Can we normalize calling them wealth parasites instead of elites? Please and thank you.
Just parasites. They take more than wealth.
Rent is a home subscription.
Same with mortgages
No it’s not. After you finish paying you own it. With rent you can pay for it for 30 years and you own it as much as you did on the first day.
You also typically own the house the whole time. You just also hold debt for a lot of its value.
Yes, but. I am the registered owner of my house, but the registration also states the loan I had to take out. And I can’t change anything without the banks approval. I couldn’t even sell my house if the bank doesn’t agree. So I do own my house, but that doesn’t really mean much until I paid for it.
“… until I paid for it.”
Proving the original point that renting is not the same as paying a mortgage.
The equity in the house is mine, not the landlord’s. That’s the major difference.
Proving the original point that renting is not the same as paying a mortgage.
Yeah, that was not my point either. If it was, I wouldn’t have bought a house, after all. This is our retirement fund.
For the time being it is mine with a footnote, the footnote being the banks supervision. That was what I tried to say.
Where in the world do you live?
I can change anything I want at my house without the bank’s approval and there’s another 25 years on the mortgage.
Only things I have to do is pay the mortgage and take out appropriate insurance
Germany.
Of course there’s a distinction between what is written in the contracts and what is actually lived.
Example: I agreed in writing that the bank can cancel the contract and collect all payment when they suspect I could not make future payments. I can fight the decision in court, but only after the fact of losing the house.
Practically, that will never happen as long as I make my payments etc, of course, as no bank wants to be known as the one kicking out owners without reason. But legally, they could.
This does all sound very german.
In the US the house is yours in nearly everyway as long as you make your payments.
After the housing crash in 2008 they made it more difficult for the bank to foreclose on homes. You have to miss 4 consecutive payments before they can begin foreclosure. Also the last payment has to be 30 days past the due date before they can begin foreclosure. So 120 days of missed payments before the bank can act.
Additionally most mortgage companies have a 15 day grace period meaning you can pay 15 days past the due date with absolutely no penalty. That’s common practice, but not law. My guess is this grace period cuts down on the staff they need to manage accounts.
When it comes to the deed it’s just me and my spouse on it not the bank. Interestingly I’m not even on the mortgage just the deed, but that’s a whole different story about the bogus credit score system
You can sell it, the banks just want their promised money, so you usually need to pay some fine unless you also get a new mortgage with them.
The point is that people with mortgages are still trapped into thinking “I can’t afford to take risks with my job, or I’ll end up homeless”. The popularisation of mortgages is relatively new, and a deliberate way to keep the workforce in check.
Yes those are problems, but they lie in different areas. For example in US at will employment should be abolished and we desperately need better worker protection laws.
There were also regulations that caused price of property to be higher (for example a lot of restrictions showing down building new houses)
But anyway purchasing house historically was usually the biggest purchase most people made in their lives, so not everyone couple purchase it out of pocket. Mortgage allowed many of them to afford a house.
Ownership is capital. The definition of capitalism is leveraging private ownership for private profit. When people own things, they are competition. You can avoid purchasing their goods or services, devalue their goods or services by offering your own at a reasonable price, or kick them out of the market entirely. A sale for them now could always turn into a lost sale later when you resale your property to someone else. A company wanting to buy that property from you will have to spend more to pay you enough profit to make it worth it for you to sale. If you leverage equipment to provide a service and a livelihood, they compete with you day after day and get no piece of that pie.
But what if you had to pay a license to use that equipment? Or you had to go to them to get it fixed? Or you only rented that property in the first place. They could start taking a cut of your profits for themselves.
