# What would become of the UK/England..



## CoolMe (Sep 8, 2022)

...Now that the Queen is dead? 
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61585886


----------



## Veho (Sep 8, 2022)

Nothing really. Some of the fascination with the royal family might wane because none of her heirs and successors has the presence good old Liz 2 had, but not much else will happen. I doubt they will abolish the monarchy or something. 

But I've been wrong before.


----------



## Viri (Sep 8, 2022)

It's not the 1500's, she was just a figure head, that had almost no say.


----------



## elpapadelospollitos (Sep 8, 2022)

The monarchy ends, it's wealth is redistributed to the people, global poverty levels decrease dramatically


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 8, 2022)

Are there even any plans, if the monarchy suddenly ends?


----------



## Dave_Chad (Sep 8, 2022)

King Charles the Third now.  That's it.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 10, 2022)

What I'm curious about: what is the actual power of the royal house in the first place?

I know she was old, but I've never even heard a peep from Elizabeth on covid or the whole brexit saga (i might be missing a very neutral statement).

I'm not from the UK, but if it's anything like Belgium, it's just a ceremonial rule. Perhaps politically a catalysator, but not a force at all.
But again: I'm not from the uk so i don't know.


----------



## pustal (Sep 10, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> What I'm curious about: what is the actual power of the royal house in the first place?
> 
> I know she was old, but I've never even heard a peep from Elizabeth on covid or the whole brexit saga (i might be missing a very neutral statement).
> 
> ...



Yup, just cerimonial. Here's a short read. The crown has basically reduced to a symbol for the people and and an embassador figure for external relationships. I'd say it is still sustain because the British state actually profits from it in two fronts:

- the lands of the crown profit directly to the State at an exchange for a salary of sorts;

- tourism: it sells mugs and pins and brings people to London and Endinburg and wherever there are monarchy estates and cerimonies.

I don't mean to be derrogarory, btw, just expressing my thoughts.


----------



## Zajumino (Sep 10, 2022)

They ought to make me the king. I would probably do a better job at it anyways.

If not me, then Mr. Bean.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 10, 2022)

If it became a Republic, a massive improvement.


----------



## pustal (Sep 10, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> If it became a Republic, a massive improvement.


For the king and his role, what benefit would be to the country? The country would simply lose income.

The only think the ought to change woul be to abolish the House of Lords or make it fully ceremonial as well.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 10, 2022)

I doubt anything changes since the royal family is just a vestigial institution at this point.  Does the UK need to keep handing them taxpayer money for nothing?  No.  Do its citizens seem perfectly content with continuing to doing so?  Yes.


----------



## pustal (Sep 10, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I doubt anything changes since the royal family is just a vestigial institution at this point.  Does the UK need to keep handing them taxpayer money for nothing?  No.  Do its citizens seem perfectly content with continuing to doing so?  Yes.


Like I said above, the government actually benefits monetarily from the crown. The crown's lands profit directly to the State, £160M a year if the value still maintains:


----------



## Xzi (Sep 10, 2022)

pustal said:


> Like I said above, the government actually benefits monetarily from the crown. The crown's lands profit directly to the State, £160M a year if the value still maintains:



I'll not argue with these numbers, but I will say that the queen dying has shown a lot of the land "owned" by the crown would rather find new ownership, as it was improperly seized via colonialism and imperialism to begin with.  For that matter, calls for reparations are also picking up a lot of steam.

With Brexit the UK declared they'd rather withdraw into their own little bubble, but that being the case, logic dictates lands outside of that bubble should no longer be accessible to them as a playground, royalty or no.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 10, 2022)

pustal said:


> For the king and his role, what benefit would be to the country? The country would simply lose income



Nonsense. The monarchy is a drain on uk finances, the places associated with it would be even more successful without royals. I don't see Versailles, Caserta or Schoenbrunn suffer because of the lack of royalty inhabiting them.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 10, 2022)

Xzi said:


> not argue with these numbers, but I will say that the queen dying has shown a lot of the land "owned" by the crown would rather find new ownership, as it was improperly seized via colonialism and imperialism to begin with.



