Jeff Bezos-Backed Real Estate Company Is Launching A New Fund To Acquire More Single-Family Homes Across The U.S.
Jeff Bezos-Backed Real Estate Company Is Launching A New Fund To Acquire More Single-Family Homes Across The U.S.
Bezos isn't going to miss a chance to dick people over. Because apparently he's not rich enough yet.
Imagine what the world would be like if we treated sociopathy as the vividly destructive mental illness it so obviously is, rather than rewarding sociopaths with wealth and power.
What is his goal? More zeroes on a spreadsheet? Does he take satisfaction in being evil?
It's likely the same as corporations.
Once they get so much money, they focus on quarterly profits. Then you compare percentage change from last quarter/month.
So he just doesn't think about the billions he has banked.
Or the multimillions he makes a year
It's a small percentage of change, and making 90 million after 100 million can be viewed as losing money this way, which makes these fucking psychopaths believe they need to be even shittier to make more money.
He's not looking at his wealth, but at the rate he's accumulating it, even though he literally can't spend what he has now if he tried.
Having the most wealth which leads to the most power is clearly his goal.
I would assume it's just a compulsion.
Like a compulsive gambler constantly looking for the next thing to bet on, or a compulsive eater looking for the next thing to eat, he's constantly looking for the next way to dick people over for profit.
I can understand a dick measuring contest of racing to commercial space travel. But rentals? That's just for money and just for evil.
The richer he gets, the more it affirms his egotistical belief that he deserves it.
logic of capital
There's many people that think the more money they make, the more social good it does. That making money is by definition good for everyone, society, etc.
a trillion is never enough
This is a fund for small investors to make money on the housing market, so probably not either of the above
This is a good business idea that just happens to only function because one of our systems is totally broken. The business itself is not the problem.
Can we finally focus on real estate reform now?
This latest housing crisis has made it abundantly clear that allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to own single family homes is destructive to society as a whole.
The priority should be owner occupied homes. People need housing security. If even the middle class with career jobs can't afford a modest house in their peak working years, the system is broken.
We can attack this runaway housing inflation by doing the following:
Each of these wouldn't be outright bans which would potentially too big of a disruption. But in phases, using increasing tax penalties as the stick.
We need to stop treating homes as a commodity. They are a basic essential.
I still don't understand how this hasn't been a bigger priority in government. I wouldn't expect Republicans to care about it at all, but it feels like nobody is giving it any attention at the State or National level. These out-of-control rents and housing prices are insane. I've got a relatively ok salary and I'm barely staying on top of things, but I don't know how the hell anybody else is still holding it together.
Lobbying and self interest.
These reforms may result in housing prices decreasing or holding steady. Which is a plus for anyone entering or laterally moving to occupy. It's a negative for people using housing as an investment.
It's not a stretch to assume that a lot of politicians are in the multiple land ownership territory. And thus, would "hurt" them personally.
Same with WFH endangering commercial real estate. Lobbies and personal interest. Plenty of business owners in politics.
Local and state politicians are all landlords and real estate developers unfortunately.
I would add a progressively higher tax rate for each property beyond 2-3.
Most definitely. When I said limit to 3, I meant exceeding the limit would incur progressively higher taxes.
We need to eliminate large holdings. They help no one but the investors, at the cost of everyone else.
HOAs should be banned too. They're nominally constitutional under the first amendment but the restrictions they impose are not worth the price you pay in dues and they only serve to restrict the actual property owner from pursuing happiness. Everything the HOA could do is a function of local government, there's no sane reason to pay both property taxes and HOA fees.
I don't think they should be banned, but their power should be severely restricted.
My HOA is actually useful because they've banned short term rentals, put a cap on long term rentals, and cover the insurance. Granted, this is a place where walls are shared.
I also don't see my local government ever taking care of these things under any realistic scenario.
You've got my vote.
Exorbitantly high residential property tax rates, with even higher owner-occupancy credits.
Landlords will stop renting, and start issuing land contracts or private mortgages. "Tenants" will hold the deed to the property, and be earning equity. "Landlords" will have a major incentive to get their investment properties under contract and out of their name, lest they face a huge tax bill.
I think there is value provided when someone buys a dilapidated house and renovates it into something worthwhile to sell, even if it takes less than 2 years.
Or for me personally, I bought less than 2 years ago but the experience has given me a better idea of what I really want and I'd love to be able to sell to break even on this place and buy a different place that more fits my needs.
