To my mind the word "greedy" suggests people who put their own interests above those of others, very often employing the coercive powers of the government to serve themselves and to the detriment of everyone else.
This certainly includes many among the rich and powerful, but I don't think this brush can be applied to developers in general. What is their goal in places where there is no more land to build on, like NY and SF, but to reconfigure it and make it more available (affordable) to more people? Of course they seek profit and some people are substantially inconvenienced in the process, but in the broad perspective it creates value. Whatever its flaws, Manhattan offers more to more people now than it did 100 years ago.
Are they not greedy, those who are renting their spots in these desirable locations and who are using the government's guns to keep others out? As a voting constituency they're leveraging the force of government to serve their own individual interests, seemingly unconcerned about the consequences for everyone else.
I find it ironic that they wield the term "greed" with immunity.
How does letting a person stay in their home in the face of wild market fluctuations work to the detriment of everyone else, exactly? Wealthier people have to pay more for non rent-controlled apartments or commute a bit further - this hardly seems like a great cost to bear to avoid uprooting the families and communities that made these locations desirable in the first place.
By my count you've used the term "wild fluctuations" or "wild market fluctuations" in four assertions / reassertions, and this started with my question to you based specifically on your use of this term. Its actual meaning and your intended meaning are certainly relevant to the conversation.
I didn't realize it was such a loaded technical term. I thought it was glaringly obvious from my explicitly expressed concern about whether or not people were being displaced that I was referring to price increases. My bad.
You win the argument over the semantics of two words... congratulations?
It's not a technical term to my knowledge and if it's a loaded term, I believe that would be by your choice ("wild"). This is not about the semantics of two words but about the proper approach to conversation about serious matters. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Be precise. Avoid exaggeration and equivocation. This matters far more than any particular subject under discussion.
So... the proper approach to conversation about serious matters is to harp on someone for using terminology you don't like even though its blatantly obvious from context what they mean?
And honestly, I only ceded the point about the terminology because I thought it would prompt you to finally make your on-topic point. "Fluctuation" can certainly mean "movement from low to high" without being in error - read your own definition. I guess you really don't have anything to contribute, though.
Based on your other comments, I don't think wild market fluctuations are really the issue here, are they? If they somehow disappeared, would you yield rent control to accommodate broad market trends?
Why would I yield something that doesn't exist? But, sure, okay, yes, I would be willing to yield rent control in the situation where it wasn't necessary to prevent displacement. I guess I miss your point?
I asked if you would yield price controls, which certainly do exist, and I was curious whether wild market fluctuations were pivotal to your position. I'm assuming this is why you haven't addressed the essence of my point.
I haven't addressed the essence of your point because I don't know what it is.
Rent control only really exists in large cities that have experienced wild market fluctuations (in the form of surging rent prices) that displaced renters.
If there weren't surging rents displacing people, why would there be rent control? In that case, I would yield them... but in that case, they wouldn't have existed in the first place. So I still miss your point.
No, wild fluctuations are wild -- your adjective -- continual change up and down. May I suggest a dictionary?
fluc⋅tu⋅a⋅tion [fluhk-choo-ey-shuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. continual change from one point or condition to another.
2. wavelike motion; undulation.
This does not subsume longer-term trends.
EDIT: I want to know if your issue is simply with rising prices. If it is -- and it seems pretty clear that it is -- don't use misleading/distracting/inaccurate verbiage like "wild fluctuations".
Dude, come on. Your contribution to this conversation is really going to be latching onto my use of 'wild fluctuations' instead of 'large price increases' as somehow disingenuous?
This certainly includes many among the rich and powerful, but I don't think this brush can be applied to developers in general. What is their goal in places where there is no more land to build on, like NY and SF, but to reconfigure it and make it more available (affordable) to more people? Of course they seek profit and some people are substantially inconvenienced in the process, but in the broad perspective it creates value. Whatever its flaws, Manhattan offers more to more people now than it did 100 years ago.
Are they not greedy, those who are renting their spots in these desirable locations and who are using the government's guns to keep others out? As a voting constituency they're leveraging the force of government to serve their own individual interests, seemingly unconcerned about the consequences for everyone else.
I find it ironic that they wield the term "greed" with immunity.