"King" Charles is one of the scummiest landlords ever.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 10, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I'll not argue with these numbers, but I will say that the queen dying has shown a lot of the land "owned" by the crown would rather find new ownership, as it was improperly seized via colonialism and imperialism to begin with.  For that matter, calls for reparations are also picking up a lot of steam.
> 
> With Brexit the UK declared they'd rather withdraw into their own little bubble, but that being the case, logic dictates lands outside of that bubble should no longer be accessible to them as a playground, royalty or no.


Crown land outside the UK (for the most part that means Canada and Australia) is more a synonym for government land anyway (think federal land in the US, https://i1.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fig1.png for those not familiar, but more readily given up in some cases).
Crown owned land within the UK would be a whole other kettle of fish, and also involve a lot of the upper classes as it would make for the better part of a millennium of history to unpack as a lot will still have claims going back to 1066 and aftermath thereof, to say nothing of the general notions of adverse possession that is fairly key in historical common law.

Brexit as far as bubble could be argued, however just as many would say it is more of a rebuke of the EU rather than an isolationist streak or removal from the commonwealth as a concept. Now I don't particularly rate the chances of CANZUK (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK) actually amounting to more than a simplification of tourist, student and 20 something working holiday visas and possibly some military intelligence sharing (which they largely already do, training standards and protocols also tend to match).


----------



## Xzi (Sep 10, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> Crown land outside the UK (for the most part that means Canada and Australia) is more a synonym for government land anyway (think federal land in the US, https://i1.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fig1.png for those not familiar, but more readily given up in some cases).
> Crown owned land within the UK would be a whole other kettle of fish, and also involve a lot of the upper classes as it would make for the better part of a millennium of history to unpack as a lot will still have claims going back to 1066 and aftermath thereof, to say nothing of the general notions of adverse possession that is fairly key in historical common law.
> 
> Brexit as far as bubble could be argued, however just as many would say it is more of a rebuke of the EU rather than an isolationist streak or removal from the commonwealth as a concept. Now I don't particularly rate the chances of CANZUK (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK) actually amounting to more than a simplification of tourist, student and 20 something working holiday visas and possibly some military intelligence sharing (which they largely already do, training standards and protocols also tend to match).


What of the Caribbean?


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 10, 2022)

Xzi said:


> What of the Caribbean?


That happens every 5 weeks or so for the last however many years now. Some did, some didn't, some just use it to agitate for something else.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 10, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> Brexit as far as bubble could be argued, however just as many would say it is more of a rebuke of the EU rather than an isolationist streak or removal from the commonwealth as a concept



Nope, as someone who's been living through it since the beginning, it's a wankfest of Little Englander racist c***s who were duped by a conman. Besides, rebuke of the EU by driving the UK to the ground all by itself? That's some serious mis-aimed rebuke all right.


----------



## smf (Sep 10, 2022)

elpapadelospollitos said:


> The monarchy ends, it's wealth is redistributed to the people, global poverty levels decrease dramatically


Do you mean the crown's wealth or the personal wealth of the monarch?

Either way, global poverty levels would not be affected.


----------



## pustal (Sep 10, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I'll not argue with these numbers, but I will say that the queen dying has shown a lot of the land "owned" by the crown would rather find new ownership, as it was improperly seized via colonialism and imperialism to begin with.  For that matter, calls for reparations are also picking up a lot of steam.
> 
> With Brexit the UK declared they'd rather withdraw into their own little bubble, but that being the case, logic dictates lands outside of that bubble should no longer be accessible to them as a playground, royalty or no.


Yeah but we know how new ownership goes. It'll never go to where it's due, always to benefit someone already powerful and rich. As is at least there is a beneficial arrangement towards the people and it's not like you could expropriate the monarchs without some sort of revolution.

Right now Britain's greatest problem lies in the parliament where people have been voted into office fueled by misinformation and prejudice against the electorate's own interest. I'm sure a lot of discussion around Charles will be use to deviate attention for the state of the economy that will be facing a major challenge without the help of the EU and a new PM that seems to be as Tatcher'esque as one can be.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Nonsense. The monarchy is a drain on uk finances, the places associated with it would be even more successful without royals. I don't see Versailles, Caserta or Schoenbrunn suffer because of the lack of royalty inhabiting them.