High short term capital gains taxes would help with the 2nd case (as I don't intend to make money from owning this place briefly) but not the first.
I'll take capital gains tax as a reasonable compromise.
I will say that I don't think keeping "renovation" flippers intact is a strong motivation. They are infamous for putting in shoddy cosmetic work to hide serious problems. At least if someone needs to occupy a renovated house for 2 years, they may actually be motivated to do things right.
I absolutely agree that we need to focus significant energy on a more stable housing (not homeowner) market.
However
Ban companies (including hedge funds, etc) from owning condos and houses. Apartment complexes are still fair game, because society needs high occupancy buildings which require more capital to build and run.
This just means fewer homes get built, period, adding to the problem. Id support restrictions on these groups purchasing homes specifically on the secondary market instead of an outright ban/strong Pigouvian tax.
Heavy penalties for selling in under 2 (as an example) years. This will also curb the short term rentals due to added risk, as well as curbing the flippers relisting at 30%+ (and I’ve seen 100%) markups after 3 months.
This will straight up just lead to bankruptcy, foreclosure, and then cheap speculation. This would be incredible dangerous, and you'd need to put a lot of protections in for homeowners that wouldn't somehow be abused by flippers.
I'd also love to see protections baked in for people who purchase prior foreclosure/condemned properties and turn those into marketable/livable homes - that's an increase in supply and we should encourage it
What we primarily need is to rip our zoning policies out by the root and encourage lots of building, as I'm sure you'd agree, but that's a local problem. These changes at the federal level, once hammered out, could help a lot.
Ban companies (including hedge funds, etc) from owning condos and houses. Apartment complexes are still fair game, because society needs high occupancy buildings which require more capital to build and run.
This just means fewer homes get built, period, adding to the problem. Id support restrictions on these groups purchasing homes specifically on the secondary market instead of an outright ban/strong Pigouvian tax.
Disagree. How does this discourage builders? Afaik, most don't build with the intent of renting out individually. The intent is to sell. And at least in my high demand area, units are sold well in advance to actually being ready to live in.
Unless you mean the necessary first step of buying land with an existing home on it. In which case, it'd be easy to add fair exemptions.
Heavy penalties for selling in under 2 (as an example) years. This will also curb the short term rentals due to added risk, as well as curbing the flippers relisting at 30%+ (and I’ve seen 100%) markups after 3 months.
This will straight up just lead to bankruptcy, foreclosure, and then cheap speculation. This would be incredible dangerous, and you’d need to put a lot of protections in for homeowners that wouldn’t somehow be abused by flippers.
How so? Most buyers are entering a 30 year mortgage with their finances thoroughly vetted. If you're saying the first 2 years is extremely risky, maybe those loan regulations need to be revised.
Besides which, as someone else in the thread mentioned, perhaps a heavy capital gains tax in the first 2 years is more appropriate.
What we primarily need is to rip our zoning policies out by the root and encourage lots of building, as I’m sure you’d agree, but that’s a local problem. These changes at the federal level, once hammered out, could help a lot.
Of course, building is a necessary component. But it's touted as the only solution. Realistically, building high density living won't make a dent in housing prices, because new high density living in high demand areas will always be built as "luxury" condos that demand a high price. Builders are not motivated to flood the marked to lower their own returns. They will time their projects to trickle out to keep demand high and returns maximized.
I'd argue that better urbanism is part and parcel of real estate reform. It would be much more difficult to entirely fuck up the housing market if we weren't so utterly dependent on single family homes and there were more apartments being managed by small to mid-size firms.
100%
We still need rental properties, and small local landowners should be the priority.
Landlords aren't necessary for rentals to exist. We built hundreds of thousands of government owned properties every year(!) the UK's post-war period. Some of them have bad rep for looking like soviet blocks, but modern social flats look like any other now so that isn't a valid complaint anymore (I have to point them out to friends, they otherwise wouldn't have a clue). These can and have been very much used for temporary accommodation, like private rental units.
