Okay, last reply then. You do not understand how covenants work. You called them co-ops earlier, further proving you don’t know. Property management companies are not the owners of condos, same as HOAs who are also not the owners of properties. You do not understand why these distinctions are important and why they function differently for different residencies.
You do not understand nationalization. You focus on one piece of critical infrastructure, and ignore the rest. Like buses, airlines, banks, ferries, steel mills, broadcasting companies, healthcare, post offices, electrical companies, mortgage associations - many of which weren’t failing and were nationalized for other reasons. Just like you cherry pick three countries and ignore the rest. Those three countries are oppressive, that’s why you don’t want to live there. Not because of nationalization. You really are just disingenuous. You didn’t read anything.
Forbes is corporate propaganda.
I already made my point about desirability. I don’t need to make it again just because you refuse to read anything.
Oh look, you didn’t read again. The voucher system should be transitory to providing and guaranteeing housing to all citizens.
Congratulations, being so knowledgeable about real estate. Enjoy the dopamine hit. I have never been able to afford a condo, and not working in that industry, I had forgotten that condo associations exist. I know what an HOA is, my home falls under one.
I don’t understand nationalization? You don’t appear capable of conveying your arguments without falling back on lists of things, like buses, airlines, banks, ferries, and so on. You’re also really focused on how intelligent you think you are, and how unintelligent you think I am. Enjoy those happy thoughts. With as intellectual as you are, somehow you missed the point of my previous argument: The reason for the nationalization is what matters. I certainly didn’t “ignore the rest”, as I even pointed out a specific instance of a nationalization being good for the businesses and the public. However, simply nationalizing a business because it makes too much money is a terrible idea. If you want to argue otherwise, then point out a specific instance in history where such a nationalization occurred and where businesses did not start leaving the country as a result, and then provide the Wikipedia link to back up your argument so I can go read the background on it myself. Don’t just lazily give me a link to a Wikipedia article and expect me to find your counterargument for you.
Forbes is corporate propaganda. Cool story. If their article is factually wrong about the housing market, provide a counterargument about the housing market with a reference.
I can’t read?
The government could increase the availability of housing vouchers in the meantime while transitioning to guaranteeing some form of housing for its citizens.
That is awfully nonspecific and fanciful language. If you have something specific which is supposed to follow housing vouchers, I’m curious to know what it is. Bonus points if this plan results in something better than government housing projects of the past.
Disingenuous. You keep using this word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.
dis·in·gen·u·ous, adjective - not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
That one’s free. If I am not being candid, or sincere, or pretending to know less about something, please explain how. You keep insulting my intelligence though, so an explanation of how I am pretending to be even more stupid than I allegedly already am will be an entertaining read.
Okay, last reply then. You do not understand how covenants work. You called them co-ops earlier, further proving you don’t know. Property management companies are not the owners of condos, same as HOAs who are also not the owners of properties. You do not understand why these distinctions are important and why they function differently for different residencies.
You do not understand nationalization. You focus on one piece of critical infrastructure, and ignore the rest. Like buses, airlines, banks, ferries, steel mills, broadcasting companies, healthcare, post offices, electrical companies, mortgage associations - many of which weren’t failing and were nationalized for other reasons. Just like you cherry pick three countries and ignore the rest. Those three countries are oppressive, that’s why you don’t want to live there. Not because of nationalization. You really are just disingenuous. You didn’t read anything.
Forbes is corporate propaganda.
I already made my point about desirability. I don’t need to make it again just because you refuse to read anything.
Oh look, you didn’t read again. The voucher system should be transitory to providing and guaranteeing housing to all citizens.
I’m done talking to someone so disingenuous. Bye.
Congratulations, being so knowledgeable about real estate. Enjoy the dopamine hit. I have never been able to afford a condo, and not working in that industry, I had forgotten that condo associations exist. I know what an HOA is, my home falls under one.
I don’t understand nationalization? You don’t appear capable of conveying your arguments without falling back on lists of things, like buses, airlines, banks, ferries, and so on. You’re also really focused on how intelligent you think you are, and how unintelligent you think I am. Enjoy those happy thoughts. With as intellectual as you are, somehow you missed the point of my previous argument: The reason for the nationalization is what matters. I certainly didn’t “ignore the rest”, as I even pointed out a specific instance of a nationalization being good for the businesses and the public. However, simply nationalizing a business because it makes too much money is a terrible idea. If you want to argue otherwise, then point out a specific instance in history where such a nationalization occurred and where businesses did not start leaving the country as a result, and then provide the Wikipedia link to back up your argument so I can go read the background on it myself. Don’t just lazily give me a link to a Wikipedia article and expect me to find your counterargument for you.
Forbes is corporate propaganda. Cool story. If their article is factually wrong about the housing market, provide a counterargument about the housing market with a reference.
I can’t read?
That is awfully nonspecific and fanciful language. If you have something specific which is supposed to follow housing vouchers, I’m curious to know what it is. Bonus points if this plan results in something better than government housing projects of the past.
Disingenuous. You keep using this word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.
That one’s free. If I am not being candid, or sincere, or pretending to know less about something, please explain how. You keep insulting my intelligence though, so an explanation of how I am pretending to be even more stupid than I allegedly already am will be an entertaining read.