You reacted to my post above. The monarchy pays more money directly to the state than the state to the monarchy. That's the arrangement the British crown has with the country, specifically. If you watch the video you'll how that came about.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 10, 2022)

pustal said:


> You reacted to my post above. The monarchy pays more money directly to the state than the state to the monarchy. That's the arrangement the British crown has with the country, specifically. If you watch the video you'll how that came about.



No it really doesn't, it's that absurdity all over again. Just the money squandered on Andrew alone...


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 10, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Nope, as someone who's been living through it since the beginning, it's a wankfest of Little Englander racist c***s who were duped by a conman. Besides, rebuke of the EU by driving the UK to the ground all by itself? That's some serious mis-aimed rebuke all right.


The beginning was the 70s really (amusingly enough Labour supported it back then, though that was old labour so take that as you will, them looking most to unions with Australia and strengthening the commonwealth that the EU stint saw left to rot really outside of sports events and a few easy visas at various times -- see ten pound poms) and had been bubbling in the background ever since (Eurosceptic would have been the term of choice if those playing along at home want to go searching old newspapers or whatever), though you could probably find further stuff (some anti EC stuff would have been around and even anti Bretton Woods but I am way less familiar with minutia there). I presume Farage is the one you label a conman and while he is certainly a figurehead he was far from the only player.

Whether it was a direct casual issue for the current woes, inevitable* or them mishandling kung flu with pointless restrictions (or perhaps too few in the eyes of some if that would have somehow shortened things) and doing money printer go brr (granted the US did the same so was going to happen regardless really). There is also the argument that the pain such that it is caused by it*** is worth it, and that comes down to individual subjective calls.

*recessionary cycles were overdue if it is every 8-12 years (greater cycles also overdue) and the last one was housing crash and it is not like they raised taxes to create a cushion and reduce in hard times as per sensible economics, there is still no industry, still a load of pointlessly restrictive laws preventing anything but financial services, increasingly expensive government mandated/provided services (between lack of industry, plus women in the workforce**, meaning you pay those that would have gone there and are too stupid or otherwise incapable of finance job to twiddle their thumbs and continuing to be at the forefront of science for medicine to also pay for all those with nothing to do it adds up considerably), not like anybody anywhere has built houses in decades now which means nobody is affording anything either if larger and larger portions of the depressed wages are going on that.

**Even as late at the late 70s and early 80s there were still large sections of society that would have done school to maybe be a secretary for a few years before marrying a rich man or one doing those nice shiny new apprenticeships which is basically them removed as far as workforce stats go.

***looking at most of the EU member states right now (certainly any with proper clout) then they are similarly not doing great. Some of that is ill considered Russian sanctions but not all. If so goes one (and it is not like Greece or Italy are going to get their shit together any time soon) then so goes all is the fate of the EU then is it all that much different?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 10, 2022)

pustal said:


> As is at least there is a beneficial arrangement towards the people and it's not like you could expropriate the monarchs without some sort of revolution.


That's supposing the profits are socialized or at least going toward social programs.  As-is they're more likely to be going toward corporate subsidies and the like.  You're right in calling that out as more of a parliamentary issue, though.


----------



## pustal (Sep 10, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No it really doesn't, it's that absurdity all over again. Just the money squandered on Andrew alone...


Doesn't that money come from the crown? Even if for some reason the parliament decided to sponsor Andrew directly, his spendings far for reached the anual £160M the state profits from the crown or where that that value is at currently.


----------



## smf (Sep 10, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> as many would say it is more of a rebuke of the EU rather than an isolationist streak or removal from the commonwealth as a concept.


There are a lot of things people say, the reality is that some people voted to leave because they hated immigrants, some did it because they thought they were redoing world war 2, some did it because they saw no down sides and loads of money going to the NHS

Obviously the leavers want to remain in the common wealth, because they think we control that.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 11, 2022)

pustal said:


> Doesn't that money come from the crown? Even if for some reason the parliament decided to sponsor Andrew directly, his spendings far for reached the anual £160M the state profits from the crown or where that that value is at currently.


No, it's taxpayer money given to the Crown


----------



## pustal (Sep 11, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No, it's taxpayer money given to the Crown


Exactly then. And again, between of what the tax payer pays the crown and what the crown alleviates the tax collection with the benefits that are surrendered from their estate, the tax payer has a positive balance on the transaction.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 12, 2022)

pustal said:


> the tax payer has a positive balance on the transaction.