If you're more of a market economy fan: we also state-funded housing cooperatives, democratically owned housing. Vienna is the popular example where they even have shared communal swimming pools, but 20% of Norway's entire population lives in them and they're still growing steadily despite not having gov. funding for decades. It's not impossible to come up with a way to use these as rental units while retaining the democratic element (i.e. the renters "own" the flat while they rent it and "sell" it on when they move). In Norway, for example, you're exempt from property transfer taxes when you sell a coop flat meaning there's no tax friction if you want to move from one coop flat to another. Since the flat is never technically yours in a coop (only the share giving you the right to reside there) it just goes back to the coop when you move out, and they can handle renting it on to someone else (so you don't need a slow bartering process to move out). Your rent can also straight up go towards a larger share in the property, so you're not propping up some landlord, the only thing you're really paying for is management of the coop like you would with a privately owned block of flats anyway (except the coop probably wouldn't spend thousand on an Xmas tree).
If we're going to be thinking about government regulation and law changes anyway, we may as well try more than just small ""ethical"" landlords. They may well be part of it in some limited way but let's think beyond just that.
The worst got torn down after 20ish years.
I'd go a step further and say you can only rent out what you built. No buying existing housing in cheap areas to rent out.
If you want to be a landlord then you can pool your money with other people to actually create housing.
Feel free to pass it on to your representatives!
Probably a controversial opinion but companies should not be able to own residential real estate at all, the reason most people cant get a house is because big companies are buying them up with limitless sums of money so they can rent them out infinitely, its not a free market when the big company will pay 20% over your entire life savings just to make sure you don't own anything.
Not just limitless sums, companies are borrowing at very low interest rates and skyrocketing real estate prices with free money. Consequelty also causing mass inflation. So you're paying for them owning houses.
Absolutely nothing controversial about the truth. In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite of controversial, at least in this case.
Not controversial at all. The world would be a better place if residential real estate “investment” didn’t exist.
Yeah no this isn't controversial. Private landlords serve no purpose in society. You just pay them their mortgage for the privilege of living in their house. It's ridiculous.
%100 no brainer
I agree in the case of single-family homes. Even in cases of 3 or 4 unit buildings. But how do you propose full-on complexes get run if not by a company? Very few individuals have the capital to buy a 50-unit building, and honestly, the US needs more dense urban housing to help reduce our impact on climate.
Easy. Non-profit co-ops, ideally as part of land trusts. They keep prices reasonable, give all community members a say, and the people who are lucky enough to live in them love them.
My opinion that would be just like asking who would own the streets you use to get to it.
We don't wonder how that really expensive bridge gets owned... Sometimes it's due to tolls but not always.
Cooperative-like legal structures and public housing are viable options.
Condos. (for non-Americans, this means "apartments except owner-occupied, or at least individually owned and then rented out"
I lived in a 200+ unit condo building. Owned my unit and some proportion of the common stuff and had voting rights and such in the HOA.
residential property should not be able to be bought by corporations, there is no benefit in allowing that to happen at all
It's sure beneficial for the rich fucks behind these companies. Everyone else gets fucked.
No, that's not any of this works. In a free market, it's entirely possible (and often the case) that both the rich fucks and everyone else benefit.
I recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell and also Poor Economics by Abhijit V. Banerjee.
edit Based on the voting response, I guess I should have suggested something from Dr. Seuss first.
It's been bought by them for a long time now.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/603416/leading-apartment-owners-in-the-us-by-units-owned/
They used to just buy your mortgages, then they started cutting out the middle man.
Sure there is. Just not to the regular person.
People should not be able to buy residential building? /s
USA has roughly 15 million vacant homes currently. If this company manages to fill some of them with people, that means there'll be fewer vacant homes. Obvious net benefit for all.
edit I guess you guys enjoy that there are homeless people then
Oh look... a capitalist shill using homeless people as a propaganda prop to do apologetics for the capitalists that caused all the homelessness.
Yawn.
so, you think the reason that the homeless people don't live in these homes is because... they wouldn't be able to pay rich people money if they did?
how high do you have to be to make the statement "look I would love to not freeze to death, but only if I get to pay half my income to Amazon" seem reasonable?
A surplus of homes does not equal less homeless people. If their prices, either as rentals or for buying, is too high, it can actually increase the number of homeless people.
Vacant does not mean unowned.
Plus I'm pretty sure Amazon doesn't want thousands of crackhead row houses in shit areas.
If there are 15 million vacant homes now, then a company made up of wealthy investors buying up heaps of them at the current inflated prices isn't going to change anything. Those houses won't become living spaces for poor and homeless people - they'll sit vacant until someone comes along who's willing to pay the exorbitant rent.
100% tax over a billion dollars.
