4
cathole953 4 points ago +4 / -0

The headline for original article is kind of misleading. This is only really on the rise in Georgia specifically. And that's only because it's pretty much the only state in the union that doesn't require notarization of things like quit claim deeds and warranty deeds.

So literally anyone can print off a deed that they obtained from a public database, forge the appropriate names, and then have the property "transferred" into their "ownership".

Then they can get a mortgage on it and just not pay it, sell it out from under someone, etc. etc.

I also looked into this SPECIFIC story more as well, because it seemed a little bizarre to me that it escalated to this point because usually mortgage fraud/wrongful forclosure cases are ridiculously easy to win if you're in the right when forged documents are involved.

A decent lawyer and a notary expert are all it needs, and you don't even half to pay for it since 99% of the time the courts will put all the expenses on the other party since they're the ones at fault.

So what happened in this specific case, was that these old people kept getting mail talking about missing mortgage payments, and their house being foreclosed on, but ignored it and threw it away without looking into it. Then refused to leave when they actually got foreclosed on after never taking any action.

If they had just reported the mortgage fraud after the first letter, everything would have been fixed within a week or two max at no cost to them. So while this IS horrible, I can't say they're completely not at fault since they took zero action to fix the situation.

5
cathole953 5 points ago +5 / -0

This totally ignores third party "outside" factors, like the giant push by cabal stooges to normalize homosexuality, transsexuality, emasculate men, push for food additives and water chemicals that lower fertility, and let's not forget the greatest factor here.

Going off the gold standard and allowing for inflation to happen. Look at the monetary value of the dollar before the federal reserve, it basically had ZERO inflation. Sometimes, it actually had deflation, which means the money become more valuable.

Get rid of all these external factors, and we'd probably be living like the jetsons right now, minus the flying cars and robot butlers.

So no, capitalism doesn't "promote societal suicide". It's corruption and propaganda from the cabal that promotes it.

3
cathole953 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's kind of the point. The Wallstreet landlords DO have the cash, hence why they're able to buy up entire neighborhoods at once. Then they refinance it to get their money back out. Rinse and repeat.

But in doing so they're perpetually taking on massive amounts of debt in a bloated value market. So when the house of cards crashes, they're gonna go belly up.

7
cathole953 7 points ago +7 / -0

Need to preface this so I don't get burned at the stake. I DO NOT support corporate Single Family Landlords. I firmly believe single family homes should either be owned, or be the realm of small and medium scale family owned LLC landlords. The largest one of those I've EVER seen was about 15K houses, and it wasn't in a single metro. It was spread over 17 states. and 24 metros. And that was a large exception, rather than the norm.

Now with that out of the way. This isn't as big a problem as people think it is. Yeah it sucks in the short term, but medium/long term, this isn't a big deal.

https://s28.q4cdn.com/264003623/files/doc_financials/2022/ar/invh_2022_ar_web_bmk.pdf

There's the 2022 Annual report for Invitation Homes (2023 Annual report isn't available yet), the largest Single Family REIT in North America that owns over 80K Single Family homes in the USA and Canada.

If you look inside of it you'll notice a very important detail. They own about $17 Billion worth of property, but have just under $9.5 Billion in Debt. That means they're using 56%~ leverage.

Now why is the important? Because from what I can tell they use a very basic real estate investment strategy that a lot of normal people use, just scaled to infinity. BRR (Buy, Refinance, Rent). It's one of the simplest strategies. You buy a house in all cash, to simplify the process and lure in the seller with a quick sell, then you just simply refinance the house after it's legally yours to get your money back while renting it to pay off the mortgage and pocket the difference as your income.

It's literally the most simple Real Estate Investment Strategy. Looking back, I'd say that the 56% debt ratio is probably only because they chose to wait until the end of the new year to refinance their properties to further invest. Most of these types of companies will typically use at least 75% leverage to maximize profits.

Now why is all this important? Because in the medium-long term, they're gonna lose their shirt on those houses. It's no secret that real estate is INCREDIBLY overpriced. We're due for more than just a correction. We're probably looking at a crash on the scale of the great depression or worse. Most people worth listening too are saying AT LEAST 70% drop in value, up to 90%.

So yeah, these guys are gonna lose their shirts on these houses, and then they're gonna flood the market, and further drive down home prices. Which will make the entire market infinitely more affordable to the common man.