They really don't as it's all money down the drain.


----------



## Jayro (Sep 12, 2022)

The U.K. just needs to dissolve in a pool of acid. The world will be much better off without the British running everything that they have now. Australia would be off their tiddy, Ireland gets their land back, etc, etc...


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 12, 2022)

Jayro said:


> The U.K. just needs to dissolve in a pool of acid


Only if it's acid tea.


----------



## fatherjack (Sep 12, 2022)

“ driving UK to the ground all by itself…..?!
have you seen what’s going on globally?
where are you getting your ‘news’ ?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 12, 2022)

fatherjack said:


> have you seen what’s going on globally?


Yes.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 12, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Nonsense. The monarchy is a drain on uk finances, the places associated with it would be even more successful without royals. I don't see Versailles, Caserta or Schoenbrunn suffer because of the lack of royalty inhabiting them.





Dark_Ansem said:


> "King" Charles is one of the scummiest landlords ever.


Any evidence to support your claims?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 12, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> Any evidence to support your claims?



Which one would you prefer first?


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 12, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Which one would you prefer first?


The former first.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 12, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> The former first.


https://time.com/5282035/abolish-britain-monarchy-republic/ 

https://fullfact.org/economy/royal-family-what-are-costs-and-benefits/

Considering that Charles just avoided a massive inheritance tax, while plenty of people struggle, and the fact that the true wealth of the monarchy is kept hidden..


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 13, 2022)

elpapadelospollitos said:


> The monarchy ends, it's wealth is redistributed to the people, global poverty levels decrease dramatically


maybe a full blown Galarian government? (which wasn't a monarchy according to swordward and shieldbert)


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> https://time.com/5282035/abolish-britain-monarchy-republic/
> 
> https://fullfact.org/economy/royal-family-what-are-costs-and-benefits/
> 
> Considering that Charles just avoided a massive inheritance tax, while plenty of people struggle, and the fact that the true wealth of the monarchy is kept hidden..


I'd like to hear about the second next.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 13, 2022)

They lose a tourist attraction I would say at the most. Nothing of value changes (unfortunately.)


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 13, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> They lose a tourist attraction I would say at the most. Nothing of value changes (unfortunately.)


But they even wouldn't, would they? It's not like Versailles or Schoenbrunn don't get visited becayse they're inhabited by a royal?


fdyyt said:


> I'd like to hear about the second next.


About Charles being an especially scummy landlord? Or is this an attempt at sealioning?


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> But they even wouldn't, would they? It's not like Versailles or Schoenbrunn don't get visited becayse they're inhabited by a royal?
> 
> About Charles being an especially scummy landlord? Or is this an attempt at sealioning?


About charles the landlord.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 13, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> About charles the landlord.


Didn't reply to my other point tho


----------



## smf (Sep 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> About Charles being an especially scummy landlord? Or is this an attempt at sealioning?


You specifically stated ""King" Charles is one of the scummiest landlords ever."

Out of how many? How are you rating them?

Or was this hyperbole?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 13, 2022)

smf said:


> You specifically stated ""King" Charles is one of the scummiest landlords ever."
> 
> Out of how many? How are you rating them?
> 
> Or was this hyperbole?


Well, you're right on one part, all landlords are scummy. :^)


----------



## smf (Sep 13, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Well, you're right on one part, all landlords are scummy. :^)


That sounds like prejudice, you haven't met all landlords.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 14, 2022)

smf said:


> That sounds like prejudice, you haven't met all landlords.


Here's an easy flowchart for you.

Are they Landlords? -> Yes -> They are bad people.
Are they Landlords? -> No -> Then they aren't bad for the same reasons as landlords are bad intrinsically.


----------



## smf (Sep 14, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Here's an easy flowchart for you.
> 
> Are they Landlords? -> Yes -> They are bad people.
> Are they Landlords? -> No -> Then they aren't bad for the same reasons as landlords are bad intrinsically.



You need psychiatric help.