Yeah all the $40k/yr MAGAts gonna haaaaaate that
Also tax stockpiled stock.
Fuck these rich assholes.
"Fuck our parents and their generation"
If you have an investment account and own some mutual funds, you probably own shares of some REIT.
Yeah we get to hold the loss for the nex5 bubble, useless office buildings.
We could also just not do that. Ban all of those.
Literally straight up evil
It will not stop. The government won't step in, because they are all in on it. Their money comes first, above all else. The way they treat me homeless people today is how you will be treated tomorrow.
There is only one way to stop the runaway cancer of greed, and it's not by writing angry notes.
I feel like the answer is a tax strike. Most of what taxes do today is move money from the poor to the rich, while occasionally moving some from the middle class to the poor (and constantly threatening to take that away). A tax strike could break all of this pretty quickly, or at least force them to attack and show what they're really about.
A tax strike could take care of a number of problems, like this and the complete unwillingness to address climate change.
If you were to actually get people to participate in a tax strike, the government would just round everyone up for something like tax fraud or some other tax related crime and ship them to the for profit prisons and make them even more money. Only solution would be, in my opinion, to overthrow the rich and let their heads roll.
Why people are mad at the USA
How the fuck does anyone even afford to buy a house now? Billionaires keep buying them all out just to rent them out, to buy more houses. It's almost as bad as me trying to use a hula hoop.
It's not just billionaires buying up all the housing, it's anyone who can afford the investment. Real estate makes interest in value year over year with minimal upkeep costs AND it generates revenue every year from rentals. If you manage to secure permits to convert it to multifamily you instantly split your house into two parts with nearly the same individual value, almost doubling the value on the spot at the cost of adding a couple of walls and doors and maybe a kitchen.
Real Estate as a source of investment and revenue goes contrary to the idea of accessible housing for everybody. If it's a lucrative investment with greater low risk returns than any other low risk investment type, why would anyone take more risk?
My landlord is 45 and owns 4 properties with a total of about a dozen units. He bought a small business with the income and retired from his job at a defense contractor. His total wealth is under 10m and he started with probably little more than 50k ~25 years ago. Low interest loans have done wonderfully for anyone turning a small amount of cash into a big amount, assuming you bought in the right place with the intent to rent out to middle class workers.
Not to mention REITs, or real estate investment trusts. Entire corporations dedicated solely to buying up property for share holders.
.
Got a buddy on that exact same path.
It's a bunch of shit that he's not taxed to below fiscal feasibility for his multiple single family homes.
Yes. Vicious circle for the plebeians and virtuous circle for the rich. The rich get richer, the poor (I'm including the middle class because it's not like the 60s, 70s, 80s) get poorer.
I got permanently injured in the military, so qualified for a mortgage with no down payment. Just the total amount on the mortgage.
It was still cheaper then renting anything close to a comparable house.
People always talk about interest rates, but down payments are the real barrier to entry
I had some lucky timing with an inheritance. Also two software engineer's salaries. Even then, it took a chunk out of our finances. We also got a bit lucky. The house was probably selling a little below its value and we got in right before the Fed really started pumping the brakes with interest rate increases.
This right here is the modern slavery and politicians are condoning this predatory behaviour.
The richer the rich get, the less the rest of us look like the middle and lower classes and the more we look like peasants. Serfs.
The more wealth inequality widens that gap, the more modern capitalism starts to look like techno-feudalism.
And that's really what they want without saying it, isn't it? They don't want us to own anything of our own...work their fields and factories, pay them to live in housing they own, and convert all other possessions into subscription services, all in an effort to create a system where the rest of us only exist as a source of labor and wealth for them, where even what they pay their serfs comes right back to them.
Renting is literally just a subscription for your home
Serfs worked less.
Why should anyone own a home when they can rent them from the capital class?
You get a subscription and you get a subscription!
There is a need for some home rentals. Like taking a job in a new city that may or may not pan out long term but you still want to bring the whole family.
Or you need a few more years to save up for a down payment.
Or you are ready to buy a house, but the current mortgage rates are frikkin' insane and you want to wait a year or two for the rates to come down.
Or your house gets water damage and your insurer needs to put you in another house while yours is fixed. That's not what these companies are buying these houses for. They are buying all of them to try to force people into rentals.
Neofeudalism. Having fun yet?
Brought to you by unchecked rent-seeking behavior:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
When the goal is no longer to be productive to earn money but to earn money in whatever way possible.
