this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
770 points (100.0% liked)

Memes of Production

1345 readers
1324 users here now

Seize the Memes of Production

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.

Other Great Communities:

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The supply is limited and the pig bought all the houses. The mortgage HE is paying is half the rent. The mortgage the cat could get depends on the price he could get, but guess what, pig jacked up the price. For pig, the houses are assets. Why would he sell for less than he can make by renting over a long period of time?

So the price goes up because supply is limited. Not to mention that new supply would be typically captured by pig (or his fellow pigs) almost immediately.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The pig is going to buy more houses, so he hasn't bought all the houses...

Otherwise... can't you buy an empty lot and build the house yourself?

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yes, but cat is going to be competing with pig for any house that comes into the market. And pig, given his leverage can easily outbid cat.

When it comes to empty lots, maybe, but people want to generally live close to where their friends/relatives/jobs/services are. Sure, some people are going to be ok moving out to the boonies. But that can't be a society's overall housing policy, not least because sprawl is prohibitively expensive in the long run.

The real answer is to stop making excuses for pig's antisocial hoarding behaviour and step in to limit it or abolish it. Housing should not be a financial asset. The financialization of housing is socially destructive and economically unproductive (imagine if all that capital was invested in actual productive enterprise instead).

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

you could, if you weren't paying excessive amounts of money to the people hoarding housing.

but since you are, you don't have the cash to do that, at least not for a couple decades at least

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Idk, I did it myself (this decade, not in the 1960s)

[–] R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Congrats, you're in the minority.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 6 days ago

Well, it's a once in a lifetime purchase, every buyer is in the minority, statistically.