----------



## leejaclane (Sep 14, 2022)

smf said:


> You need psychiatric help.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game

If you can't understand how landlords are fundamentally bad for society, it might be you who needs help. Anyone who's ever had to rent a "cheap" apartment in order to not be homeless can tell you that even the least terrible landlord is still exploiting and mistreating their tenants significantly.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 14, 2022)

smf said:


> You need psychiatric help.


I see you have run out of arguments and have moved to purely emotion. Weak.


----------



## lokomelo (Sep 14, 2022)

leejaclane said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_capitalism
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game
> 
> If you can't understand how landlords are fundamentally bad for society, it might be you who needs help. Anyone who's ever had to rent a "cheap" apartment in order to not be homeless can tell you that even the least terrible landlord is still exploiting and mistreating their tenants significantly.


Just to stay on the main focus of this discussion forum, witch is gaming, If the cost to develop, print and ship a hypothetical game (let's name it Half Life 3) is 12 million, and it is sold for $60, every single copy sold after the 200,000 mark would be purely removing resources from society without creating nothing beneficial to it. Obviously it goes to every market.

Gabe Newell, the landlords, the restaurant owner, the guy selling umbrellas on the subway, they all are part of this. It is all the same in different scales. This is capitalism.

Makes sense to hate landlords just like hating any other capitalist initiative.

Do not makes sense to hate landlords and be cool to every other extra profit people are making on other markets.


----------



## duwen (Sep 14, 2022)

Yay! A new face on our money!


----------



## smf (Sep 14, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I see you have run out of arguments and have moved to purely emotion. Weak.


I gave up arguing with you, because it would be like trying to play chess with a pigeon.

I don't know if you are trolling, or whether you believe that all landlords are evil and all non landlords aren't evil. But frankly I have better things to do with my time than to figure that out.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 14, 2022)

smf said:


> I gave up arguing with you, because it would be like trying to play chess with a pigeon.
> 
> I don't know if you are trolling, or whether you believe that all landlords are evil and all non landlords aren't evil. But frankly I have better things to do with my time than to figure that out.


Yes, please tell the class how much you totally don't care, and try to convince everyone how much busier you are than to argue with some chick on the internet. We ALL believe you, trust me.


----------



## smf (Sep 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Yes, please tell the class how much you totally don't care,


Class? I'm not here for a class.

I figure that only someone paid by the hour can help you figure out why thinking:

_Are they Landlords? -> Yes -> They are bad people.
Are they Landlords? -> No -> Then they aren't bad for the same reasons as landlords are bad intrinsically._

Is a problem for you. Black and white thinking is a common symptom in many mental health issues.

Similarly if you said it, but don't actually believe it, then it's going to take even more therapy to work through that.

Unfortunately I've not been trained in treating mental health conditions, so I won't be continuing. But good luck.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 15, 2022)

smf said:


> Unfortunately I've not been trained in treating mental health conditions, so I won't be continuing.


Makes one wonder why you started in the first place?


----------



## City (Sep 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Here's an easy flowchart for you.
> 
> Are they Landlords? -> Yes -> They are bad people.
> Are they Landlords? -> No -> Then they aren't bad for the same reasons as landlords are bad intrinsically.


It's funny as fuck reading gbatemp's best clown screeching over landlords. Probably never owned anything in his life, just rented.

For everyone else having legit concerns about landlords: there are millions of people who need to stay somewhere but can't/don't want to sink their roots in. What are they going to do? Buy a house every single time they move?

Not to mention that being a landlord doesn't mean sit down and count money, but you're legally responsible for the upkeep of the house: fixing broken things, for example.


----------



## smf (Sep 15, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Makes one wonder why you started in the first place?


Don't shoot the messenger, I was just trying to be helpful and sign post you.

Good luck with your journey.


----------



## smf (Sep 15, 2022)

City said:


> Not to mention that being a landlord doesn't mean sit down and count money, but you're legally responsible for the upkeep of the house: fixing broken things, for example.


The "not a landlord means you are a good person" was the thing that made me realize they were mentally unwell.

It would make them very vulnerable to bad people, as their only criteria was "are they a landlord?".

There are some really shit landlords of course, but I know three landlords that take great care of their tenants.
It's that responsibility that has put me off being a landlord.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 15, 2022)

smf said:


> The "not a landlord means you are a good person" was the thing that made me realize they were mentally unwell.
> 
> It would make them very vulnerable to bad people, as their only criteria was "are they a landlord?".
> 
> ...