4
cathole953 4 points ago +4 / -0

Eh I wouldn't worry about it. Be kind of hard to pass something like that if the entire government is collapsed because of everything else going on. It's pretty accepted from what Q hinted at/outright said, that when the crap hits the fan, IT WILL ALL HIT THE FAN.

So when the banks collapse, leading to a giant silver/gold rally since there will no longer be any suppression on their value, the government is gonna collapse too, continuity of government will happen, etc. etc.

Basically, it'll be impossible for them to try and do something like that if there's no congress to right up or pass such a bill.

4
cathole953 4 points ago +4 / -0

Personally I'm betting we'll see a $5k an oz minimum for silver. Here's an example why.

https://munknee.com/case-5000-silver-yes-5000-silver/

But even considering that, It'll probably be at WAY over $5K for a month or two, I'm predicating $15-25K an ounce fora while. Reason being that FOMO will create a mini bubble like it has in every other instance of an asset quickly appreciating.

People will see it's going up, want to get "their piece of the pie", and then drive the price up above it's actual value by a factor of 3X-5X, before people stop buying it because it's too expensive for their blood, and then the market will crash back down to roughly $5K.

5
cathole953 5 points ago +5 / -0

The literally didn't say that? They said if it's not stayed he MIGHT be forced to sell properties which would cause irreparable harm to the Trump Org.

Basically, they're just outlining why there should be a stay, but even IF the appellate court doesn't side with Trump, he still has options beyond selling.

Cash out refinance Loans come to mind, but the most likely will be just taking out a loan or putting up DWAC stock as the collateral since Trumps cut is projected to be $4 Billion and while he can't sell it for six months after all is said and done, he can still take loans out against it or use it as collateral.

2
cathole953 2 points ago +2 / -0

While I'm sure there's nefarious reasons behind this, I'd assume the "official" reason, is that they move/have assets under management similar to some large regional banks.

As I write this he has a net worth just shy of 128 Billion. Going by this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks_in_the_United_States

That would make cascade investments (His family office) and the gates foundation (which combine manage ever dime of his money), the 34th largest bank in the united states, just under discover bank and even larger than the infamous Deutsche Bank by the tune of 17 Billion dollars.

I can't quite remember where I heard it before, but I believe I watched a video on family offices once that explained that all these ultra wealthy .01% types basically have to run their money like a bank would so they get clearances and approval to do just that from the various oversight organizations.

That's also why they tend to hire former bank executives to run their money for them, because they have so much money, they're basically a one person bank.

Not saying I AGREE with this considering I hate the ground gates walks on, but if you look at from a purely financial and logistical perspective, it makes sense.

3
cathole953 3 points ago +3 / -0

Normally I'd be all against the liberal whale judge, but in this case I hate Wayne "slightly" more. Not entirely sure what sort of corruption he's being charged with here, but he probably actually did it, and a lot more.

He's the douchebag constantly making backroom deals that allowed our second amendment rights to be gradually chipped at while refusing to do any actual defending beyond the usual saber rattling.

So in this case, I quite literally couldn't care less if the NRA and Wayne get screwed, they're both hollowed out shells of what they used to be.

3
cathole953 3 points ago +3 / -0

If you have any pictures try reverse image searching and then dredge for meta data to get pictures of him with people he seems comfortable/affectionate with.

Then you can use one of those facial identification websites on the other people in the photos to get more info on them.

Rinse and repeat.

Beyond that, try genealogy databases, data dredging websites that let you use key words to dredge the internet, etc. etc.

I'd be careful though and would use a good adblocker and pop up blocker since a lot of the sites that you'll find doing this kind of thing are kind of skeevy and filled with pop up ads or data mining ads.

8
cathole953 8 points ago +8 / -0

Meh, don't believe it. Like u/Fatality pointed out with the screenshot, most of these kids are only saying this to be accepted. The overwhelming majority of them are young girls identifying as bi, pan, or "masc" if they're a tomboy, or some other stupid sexual identity that basically let's them be be straight without being straight.

Every single one of the "sexualities" mentioned basically revolves around liking both genders or trying to be trans without being trans. Essentially, it lets them continue to be straight, because they actually don't find other women attractive and literally never date other women, while "officially" being a member of the rainbow brigade.

