top 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 146 points 6 months ago (1 child)

My mother was actually thinking about selling my grandparents house to them.

I'm not sure if I changed her mind, but I straight up told her the second she mentioned them that I would burn the house down before the sale went through and would be chilling in a cell with a smile on my face for it.

She decided not to sell to a company.

Does that make me unhinged? Maybe. But that's one less house going to a rental company and one more family getting a house they'll live in.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 115 points 6 months ago (16 children)

    Make a secondary house all but impossible to own via property tax, and make it illegal for corporations to own property. Watch housing cost plummet through the floor.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    and make it illegal for corporations to own property.

    You are asking to make corporations illegal which I am admittedly in favor of but don't think that's what you were going for

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    100%. Right now you can write your empty property off on your taxes as a loss in most places*

    *In the US

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Oh not only can you, it's encouraged. I see libs talking on Reddit about how it's actually better than renting because you take on a risk when renting and an empty house builds value and doesn't run the chance of damage.

    This is of course why private property sucks, but if the general populous can't stomach that, I'd be willing to settle for georgism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    The issue is that they're already doing this with HOAs. They don't care if they owne your house, but they own the dirt under it and can evict you for bullshit reasons. Make corporate HOAs illegal too

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Make corporate HOAs illegal

    FTFY

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I was waiting for this comment, and it's the reason I framed it this way. Because an HOA done right is pretty much a commune. You can chose the membership terms, penalties, and organization scope.

    I've seen some where not paying your dues simply locks you out of amenities like pool access, and that's it. So it's kind of what you make it. Doesn't have to be the nightmare most deal with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    That could be handled with a communal spaces, a HOA tends to end run by the "Karens" trying to micromanage everyone, and the boys who think they're Wyatt Earp running around enforcing stuff.

    There's no excuse for meddling in the affairs of your neighbor, unless what they are doing is literally dangerous, as much as a flamingo in the yard pains me to see it doesn't actually hurt me.

    Same to say my raised beds don't hurt anyone, breaking the boring theme of crappy lawns isn't reason to tack notices to the door, and a lot of them will attack people near the HOA not just the ones in it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    Also what i find very interesting about this topic is how demographics plays into this

    i personally think that the UN predictions about how the population numbers are going to evolve are utter bullshit. it is well known that the population pyramid looks something like this:

    and it's going to get thinner and thinner at the bottom as time progresses.

    anyways, i think a lot of organizations that could build housing are a bit reluctant mostly for that reason. a company thinks "if i build a house today, there's a good chance that there won't be demand for that house in 30 years, so it might not pay off". and municipalities, i'm afraid, are way too under-invested in building social housing in general because that would be communism or sth.

    after a quick search on the internet, about 1.6 million people live in public housing in the US in 2024. that's about 0.5 percent. Source

    Meanwhile in Europe, about 9.3% (45 million people) people live in public housing according to this article, with some countries like Austria having 24%. (8% of EU according to this OECD study).

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    anyways, i think a lot of organizations that could build housing are a bit reluctant mostly for that reason. a company thinks “if i build a house today, there’s a good chance that there won’t be demand for that house in 30 years, so it might not pay off”.

    First of all, that would only apply to companies with a build-and-hold business model, not to ones that develop a property and then sell it off to owner-occupants. Clearly, there do exist people who want to be owner-occupants, so the real issue is how to construct the regulations etc. to incentivize the latter business model.

    Second, even build-and-hold companies wouldn't give a fuck about 30 years from now; the asset would be fully depreciated by then anyway. If you're in business to make a profit, you're looking to do it way sooner than 30 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago*

    First of all, that would only apply to companies with a build-and-hold business model, not to ones that develop a property and then sell it off to owner-occupants. Clearly, there do exist people who want to be owner-occupants, so the real issue is how to construct the regulations etc. to incentivize the latter business model.

    fair point. i had completely not considered that. especially as we were discussing blackrock which is a buy-and-hold business model.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 13 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 23 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    I mean a lot of what BlackRock sells is index funds like vanguard etc.

    That's a lot of people's retirements more than it's private equity.

    I think you'll have more luck changing the rules of the game rather than chasing the players. If black rock disappeared tomorrow all that money would just move to another ETF manager and you would instantly have another BlackRock.

    Also I think BlackRock (which is far from blameless in a whole lot of affairs) gets confused with black stone. It was the latter more directly investing in real estate iirc.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Any time I see a comment/thread about this stuff I just assume the OP heard Blackstone does this and doesn't realize they're separate companies.