Thank you. Nations are just modern-day fiefdoms.
You're not rich if you own a home. You're rich when you own everybody else's home
Fuck this fucking fucker
So is this guy, like, the Devil? Every headline I see with him is like "Emperor Palpatine is buying single family homes" where I just assume it's for some nefarious purpose that's gonna benefit his regime and dick over a looooot of people.
He wants quarters for his wage slaves, duh.
To become a billionaire requires sociopath levels of compassion.
nefarious purpose
real talk: it's stupid to hold cash, you need to buy assets, and assets generate cash flow. catch 22 the rich get richer.
So is this guy, like, the Devil?
Well, he's a billionaire, so basically yeah.
I would take Grand Admiral Thrawn over this guy any day. I think.
Lol a big fuck you to all middle class and that includes you too Ryan. Carrying an iPhone and driving a Mercedes on a loan doesn't make you rich if you still have to be in the office mon-fri and slave 9-5.
so sick of this neofeudal bullshit
Boy, he's really trickling it down on all those families' heads...
.
Airbnb didn't single-handedly destroy US housing stock. It's really not even the biggest part of the problem.
Zoning codes that prevent the addition of any density to cities are way more of a problem than airbnb could dream of being. If Euclidean zoning existed 300 years ago, Manhattan would be 90% mcmansions, rather than being almost entirely low-, mid- and high-rises.
Subscribe to life on Amazon Prime. One reason less to buy stuff from them this holiday season.
If you buy a Prime Home (tm) and finance through Prime Mortgage (tm) we'll reimburse you for up to 1.2% of your closing costs, absolutely free!
This feels very aboringdystopia
Somebody should cross post this there.
Burn it to the ground. I would rather burn my whole neighborhood down than have Bezos own it.
Problem is when disaster strikes the rich swoop down, buy up the land, then build expensive condos on it, ie: New Orleans after Rita/Katrina and Hawai'i now.
The system was designed to offer the elite discounts every so often, the true endgame of Reaganomics was to acquire everything over the span of 80-120 years.
You can't burn the ground, he would just build more houses for higher rent.
The secret they don't want you to know is you can just keep burning down whatever they build. You can even burn it before they're done.
Yeah it’s the human condition. Power corrupts. It always does. It would corrupt me. It would corrupt you. What’s it like to live real life in god mode? I know what you do when the cheats get turned on, because I’ve done the same. But what happens when there is no option to restart the game? Or to play something else? You return to the game. It’s all you have. You become determined to make it progressively worse because you’re average. You have no imagination. You suck. You’re not a leader. You’re a regular dude for the most part and not cut out for this shit. You fuck it up. If we’re in a simulation, it’s the worst kind. One controlled by the simulated.
I used console commands to help play Half Life 2 when I was younger. God was super boring, obviously, and I only used the refill ammo/health thing when I really needed it. I even restricted myself to only using weapons that I had earned access to even though the ammo command gave me all of them. Also, Dolly Parton uses her wealth to buy books for kids.
Bezos is just a really shitty person. Power doesn’t corrupt every time, but it sure attracts bad people at a much greater rate than it does good people. Luckily many good people are also out there fighting to make sure that it’s not only bad people with all the cards.
Time to reintroduce the "guillotine" mod pack.
But what happens when there is no option to restart the game? Or to play something else? You return to the game. It’s all you have.
You forgot to mention the 'flip the game table over' option.
(Not that I'm advocating for that option, just that it is an additional option.)
Lol what a bunch of meaningless word salad bullshit.
Don't assume everyone is as awful as you.
Not gonna lie, with the current state of things, of I were rich I would probably go into hiding and make it so me and my family interact as little as possible with this current hellhole we call modern society. I'd like to think I would do something positive with my wealth, but I think I'd probably selfishly hide away until I die. I have no children, so maybe I would direct the wealth to do good once I'm gone, but that's it.
Of course, that's all theoretical. I'm not likely to ever be able to even retire comfortably.
Well this isn't creepy as fuck.....
Meanwhile the republicans want to remove the estate tax
Kind of feels like these people have declared war on me but if I try and fight back, I'd be the bad guy.
Billionaires is a symptom of the illness.
And the poor are the cause.
Straight out of Boring Dystopia community
Somebody should cross post this there.
It might be time to eat these motherfuckers
Duck season, Wabbit season, nobody ever wants to eat Elmer Fudd.