It's all about attention and acceptance. Once this stuff is demonized again post cabal, they'll all drop it over night.

11
cathole953 11 points ago +11 / -0

Meh I'm not worried about it. Not being sexist, but "young women", and really women in general, are generally much more likely to cave into peer pressure. As such they tend to go with "the current thing" more than men.

Case in point, social media, MSM, and basically every other institution of power is dead set on spewing nothing but liberal propaganda 24/7. More women than men are on these platforms most of the time, and they certainly use it far more on an hourly basis.

Ergo, to most women, the majority of the world is "lefist/liberal", and so to fit in with "the majority" they adapt that mindset to their own personalities. But even then like u/cringerepublic pointed out, most of the time they're super mild about it.

Think about those morons you see in "social experiment" videos where you'll ask them a question about something stupid. Let's say peanut butter. And they'll go on a rant about how peanut butter is racist because of slavery and all this other bull crap, and then the moment you mention that peanut butter was invented by a black guy they IMMEDIATELY back pedal because they realize it violates what's "socially acceptable".

Things like that is what I'm talking about. So once the globohomo media apparatus is done away with, and the fact that people are NOT overwhelmingly liberal, but rather are either middle of the road or conservative leaning for the most part, becomes a known fact of life, especially on social media, then most of the women will do a complete 180 on their opinions and entire life view in order to "fit in with the majority" again.

3
cathole953 3 points ago +3 / -0

To be fair, US steel isn't exactly top dog anymore. Nucor is the new top dog in North American Steel production. If I remember correctly, they produce either double or triple what US steel does in a year. So yeah, kind of a big fall, but not exactly the end of the world as far as US Steel production goes.

1
cathole953 1 point ago +1 / -0

.......Alright, you're an actual idiot. You ignored half of what I said, changed your target argument because I called you on your crap, and apparently want everyone alive to live in half acre lots while also spouting bull crap about pollution and calling for depopulation to 1950s level.

You're either actually stupid, or a troll. So I'm ending this argument chain. No sense in arguing with someone who ignores everything they're told because it doesn't fit their world view and just outright lies about things while calling for depopulation.

Assuming I'm wrong, might want to do a bit of introspection, since you sound eerily like a WEF stooge calling for everyone to be required to live in half acre houses with no choice over where they actually get to live and also calling for us to depopulate to the tune of 171 Million people (the difference between todays population and the population in 1950), "in the name of pollution and resource demand."

You literally sound like klaus schwab at this point, so if you're being serious, then I have no choice bit to label you a troll/glowie.

1
cathole953 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nice necro posting three days after a post was basically dead and no one is here to respond to you but me. But you didn't refute a single one of my points.

First of all, you're conflating apartment buildings (specifically low income apartment buildings) with all non-owner occupied housing. That's like taking a statistic about pitbulls and saying "see, all dogs eat babies!" It's inaccurate to the whole picture and dishonest to try and paint the situation in that manner.

Even in the 50s and 60s, when the economy was in it's prime, young people still typically rented for the first few years after college/leaving their parents house. Furthermore, the reason it's the number one path to wealth is because ANYONE can do it moron.

Anyone can go out and buy a house if they have enough money. It's not a groundbreaking idea. It doesn't require anything other than basic financial knowledge. Most people who own a rental, don't own an apartment building, they own a few actual houses, a lot of which are vacation rentals (Cabins, lakeside, ocean front, etc.). which are in gated communities. Further disproving you're apparent "point".

Finally, let's ASSUME you actually manage to pass such a law how do you enforce it or deal with the fallout? You seem to have a gripe with apartments specifically, so let's address that.

Apartment buildings, typically are self metered, meaning every individual unit does NOT have it's own meter to read power consumption, water consumption, etc. etc. The owner just assumes a standard rate based on average consumption and adds it into the rent.

So if every single apartment building in the country suddenly had to be converted into single unit condos, meaning the entire building would need to be overhauled to allow for such upgrades, who would pay for it? The current owner certainly wouldn't, and you're entire defense is that people don't have money to own a home, so the people wanting to buy certainly don't.

Who pays for those upgrades? You're talking hundreds of billions of dollars in upgrades. And that's just for metering. Multifamily is zoned different because building standards are different. You'd also have to upgrade the fire systems, electrical systems, etc. etc.