What if you couldn’t afford to own essentials like a home or your transportation. What if you had to lease to meet your essential needs. What if the pool of property owners was so small and so overwhelmingly made up of mega corporation that have the resources to outbid every prospective home buyer and turn that property into a rental, or better yet, a hotel room through air bnb where the resnt pays for even a massively inflated buying price in a matter of months? What if in paying over asking repeatedly, you artificially inflate the value of your own properties and those around them making homes even less affordable for non-corporate entities, and make your competition pool even smaller. Now you and you alone can buy more homes and have more streams of rental money to fund more purchasing. Meanwhile it is taking 2+ adult incomes to make your rent prices, which rise every time you artificially raise property values by over spending on new properties in a massive feedback loop until people are spending every spare dollar on a basic necessity that barely meets their needs anymore.
They feed on dependency, forcing out competition, injecting themselves between you and your livelihood, and maximally extracting every single ounce of resources they can from you. Yay capitalism.
Thanks Reagan.
Privatizing health care and tying it to our employment did it first. Bend the knee to your employer because if you lose your job you lose your medical.
They want the “company town” for all of us everywhere.
I refuse to pay a subscription for anything. I also won’t use my real phone to scan codes or verify identity or age. If I encounter those demands for my information, I go find better things to do with my time. I once participated in a product survey for $3,000 hearing aids. In addition to paying for the hardware, for a monthly fee, you have access to their app which was actually amazing at filtering out background noise. The questions were, would you pay for the subscription, how much, low long . . . My answers were no, zero, never. Otherwise, you are paying for purposely crippled hardware. I doubt my opinion swayed them but they will never have me as a customer. What if you cancel the subscription, $3,000 for a brick?
All these systems for control, but I keep thinking to myself that it’s a house of cards waiting to fall apart.
It’s kind of like holding the leash of a hundred dogs. Something sets them off, and you’re face is painting the pavement red.
Likewise, something goes wrong that is not man-made or man-relative and suddenly it’s like that scene in Prince of Egypt where the Pharoah is putting his hands forward to stop the water from throwing him back ashore.
You are right but the methods to split us are so refined and well implemented that it won’t likely ever happen.
Also, these people only care about having that power and money right now. And it works. 🤬
Never say never.
Tell someone our current state of being some 10 years ago and they’d call you mad.
There’s literally enough fools in power anyways to derail themselves under the right conditions.
I’d respond with Ronins’ ‘don’t give me hope’… The situation might be more obvious and (in the US) far more dire now but the state of the world has been heading this way quite some time. We didn’t start the fire…
No, thats wrong. Subscriptions just provide a continuous revenue stream and in long term larger profits than a one-of purchse.
It actually has the opposite effect, people that own, have something to lose, people who don’t own have nothing to lose. And you do not want to anger people, that have nothing to lose.
I don’t know why some have downvoted you. People with nothing to lose are potentially the most dangerous.
i think it’s the strangely placed commas
The original poster’s “elites” in this case are bribing for macroeconomic policy that encourages subscriptions. Buying your Whatever on credit didn’t make sense until they started punishing us for saving money to buy the Whatever. Consumers or retailers don’t just want to replace sales with rentals - they’re responding to an incentive.
You do have something to lose. Your car, your home, your supper. Most people are living paycheck to paycheck. This is bad because we’re more vulnerable than if we had savings. This is so it will be harder for us to successfully strike.
Streaming music like Spotify is just FM radio except that they have you paying for the radio waves this time, too.
Spotify is like fm radio except you pay for the convenience of not having to listen to ads (at least not to my knowledge) and you get choose what you want to listen to instead of the same 6 songs over and over.
Yeah even online radio isn’t comparable, the freedom is what makes it.
Well, at least there are no commercials and you have choice.
Fm radio is like half advertisements.
“Elites” making money from the rest of us doing the actual work… smh
Gosh, it could almost be related to the means of production.
Subscription allows a lower cost of entry than outright purchase, so your market is bigger. The average user spends more over the lifetime of the product, so your profit per user is higher. Its all a out profits.
However, money is an analogue for power, so you could also say it’s all about power and control too.
The great thing about recurring revenue is that it’s coming back for each quarterly report. Investors love that shit.
It’s what they do in the South. You’re forced to rent, and they’re often republicans, then they extort you into voting likewise.
Wow, dude figured out consumerism
