literally zero value to the economy.

May is doing a lot of heavy lifting, it’s more about how many at this point.

Peanut butter

That shit can literally prevent you from starving to death.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sam-benastick-survived-wolf-1.7397381

What are you concerned about? The manual for the device should tell you if it’s okay or not.

Why not? You think it’s going to melt in the dishwasher while simultaneously being able to survive being inside an oven?

This is funny shit.

Meanwhile the US, Russia, and China sitting there laughing with their veto powers.

Israel is a little baby compared to the big boys.

The US alone killed a half million middle eastern civilians in retaliation for 9/11.

Russia full on invaded multiple countries for keeps.

China is busy killing off a few million Uighur Muslims at home while eyeing an invasion of Taiwan.

But yea, Israel is the one that needs to be booted from the UN.

Only kinda, that assumes enough people still buy the imports otherwise there’s no money to transfer over.