Who pays for that?

And I can almost guarantee you'll just say to tear them down and build single family homes. In which case I ask you, do you hate farmland and forests? Let's use NYC for example. If every single apartment building in NYC was demolished and replaced with single family homes, the urban sprawl required to replace all those housing units would take up the entirety of New York State, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and part of Pennsylvania. And that's not accounting for the other major cities in the NY Metro that have their own multi family housing buildings. Just NYC.

At that point you also run into problems like having a house that's literally 5 hours away from where you work because of traffic.

So yeah, you're grand design of having no more multi family housing and having nothing but single family homes and/or condos is a fantasy that is neither feasible, nor possible.

2
cathole953 2 points ago +2 / -0

I read that assuming they meant 10 Equal "sell off value" minimums over a decade, but I suppose you make a good point. Legal semantics like that are the difference between being technically legal or illegal.

1
cathole953 1 point ago +1 / -0

Alright, you're an idiot or a troll. I'm not sure which, but you obviously read neither the original post, nor the bills, nor my own comments, and are just spouting random bull crap to get a reaction.

This is the last time I'm responding, as I have a "final post" rule when it comes to an identified troll/dumbass, but I'll break down one last time why you're wrong on basically every point.

First of all, blackrock is NOT a subsidiary of the federal reserve. Blackrock is an investment fund/wealth management company. They're publicly traded, and you can literally see a list of who owns more than 5% of blackrocks stock. The federal reserve is nowhere on that list.

Second of all, blackrock gets fined all the time, and they pay those fines. A quick google search would tell you that much, but apparently that's asking too much of you to just look something up before spouting your inane nonsense.

Blackrock, like most large companies, considered fines a part of life. There is not a single large business on planet earth that doesn't account for fines in their expenses budget every year. But a 50% of MARKET VALUE fine, is bankrupting for any business.

Third of all, as the original post pointed out, this only applies to hedge funds and other large, institutional investors. The literal, legal definition of an institutional investor is an organization that invests on behalf of a group of people (Some definitions put a dollar amount limit requiring they manage at least $50-100 Million of investor money on the behalf of others as well). Ergo, a retired couple who owns their own portfolio of 10-20 houses (Which at the US average of $400K would only be worth $4-8 Million and not be owned on behalf of another) with no middle man, would not be have this applied to them. Nullifying your supposed "point" about retired boomers.

So no, the Ma and Pop landlords aren't going anywhere....Especially when you consider 70% of "small rental units", meaning single family to quadraplex, are owned and managed by ma and pop landlords

https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economists-outlook/mom-and-pop-business-owners-day-landlords-of-small-rental-properties#:~:text=Among%2049.5%20million%20rental%20housing,mom-and-pop%20landlords.

Likewise, Blackrock, does NOT, repeat after me, NOT, own the majority of single family rentals, Heck, institutional investors in general only own 0.7% of all single family homes in the united states.

Let's do some math real quick.

https://www.statista.com/topics/5144/single-family-homes-in-the-us/#topicOverview

There are 82 Million single family homes in the United States.

https://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/democratic-legislation-aims-curb-hedge-fund-ownership-single-family-homes

Every single institutional investor combined owns a collective 574,000 Single family homes. (Blackrock themselves own 24,600 for the record as their own website states they own .03% of all single family homes in the US.)

https://www.blackstone.com/housing/our-track-record-in-housing/#:~:text=Blackstone%20owns%20approximately%200.03%25%20of,family%20homes%20in%20the%20US.

Now then, what is 574,000 / 82,000,000?

.007 or when converted to percent 0.7% of all single family homes. Compare that with the 15,939,000 single family rental homes owned by Mom and Pop Landlords. (You can achieve this number by using the nar.realtor link above, but the math is 49.5 Million *0.7= 22.77 Million which you then multiply by 0.7 again for 15.939 Million. For context, there are 49.5 Million rental units in the US, of which 70% are 1-4 units, of which 70% are owned and managed by Mom and Pop Landlords).

So let's see here Mom and Pop landlord own 27.77 times more houses than Blackrock and every other institutional investor combined. So let's see, for your bizarre fantasy of blackrock buying out every single one of those Mom and Pop land Lords, at the US average of $400K per single family home, they'd need $6,375,600,000,000. That's over $6 Trillion for the record, if you can't see all the commas. They have just over $10 Trillion in total assets, meaning they'd have to liquidate over 60% of their total assets in order to achieve this outlandish goal, and they'd have to shutter countless funds, which would bring all the wrong kinds of attention. But most importantly, it's literally impossible to do.