Do you guys think they'll start offering housing as job incentives soon? Work for us and you may have a house. Or tying housing to your job like they do with health insurance?
I can imagine it now.
Alexa's installed throughout the house that have alarms to remind you to attend work.
An expensive subscription service for toilet use forcing the tenants to piss in bottles.
Scheduled TV time forced to only consume Amazon prime shows or films
Basically, this:
Kill the rich.
Home ownership will be a thing of the past. Eventually corporations will own all the single family homes within two hundred miles of any urban center.
This is the bad ending, Humpty Dumpty didn't fall off the wall and die.
Humpty Dumpty didn't kill himself
We need to expand community land trusts to ensure people have housing. Just going to copy and paste a previous comment since I was just talking about them in a thread about HOAs.
I live in a townhouse that is one of 30 on our lot. All of the houses are a part of a land trust program that owners have to qualify in order to buy, a minimum income set to ensure applicants can pay a mortgage and a maximum set by the average income of the city. The houses are sold at cost and buyers agree to sell at that cost, plus a small percentage of equity gain per year lived in the house. Property taxes are fixed to this valuation agreement so nobody in the program is forced out of their home from real estate bubbles.
If the program was expanded the bar to entry could be lifted. I had to hold off on a raise that I got while we were in the middle of the buying process to make sure I didn't go over the cap, which is hilarious (sad) since we still struggle with my current income. Friends of ours missed out and moved out of state because they were a few paltry thousand over the cap, the work in restaurants and had they not declared their tips they would have had a house in the city they love.
A great start would be seizing these vulture's properties that are compounding the problem.
It sucks that this is how you have to approach it to have affordable housing.
The only reason it sucks is because the program is so limited by units available. If the program was more widespread that bar to entry could be removed entirely.
The brightside is that it is a clear path forward out of our current situation. We just need to spread awareness and collectively demand action.
Homestead CLT is the program if you want to know more. I highly encourage everyone to see if there is a Community Land Trust in their area.
We're literally going back into a feuldal system with lords and serfs.
Hahaah nah. Peasants owned their homes and tools, they just rented farmland. They also worked half as much as we do.
But they didn't have HVAC, electricity, health care (even shitty health care is better than bloodletting), couldn't shit indoors, had no access to affordable transportation of any kind, had very little access to education beyond "this is a sieve, get to work. There weren't clothes washing machines and dryers and dish washers. There was no radio, tv, Internet, or much in the way of entertainment at all. There weren't medications that could cure you if you were sick or treat disease.
I say this as an exceedingly privileged Westerner, but I'll happily take living in this moment compared to pretty much any time in humanity's past.
It's because he doesn't have enough money.
Oh boy…
He’s a max level twink just ganking lowbies at this point because he can. They are no threat to him and he’s doing it because he has zero empathy and too much free time.
P2W is bad, always
Company towns are about to return with a vengeance. Looking forward to our feudal amazonpunk future.
Yes please keep making really big bets on a bubbled market. Everyone ready for housing market crash 2 electric boogaloo?
Don't worry, he knows the govt will save his fortune at the cost of taxpayer (not the rich) money. It's a win-win for him and other big players.
We have to stop this :(
Oooh, are we going back to company towns already?
Oh dear, that's the worst possible thing, why is it legal.
Build more housing.
correction, build more social housing or they'll just buy that too.
Mandatory mixed zoning of commercial and residential, with single family zoning banned.
Industrial can still be its own thing, but single family with no commercial should not exist.
I'll just leave this here: French Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
Finally! Soon I'll be able to get that 3bed 0bath house I've been dreaming of
“Arrived CEO Ryan Frazier …. also noted the persistent demand for housing, outpacing the supply of new homes over the last decade.” Fucking capitalism
Comically enough, market forces would actually help to resolve this if it weren't for zoning and other regulations making it nearly impossible to build more housing in most places.
Capitalism did not cause this. Kneecapping capitalism through exclusionary zoning did
Trickle up.
Don't worry, he will patent One Click Rent Payments... Making your life easier one house at a time.
Bezos in 5 years: "I call it: diagonal integration."
"I call it company scrip credit."
At some point we are going to have to burn down blackrock and amazon and every other piece of shit corporat fuck business that buys up all the fucking homes.
"WhY IS TheRE A HoUsInG CrISis!?"
ffs, hope bezos gets an untreatable form of fucking cancer.