    Granted, Blackrock does have a few real estate funds, but they're mostly in commercial property. They don't buy homes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Blackstone. Everyone blames BlackRock, but it's Blackstone doing this. BlackRock is maybe a little bit evil, but mostly they sell ETFs, so ways for retail investors to invest in the stock market indexes. They make a fee off that, and at their size that's a huge amount of money already. Blackstone is more active about what it invests in, it strategically buys up neighborhoods so they can unilaterally raise rents. Among all kinds of other morally dubious investments.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    Does BlackRock own a lot of real estate?
    Yes, BlackRock is one of the largest real estate investors in the world, with over $60 billion in total real estate assets under management.
    https://bestrealestatemarket.com/real-estate-does-blackrock-own/
    🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    $60 billion

    That figure itself is likely wrong, because this is a 3rd party website with very weird grammar, other sources (including Blackrock's website) point towards more like 30 billion or less. It's also tiny compared to Blackstone.

    Blackstone has 300 billion in AUM in their real estate funds and 600 billion as their global real estate portfolio and according to themselves, 42% of it is homes they rent out

    BlackRock's public statement is also that they do not buy single family homes in the US. They finance construction and mortgages, though, so they still profit off it, but not from rent.

    Also, BlackRock's CEO has been advocating for the importance of ESG (Environmental, Sustainability, Governance) in investment funds to the point that multiple red states refused to do business with BlackRock. Fink was on good terms with Obama and was going to be Clinton's treasury secretary if she'd won.

    Meanwhile, Blackstone's CEO is a longtime friend of Donald Trump and compared Obama's carried interest tax hike plans Hitler invading Poland.

    They're both gigantic corporations and no billionaire is your friend, but there's one that's trying to be about as good as you can be while still being a bloodsucking billionaire running a trillion dollar megacorp, whereas the other also actively wants to make the world a worse place. And the former always gets the attention for what the latter is doing, because the name is more famous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Different compqny same people running it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Source? Or do you just mean (((same people)))?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Blackstone also ventured into other businesses, most notably investment management. In 1987 Blackstone entered into a 50–50 partnership with the founders of BlackRock, Larry Fink (current CEO of BlackRock), and Ralph Schlosstein (CEO of Evercore). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone_Inc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    In 1995, Blackstone sold its stake in BlackRock to PNC Financial Services for $240 million. Between 1995 and 2014, PNC reported $12 billion in pretax revenues and capital gains from BlackRock. Schwarzman later described the selling of BlackRock as his worst business decision ever.

    That's like 4 paragraphs later lol

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    I do not, but some of these conspiracy theories do have their roots in antisemitism. Of course, Israel has done wonders to legitimize antisemitism and the CEOs of both companies support Israel to one degree or another, so at this rate we may as well say that the zionists control the world, much like conspiracy theorists used to say it about Jews in general.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Blackstone's real estate AUM is about 10x as big as BlackRock's and according to themselves, 42% of it is rental homes (be they single family or apartments, both short and long term). BlackRock states they do not buy single-family homes in the US, but do invest in new constructions as well as mortgages.

    Blackrock is one of the 3 funds that controls the entire world. Them, Vanguard, and State Street own nearly 90% of the S&P 500 as well as eachother.

    I mean that's just AUM, same as for Blackstone. They don't directly own it all. I myself have a 5 figure sum in BlackRock's ETFs that will be transferred out at the beginning of May (it's through my country's national pension system so it took several months to get that done, but I'm going all in on Europe and Asia on non-US-managed ETFs now). If you're in the US and have a 401k, you're probably also one of those people whose assets are part of that nearly 90%.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Saint Luigi, hear our prayer. May justice rain upon the parasitic real estate holdings firms.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] [S] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Rente "nur noch als Basisabsicherung" und dann an der Börse zocken mit unseren Rentengeldern, dann kann sich Blackrock schön die Taschen voll machen (sein ehemaliger Arbeitgeber). Ansonsten noch der Ausverkauf Deutschland's, Kaputtstreichen der Krankenversicherung, das ständigen Hetzen gegen die eigene Bevölkerung usw usf

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    Pensions "only as basic security" and then gambling on the stock market with our pension money, then BlackRock (his former employer) can line its pockets nicely. Otherwise, there's the sell-off of Germany, the dismantling of health insurance, the constant vilification of the population, etc., etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    I like their food

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›