Blackrock invests in EVERYTHING. Stocks, derivatives, bonds, real estate, private equity, venture capital. If it makes money, they'll try it. The only thing in that list that can be easily, and quickly liquidated would be stocks, bonds, and some types of derivatives. And if you tried to liquidate over $6 Trillion in assets over.....well any amount of time really, you'd tank whatever markets you're selling in. For comparison, the Lehman Brothers (the big bank that went under in 2008), had $600 BILLION in total assets, they're STILL being liquidated in bankruptcy court to this day, 15 years late because doing it any faster would tank multiple markets.

And I know exactly what you're going to say. "Oh they'll just print it, they won't sell anything, dur hur!"

Well let me burst that bubble for you. There are currently $2.26 Trillion actual total USD in circulation

https://www.statista.com/statistics/456754/value-of-currency-in-circulation-usa/#:~:text=The%20total%20value%20of%20currency,particularly%20sharp%20increase%20in%202020.

So they would have print nearly triple, the total dollar amount currently in existence, to achieve this magical plan.

Remember what happened in 2020 when they printed something like 80% of all dollars in circulation currently? Now imagine the hyper inflation that would occur if instead of an 80% increase in dollar supply, the dollar supply suddenly tripled on top of that 80% increase.

Venezuela? Nah, Weimar Germany would probably be closer. They had a literal 100 Trillion Mark (Their currency). For comparison, the exchange rate for dollars at this point in time (1923) was $1USD for 4,210,500,000,000 Marks. So hyperinflation doesn't even begin to cover what would happen if they "printed" the money needed to buy up all the single family rental homes.

Here's two links for the information about Weimar Marks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papiermark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

And we haven't even covered the other 40+ Million NON rental single family homes in the United States.

So as you can see, every single argument you're attempting to make falls flat in the face of actual facts.

I'm not saying black rock isn't evil, they are. But you have literally no idea what you're talking about when it comes to this specific topic.

Assuming I'm wrong and you're not a troll trying to bait people, then please, for the love of all that is Holy. Just do a freaking google search or two before you make baseless claims that anyone on the internet can debunk and disprove in five minutes with less than 10 google searches of their own.

1
cathole953 1 point ago +1 / -0

......That is....I don't actually know how I should put it, but it's just wrong. Not EVERYONE who owns a rental property is a cabal stooge. You do realize that right? A lot of people's grandparents or parents have a small property portfolio of 10-20 houses that they rent out for extra retirement income.

Is every well off boomer now a member of the rothschild family? Because that's what you're implying with you're bizarre logic.

I don't even know what to say, since your rebuttal was actually retarded. And I'm not trying to be mean, I just legit don't know how else to describe such a one dimensional, childish response.

"Everyone who owns a rental property is part of the cabal!"

Do you realize how insane that sounds?

3
cathole953 3 points ago +3 / -0

Not to be rude, but there's multiple problems with that. As pointed out in the post, they want a 50%, not 20% tax.

That is neither sustainable, nor legal, in many places. Quite a few of the biggest markets in the country (California and New York for example), have rent control that prevent landlords from raising rents more than the inflation rate+2-5% a year.

So a 50% cut would be bankrupting once you account for all the costs involved with owning and upkeeping a rental.

Likewise, yes, quite often these properties are purchased with cash. But then they immediately go out and put a massive 80/20 mortgage on them by doing what's called a cash out refinance (where you get a mortgage on a property you own to free up cash for further investment).

Which means that 50% tax would make literally every one of these investments less that worthless, since they'd have vastly more debt than income.

Believe me, I LOATHE agreeing with any liberal, but for once, I actually do agree with this, and I do believe it would work.

Now having said that, I also believe it won't go anywhere, since this is exactly what the deep state wants.

But I do believe these bills, or something similar SHOULD be done at some point to prevent hedge funds from commercializing people's homes. This isn't how it's meant to be. Normal people are supposed to own their own home, buy a handful of rental houses themselves that they rent out to students, young people, vacation goers, etc. And then gradually sell and move up until they're into commercial real estate territory.

