this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2026

200 points (100.0% liked)

Flippanarchy

2375 readers

954 users here now

Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.

Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.

This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.

Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Rules

If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.

Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

200

Fuck BlackRock (europe.pub)

submitted 1 hour ago by A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

My mother was actually thinking about selling my grandparents house to them.

I'm not sure if I changed her mind, but I straight up told her the second she mentioned them that I would burn the house down before the sale went through and would be chilling in a cell with a smile on my face for it.

She decided not to sell to a company.

Does that make me unhinged? Maybe. But that's one less house going to a rental company and one more family getting a house they'll live in.

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 54 minutes ago

You did the right thing. They would have just used it as currency anyways.

[–] Kazel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 47 minutes ago (1 children)

lacht in Friedrich Merz

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 45 minutes ago (1 children)

What did he do again?

[–] Kazel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 31 minutes ago

Rente "nur noch als Basisabsicherung" und dann an der Börse zocken mit unseren Rentengeldern, dann kann sich Blackrock schön die Taschen voll machen (sein ehemaliger Arbeitgeber). Ansonsten noch der Ausverkauf Deutschland's, Kaputtstreichen der Krankenversicherung, das ständigen Hetzen gegen die eigene Bevölkerung usw usf

[+] grue@lemmy.world -12 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 45 minutes ago) (6 children)

The law of supply and demand still applies whether you try to paint one of the participants as a villain or not. Even if every market participant were an individual, that (presumably not overly wealthy) single mother of four is still going to get out-competed.

The only actual solution is to increase supply, which means abolishing the wealthy-favoring laws that make it illegal to build (i.e. the laws mandating things like single-family houses and minimum parking requirements).

Edit: do you people not understand that your attitudes play right into the hands of the private equity oligarchs? Y'all are literally defending authoritarian laws that distort the market in their favor.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 20 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

The law of supply and demand still applies whether you try to paint one of the participants as a villain or not.

Where do middle men live in this equation? What about lenders, administrators, and housing developers?

The only actual solution is to increase supply

Ten houses are on the market. These houses range from $250k to $5M in listed price.

I have $20k for a down payment and $200k in borrowing power.

You have $30k for a down payment and $300k in borrowing power.

Berkshire Hathaway has $373.31 Billion for down payments and functionally unlimited borrowing power.

How many extra houses need to be built before you or I can outbid BH for a home?

[–] Alk@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Let's find out!

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago

Get cracking, scout!

[–] grue@lemmy.world -4 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

Doesn't matter, because even if Berkshire Hathaway is eliminated from the bidding, when a dozen buyers with $200k or $300k in buying power are in the market and only one house is for sale because it's literally illegal for more to be built, only one of you is going to be able to get the house!

[–] protist@retrofed.com 4 points 32 minutes ago

I really don't get your angle. Let's say there are 8 entities seeking a house, 3 of which are corporations. Ban corporations from owning single family homes, and there's an immediate drop in demand, so the current supply satisfies more individuals. Why are you arguing against this?

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 27 minutes ago

So suddenly the law of supply and demand conveniently no longer applies? By removing demand from the market, we're not lowering prices?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 54 minutes ago* (last edited 53 minutes ago) (1 children)

even if Berkshire Hathaway is eliminated

How many properties is BH sitting on unsold? How many are going to open up with the death of the Boomer homeowner generation?

Between 13.1 million and 14.6 million Boomers are projected to "exit homeownership" between 2026 and 2036. Who will own those homes when they are gone?

it’s literally illegal for more to be built

Show my the corner is the country where it is illegal to build new homes

We have, if anything, an enormous vacant housing surplus. What we lack is jobs paying at the going mortgage rate

[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 48 minutes ago* (last edited 48 minutes ago) (1 children)

Show my the corner is the country where it is illegal to build new homes

Just look at any zoning map. It's all the (usually) yellow parts, i.e. the single-family-zoned areas, which make up the vast bulk of most cities' residential land area.

We have, if anything, an enormous vacant housing surplus.

Sure, in the exurbs nobody actually wants to live in!

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 35 minutes ago* (last edited 33 minutes ago)

It’s all the (usually) yellow parts, i.e. the single-family-zoned areas,

Are you claiming that you can't build homes in a residential neighborhood?

in the exurbs nobody actually wants to live in!