Wait, THAT'S why you're flipping shit so performatively?? You think my only metric for morality is if someone is a landlord or not? Are you fucking dumb???


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 15, 2022)

City said:


> Not to mention that being a landlord doesn't mean sit down and count money, but you're legally responsible for the upkeep of the house: fixing broken things, for example.


HAH! Best fable I've read on the subject.


smf said:


> Don't shoot the messenger, I was just trying to be helpful and sign post you.
> 
> Good luck with your journey.


Signpost me? what are you talking about.
Worry about your own journey, tyvm.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 15, 2022)

smf said:


> but I know three landlords that take great care of their tenants.


my word 3 whole landlords! They must be paragons of their own category to save it.


----------



## duwen (Sep 15, 2022)

From living the majority of my adult life in rented accommodation (and knowing many others in similar circumstances) it is my experience that shit landlords get shit tenants and good tenants get good landlords.


----------



## smf (Sep 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Wait, THAT'S why you're flipping shit so performatively?? You think my only metric for morality is if someone is a landlord or not? Are you fucking dumb???


Those were your words, if you regret them now for giving me a false impression of your mental state then it's no use melting down. I will say, that your response hasn't done anything to change my opinion though.

I'm not "flipping shit" (whatever that means), just trying to help.


----------



## smf (Sep 15, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> my word 3 whole landlords! They must be paragons of their own category to save it.


They are the only three landlords I know, so 100% success rate.

Find better land lords.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 15, 2022)

Seems people are talking past each other.

On the face of it then yeah you can own land in most non nomadic cultures (which is most of the ones around today, mainly as farming is far easier to sustain a large industrial population with than being nomadic herders or hunter gatherers that have to carry everything with them or build anew). People will make money from anything and as land is a thing then you can use it to make money but more on that later.

There are some hippies, communists and blendings of the two that reckon the land is owned by/ought to be owned by the people and thus can only be shared out (possibly on an as needed basis -- each according to their need and all that) or possibly leased (though this can be dubious too). Private ownership of land, which is a sharply limited resource as well*, then being anathema to that. Some will go further and try to construct rights to land but eh.
Economically speaking this is troublesome for some people as owning land and passing it down can be one of the better ways to create generational wealth, or fund retirements as the case may be. American Indians and the Indian reservations being a great case study in the removal of such things. Equally land used for living on is not very productive either -- most of the time it just sits there doing fuck all and not adding to production, increased value chains or anything like that.

*not like more of it is being made, and most of the best spots are already taken (do also look at the US federal land map) as it has now been several hundred years of industrial production and population growth. The US also does really awfully at housing density as well -- single family suburban homes are awful on so many levels but that is a different discussion.

Buy to let. Not as popular as it was, mainly as many incentives for it were removed, but still a thing in various capacities.
Lenders want their money back, if you are a person earning 10000 a year you can probably get a second mortgage for another house a few years after your first starts to be paid down. Rent that out and the rent you get (plus earning a lot from your main job) means you have further income that counts for the purposes of getting a third mortgage. Rinse and repeat and suddenly one guy can own a lot of houses with them all paying off the other, gets even better with more houses still as risk is even more diversified and assets under management similarly so.
This creates an upwards pressure on price (buy to let guy, housing investment trust or big bank does not care as it is generating money almost regardless and will accordingly pay more for the base good) that might price more conventional "buy one house, live in it" peeps out of the market.
Couple this with further upward pressures from not building enough houses - be it immigrants (many countries people want to live in have a lot as a percentage), be it migration to cities, be it wage decreases (women joining workforce, everything moving out of industrial to service sector which requires higher and higher intelligence that not everybody has), cultural reasons/dating reasons (100 clones of the same decent dude, 50 with houses, 50 without, do we want to be on which will be more successful, and that is not counting things like China), be it because the natives are fucking like rabbits (not really anywhere at present but was still within living memory -- they call it the baby boom for a reason), be it because "ew not in my back yard, I want to look at the hedge rather than a housing estate" aka nimby/build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone aka banana, be it because some sacred toad lives on this field, be it because retail is profitable, be it because industry is profitable, be it because farmland is useful to grow food to eat (don't want to be a food importer if you can help it), be it because people voting for you like to see their house prices rise**, be it because pointless restrictions in building (and most places have loads of these, creeping safety, conservation and insulation types always driving a wider wedge), be it because single people need single people houses rather than couples taking 2 people out of the population needing houses).
Not everything is this though and many times it is just someone inherited a house, had a house from when they were each two single people and figured out a way to consolidate, split an existing house into flats/apartments (nominally actually increasing the supply), bought a house as a retirement asset of their own, rather than leaving it empty to bugger off around the world for a few years decided to rent.