That's how literally 90% of wealthy people made their money. It's a slow, gradual process, where you buy and/or sell properties every few years, thus keeping supply and demand in relative equilibrium, which keeps prices down overall.

Institutionalizing the basic building block, single family homes, messes with the entire process and pushes normal people out of both home ownership, and wealth building.

8
cathole953 8 points ago +8 / -0

Dumbest take I've ever heard. Renting doesn't destroy community or concentrate crime. "Low income housing", AKA, government subsidized housing does. There IS a difference.

Besides, what you're describing would basically destroy the number one path to wealth. Literally 90% of Millionaires and/or Billionaires (AKA wealthy people), made the majority of their wealth in Real Estate.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-real-estate-creates-90-millionaires-ben-lovro

Since I know a source will be asked for, there's one, but a quick google search will provide hundreds of other such examples.

So what you're describing would destroy the absolute number one path that normal people have for creating wealth for themselves and their children. I agree, institutional investors should be banned from owning single family homes, but a blanket ban on "non-owner occupied housing" is the literal dumbest take I've ever heard. It's the exact same crap you hear on literal communist subreddits like r/antiwork.

And before anyone says "just don't invest in housing", newsflash, commerical properties (Retail, office, Hospitality, etc.) are an entirely different animal and require millions of dollars for a down payment on a "low end" property.

On the flip side, in a decent economy, like what we had under Trump, a normal person with a decent job can go out and put down $50K they saved over a few years on a single family rental.

That's how literally 90% of people build wealth for themselves. I agree institutional buyers need to be banned, but a blanket ban is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. You can't gradually shift into "bigger" things if you cut people off from starting at the small things.

What you're suggesting would literally be playing into the WEF's hands by cutting off the number one way people drag themselves out of poverty or the middle class into the bare minimum of "being wealthy". In other words, that'd be killing the American dream.

1
cathole953 1 point ago +1 / -0

Funny how you didn't deny anything I said in my rebuttal about your application of insurance logic and instead changed the topic to the farm part of things to try and get a win. But I'll bite.

First of all let's address the blatantly wrong Ohio Tax situation. I found not a single source stating that literally half of Ohio counties are going to see 37-44% tax increases on their property taxes. In fact, the ONLY thing I found was that 6 counties have seen an AVERAGE HOME VALUE INCREASE, of that amount.

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/counties-caution-property-taxes-are-rising-because-of-hot-real-estate-market-but-not-as-much-as-you-think

And even the article points out, that doesn't mean a 37-41% increase in TAXES. If you read it, it'll point out that taxes are only increasing by an average of 9% as a result of the massive increase in home value. Market value and tax assessed value are two different things, and the massive increase is MARKET VALUE. Tax Assessed Value is ALWAYS lower than Market value. Hence, taxes, in 6, not 44, of Ohio's counties are increasing my an average of 9%.

Granted, that's still not right, but an extra $600~ a year (as pointed out in the charts in the article) is hardly bankrupting for most people .

Now let's move on to your falsehoods about the farmers.

No, no they aren't. Farmer's aren't selling out, and blackrock is most definitely NOT the "major buyer" of such land.

96% of all farms in the united states are family owned.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/archive/2021/01-22-2021.php

Even if you go off the admitted decrease of 4% since 2012 (this is the most up to date USDA data since it's from 2021 and they do it in ten year cycles), that's .0044% decrease per year.

But even THEN, that doesn't account for the fact that in 9 out of ten cases, the farms being sold, are bought up by another nearby farmer to add to their fields. Farmer's are typically VERY close knitt and will mostly sell to another nearby farmer if they are going to close up shop because none of the kids want to get involved.

So most of those "decreases" are just local famers condensing ownership among themselves as some retire and don't have kids that want to be part of the farm life.

And finally blackrock. I WAS going to pull up a statistic to show that it's a lie that they are buying up farmland, but guess what. When I tried searching for such a statistic, I couldn't find one.

Because there isn't one. Blackrock hasn't bought ANY farmland in the United States. They only countries I've found they've bought agricultural land in are Ukraine (big surprise) and Australia (Also big surprise). Blackrock's North American Funds are focused on upstream and downstream Agricultural products instead of farms.