The exurbs were very popular during COVID work from home

[–] JangleJack@lemmy.world 13 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Supply is a problem and I agree about existing density-blocking laws. However this is not an either/or situation. Market effects on pricing are aggregate, not annectdotal. Taking private equity out of the market would certainly lower demand. Plenty of housing are sitting empty or underoccupied right now because of speculation.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago

And plenty of units are converted rentals that leverage the borrowing power of the owner to upcharge the tenant.

[–] grue@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 58 minutes ago) (1 children)

The effect of zoning laws dwarfs the effect of private equity, to the point that focusing on the latter is absolutely just making a scapegoat to avoid fixing the actual problem.

People just love to blame private equity because they want to eat their cake and have it too (own a single-family house in the middle of a city, for a price they can afford) and can't bear to face the reality that that is fundamentally impossible as a matter of geometry.

It's real fucking simple, people: if 10 families want to live in the same acre of land, they don't all get to each own a single-family house on a one-acre lot! One of them gets to (for a huge price), and the rest get physically displaced. The only way for something else to happen is for the law to change so that more housing units can be built on that acre, but the spatially-inevitable consequence of that is that each family doesn't get their own house with a 1-acre yard.

You fundamentally cannot have it both ways, but people don't want to accept that so they blame private equity instead.

I'm not defending private equity in the slightest, mind you! By all means, fucking murder them all if you want; IDGAF. I'm just saying y'all are gonna be all surprised_pikachu.jpg when it turns out to do fuck-all to solve the actual problem.

Edit: the irrational downvotes on my comments only help prove my point. People just can't deal with reality, so they childishly lash out instead.

[–] protist@retrofed.com 2 points 26 minutes ago

Institutional investors have tended to cluster their purchases, resulting in more concentrated investments in certain neighborhoods in a handful of markets, including Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, Charlotte, and Tampa. The 2024 GAO report found that they own 25% of single-family rental homes in Atlanta and 21% of those in Jacksonville. Researchers have found that mega landlords may have contributed to the rise in housing costs, particularly in areas where they're heavily concentrated.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-ban-wall-street-buying-houses-not-solution-home-prices-2026-1

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 7 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

1 in every 25 homes in England are empty

https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/

Over 15 million American homes — approximately 10% of the country’s housing inventory — were vacant in 2024.

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/

But sure, we just need to build more poorly made, for maximum profit, homes that definitely don't make giant corporations lots of money whilst simultaneously destroying green spaces, communities, and any form of third places within walkable distance of the poorly made homes...

There's certainly no market manipulation that renders supply and demand utter bollocks.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 32 minutes ago

As the other person mentions, vacant homes in some rural area are irrelevant when you can not work there. Look at Japan if you want to see that dialed up to 11.

[–] grue@lemmy.world -1 points 53 minutes ago* (last edited 52 minutes ago)

None of those statistics ever take into account where the empty homes are. It doesn't matter if houses in the middle of nowhere are empty because nobody wants to live there. What matters is how many homes are allowed to exist closer in to the cities where people actually want to live.

But sure, we just need to build more poorly made, for maximum profit, homes that definitely don’t make giant corporations lots of money whilst simultaneously destroying green spaces, communities, and any form of third places within walkable distance of the poorly made homes…

That's absolutely ass-backwards bullshit. Back in reality, building density is what creates walkability, not what destroys it! Quit being dishonest.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 1 points 17 minutes ago

Shouldn’t be a market for housing or healthcare

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

Good luck with that

[–] gezero@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

https://thepremierdaily.com/200-nebraska-farmers-remain-silent-during-auction-so-a-young-man-can-buy-back-his-family-farm/

[–] DrBob@lemmy.ca 2 points 51 minutes ago

That was a plot on Little House on the Prairie.

[–] grue@lemmy.world -2 points 56 minutes ago (1 children)

A farm auction in rural Nebraska, where the land is exactly the polar opposite of scarce, has fuck-all to do with my point about density in cities.

[–] gezero@sopuli.xyz 1 points 19 minutes ago

I think your attitude is missing an even bigger picture on top of your bigger markets picture. People can be black rock assholes masturbating with their invisible hands or they can be nice to each other. Markets will adapt...