**can be idiots that don't realise a rising tide lifts all ships and they are not going to live in a tent, can be their retirement fund with some kind of reverse mortgage/equity release.

On the flip side I like to roam around and renting somewhere allows that vs having to sell a house, and maintain it in the meantime, every time I feel like buggering off for a few years or seeing if the supermarkets 5 towns over are better. Rental arrangements allow for this and while I do it for decadent reasons others actually want to pursue financial opportunities and hop from city to city or place to place to do it.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 15, 2022)

smf said:


> Those were your words, if you regret them now for giving me a false impression of your mental state then it's no use melting down. I will say, that your response hasn't done anything to change my opinion though.
> 
> I'm not "flipping shit" (whatever that means), just trying to help.


Why would I care about the opinion of someone who's so dumb that they think disliking landlords means their only lens for morality is if they're a landlord or not, even if they're unrelated to landlording?? No opinion you could possibly hold in any capacity is going to be intellectually stimulating.


----------



## smf (Sep 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Why would I care about the opinion of someone who's so dumb that they think disliking landlords means their only lens for morality is if they're a landlord or not, even if they're unrelated to landlording?? No opinion you could possibly hold in any capacity is going to be intellectually stimulating.


Trust me sister. Someone that could come up with the gem

"Are they Landlords? -> No -> Then they aren't bad for the same reasons as landlords are bad intrinsically."

And then back track on it when they are told what that actually means, is not intellectually stimulating for me either.

If you are lacking intellectual stimulation then it's because your posts are so dumb that they made me think you were mentally ill. Your subsequent posts have done nothing to change my mind.

You are never going to get intellectual stimulation from your troll shit posts.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Sep 15, 2022)

Now that the Queen is dead, I expect the followng to happen:

- Global Warming will accelerate by 100 times.

- Waves of Radical Extreme Far Right Conservative Christians will flood the streets causing a second and a third holocaust.

- Jack the Ripper will come back from the dead.

- Donald Trump will evolve into Mecha Trump.

- Media outlets will stop posting propaganda. Ok now that's too absurd.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 15, 2022)

smf said:


> Trust me sister. Someone that could come up with the gem
> 
> "Are they Landlords? -> No -> Then they aren't bad for the same reasons as landlords are bad intrinsically."
> 
> ...


This cope post isn't going to deter anyone from the fact you looked at a post about thinking landlords are bad and said "Hmm, this must be how she views all humanity!"


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> my word 3 whole landlords! They must be paragons of their own category to save it.




If you like going through a landlord once a week, maybe the landlords aren't the ones being shitty.



LainaGabranth said:


> Are they Landlords? -> Yes -> They are bad people.



If you pay a landlord, you are objectively forcing them to be a bad person.


----------



## smf (Sep 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> This cope post isn't going to deter anyone from the fact you looked at a post about thinking landlords are bad and said "Hmm, this must be how she views all humanity!"


You said it was. Why would I doubt you? Words mean things, you are being disingenuous.

As I said, working out wtf is wrong with you is not my problem.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

smf said:


> You said it was. Why would I doubt you? Words mean things, you are being disingenuous.



It knows.  It's the only troll too afraid to respond to me.  In another thread it denies the existence of race and then calls people racist.  Seems like the goal is to draw attention to itself so that it can refer to itself as a gender.  I suppose that's activism now.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 15, 2022)

smf said:


> You said it was. Why would I doubt you? Words mean things, you are being disingenuous.


Your illiteracy is not my responsibility.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Your illiteracy is not my responsibility.



Yes it is.  You are a leftist.  Remember?


----------