So things like Fertilizer, farm equipment, meat packing, processed products (like canned vegetables, juices, etc. etc.) They have literally zero direct investments in Agricultural land in North America. I even tried looking to see if they own shares in any of the few Agricultural REITS (which are few and far between because they're just not popular and only own a few 10K acers at most of the nearly Billion acres of Agricultural land in United States alone).

Nope, they don't even seem to own any shares in Agricultural REITs.

At this point, you're just making up blatant alarmism lies because you can't be bothered to control+F through a quarterly fund report on Blackrock's website.

So please, stop arguing over something that's just blatantly not true. You're not helping anyone by spreading falsehoods and creating alarmist responses.

1
cathole953 1 point ago +1 / -0

In your original post you specifically mentioned Hotel owners and business owner friends as part of your examples, ergo, I was pointing out the flaw in your logic of applying commercial insurance rates to normal insurance rates.

So obviously you either forgot what you wrote or you only skimmed my post.

Normal insurance rates ARE going up for normal people. But nowhere near as much as you let on. For example, in the area I live (semi-rural area with a few principle cities and a metro population of over a million), our insurance has gone up a whopping $20 over the past 3 years. So a little less than $7 a year.

But we also don't have stupid high crime rates, and our district attorneys will actually prosecute criminals. Change the location to, since you were using MIchigan and New York as examples, Detroit, and yes you'll obviously see a lot higher increases because Detroit is always in the top 10 most crime ridden cities in North America, and has gotten worse since Michigan decriminalized basically everything up to a certain dollar amount of damage while refusing to prosecute any crimes.

This is why blue state cities are seeing exoduses.

So no, most people aren't millionaires, as you snarkily pointed out, but most people in the us ALSO don't live in a city. The USA is still very rural/suburban in terms of population spread.

Meaning the majority of people don't live in an area where insurance rates are going sky high because of retarded policies. They WILL see increases, some larger than others (not everyone is going to experience the $20 increase I have for example), but most aren't going to be bankrupted by it either.

Though I will admit the notable exception is california, because their state level politicians have screwed things up so bad that now most insurance companies have just opted to outright pull out of the state and won't renew policies after their current cycle.

But there again, that's not really bankrupting people, because instead of having "high insurance" payments, they have NO insurance payments. Which is also bad, but not a problem that will immediately lead to being bankrupt.

12
cathole953 12 points ago +13 / -1

Alright, I'll play devil's advocate. This isn't entirely true. I won't be rude as I usually am, because I can see how someone would look around and see something like this, but it's just not true. ESPECIALLY, on the farmland side of things.

First of all. let's address the fact that there are two separate issues being discussed here, insurance rates and taxes.

Let's talk about Insurance rates first. Yes, they're going up. The rates you're giving though, are only applicable to inner city crap holes. Those rates are reflective more on urban crime policies than anything else. You mentioned Michigan and New York Specifically. Both states have went on a spree of decriminalizing all kinds of crap up to a certain dollar amount, and have also made it next to impossible to actual prosecute any criminals in inner cities.

This is why those rates are increasing by a ridiculous rate in such places. Now you mentioned hotels. So let's go for a hotel in say, downtown Manhattan or Long Island, since we're still talking New York/New York Metro in that case.

The rates on such buildings in those areas aren't going up anywhere near as much, despite the recent influx of "immigrant trouble". Why? Because they're high value buildings in gateway markets. Even if you completely trashed the building to the point that it's no longer suitable for human habitation, the land it sits on is so valuable that, if you demolished the building, you could probably make your money back and then some on the sell of the land and air rights (which is is a thing in new york, you can buy and sell the rights to the air above the land parcels you own), so the insurance won't increase by THAT much, because they know that if push come to shove, that land is still going to be of value.

Detroit doesn't have that luxury, since it's a complete crap hole without a single positive market appeal. It's a dying city and has been for decades. So you can get away with jacking up insurance rates.

Likewise, while rates ARE increasing, they're not increasing by the ridiculous amounts you pointed out everywhere. Take Florida for example. Hotel central. Yes, the rates have increased in Florida, but the most I've seen over the past 3-4 years is 20%, or roughly 5% a year. Hardly the 50-100% you're talking about. It's annoying, but hardly an amount that can't be absorbed into the cost and passed on to customers. And let's be honest, people who want to go to miami beach are gonna pay that cost and never blink an eye about it.

Here's the other thing about insurance specifically that you don't seem to understand. Commerical insurance is much different from personal insurance. Typically, you sign commercial insurance contracts in terms of 10-20 years, and then the insuree has at least 2, but usually up to 4 two-five year extensions on that contract.

Commerical insurance is a long game. They want to lock in those big money customers for decades at a time. The extensions ARE often negotiable, but typically speaking, what you're describing of "insurance shopping" being impossible is completely false when it comes to commercial insurance. There are literally entire teams out there that are dedicated to poaching insurance customers from one firm to another by offering them the absolute lowest possible rates they can offer once they've been pissed off because their current provider tried to squeeze them.

Insurance companies are a rather unique entity. They really and truly, don't have to pay out that many claims throughout a year. Sometimes that's because there aren't that many claims and other times it's legal shenanigans, but either way, the point is they don't have to pay out too many claims, because large scale disasters are actually pretty rare in the grand scheme of things.

This puts them in the unique position of being able to collect your payments or "the float" and not have to pay out for years at a time. Which allows them to invest your payments for years, decades even, without ever having to pay anything out, and make more money for themselves. So it's more beneficial for them to have a long term contract with a large scale client, than to try and squeeze as much as they can out of that same client and run them into the arms of a rival provider who will offer them better terms for a 10+Year contract.

Now that we've established that the insurance side of things is only true in crap hole ghetto inner cities, let's address the taxes.

I'll just be honest, you have no idea what you're talking about here. 99% of farmers in the United States are eligible for what is called an "Agriculture/Homestead (depending on where you live) exemption". Basically, it freezes your property taxes permanently at a lower rate so long as the land is being used for agricultural purposes. It doesn't matter what happens around them, development, lots of house sells, etc. etc. Their taxes stay as low as possible so long as they keep farming. And any land they add to their farm's portfolio (because farms are registered as a business in 99% of cases) instantly have that super low tax rate applied to them.

Likewise, farmers have other special tax exemptions and rules. For example, you've heard everything is deductible as a joke before right? Well in the case of farmers, literally everything IS deductible. Everything from their electricity bill, to grocery bills, wages for workers, fuel for any vehicle registered as "company property" regardless of actual use, what little property taxes you pay, animal rearing and crop rearing costs, etc. etc.

Literally everything you do that has some effect on the farm is deductible. In 90% of cases, farmers don't actually pay taxes. By the time they end up claiming all of their deductions, they pay no taxes at all. This is why people say farmers are the most heavily subsidized business sector in North America. Not because of actual subsidy payments (though those ARE a factor), but because they get such favorable tax treatment compared to everybody else that only the absolute largest of farms (King Ranch, Three Mile Canyon Farms, etc.) actually end up paying any kind of taxes. And even then it's usually only a small amount.

Likewise, Insurance on farms is ALSO set up in decade long contracts, with 5 year extensions. Mostly because the assumption is that the farm is going to continue for generations as the farm is passed from Father to son again and again, and food production is the single most stable and needed industry on the planet.

And finally, this "there's less people" theory is also wrong. So far, there's been 20 Million excess deaths globally over the past few years. I know that sounds like a lot, and it is, but when you're talking about a global population of nearly 8 BILLION, that number starts to be much smaller. I can tell you right now, you go to ANY tourist trap in the USA right now, and it'll be just as crowded as any other year, despite all the financial problems people are experiencing.

Why? Because people are stupid. They'll prioritize short term joy over long term 90% of the time. This is why the beaches are full (and therefore the hotels and other small businesses). This is why Vegas is cram packed. This is why you still see people on long island vacationing and the golden coast in chicago, etc. etc.

So yeah, Insurance IS going up, but it's not having the effect you seem to think it is. Besides even assuming the $80K number WAS true universally, most medium sized businesses, like the Holiday Inn you mentioned, could easily absorb that cost. Medium sized hotels, in decent spots will make several $100K a year minimum. In GOOD spots? Easily over $1 Million a year. So yeah, it's not right that they'd have to absorb that extra cost, but they easily could.

This isn't going to bankrupt as many people as you think it is. If it does, then I hate to say it, but they're either in bad location for business and need to move their business anyway, or they're bad at being a businessman and probably took on too much debt, so they were bound to fail anyway.

Brutal, but honest.

view more: Next ›