Sex is Not Rent

If this was in a RPZ, and the tenant left, would the LL have to advertise the property for re-letting on the same terms and conditions as the previous tenant?

Dav010 wrote: »

So you do not believe in the importance of supply and demand on economics? It would be very difficult to take anything you post seriously if you don’t. Just about every economist in Ireland has acknowledged that the marked decrease in building and availability of properties is effecting the housing and rental market. There is a significant decline in available rental properties due to this, the fact that small landlords are leaving the market as a result of regulations imposed on them (it certainly is a sign of dysfunction when rents are at an all time high, but buy-to-let purchases are practically non existent and existing LLs are selling.

But I will accept that by opinion is rooted the the principles of supply and demand, that principle since the evolution of the species.

only that its not, the 'laws' of neoclassical economics are not really laws at all, they have inbuilt serious fundamental flaws, which have truly shown themselves, particularly since the crash. the real world doesnt work in neat and tidy linearities, we re not always trending towards or away from some sort of equilibrium utopia, our economies are highly complex dynamic systems and processes, in which we truly dont understand their workings.

of course we need more housing and accommodation, this has been known since around the time of the crash, and has been well written about, but 'the market' isnt reacting, its probably not going to. you can see how deeply embedded in our political systems this thinking is, and surprise surprise, we re all starting to have similar outcomes.

Dav010 wrote: »

So you do not believe in the importance of supply and demand on economics? It would be very difficult to take anything you post seriously if you don’t. Just about every economist in Ireland has acknowledged that the marked decrease in building and availability of properties , allied to increased demand as employment/wages have increased, is effecting the housing and rental market. There is a significant decline in available rental properties due to this, the fact that small landlords are leaving the market as a result of regulations imposed on them (it certainly is a sign of dysfunction when rents are at an all time high, but buy-to-let purchases are practically non existent and existing LLs are selling)

But I will accept that by opinion is rooted the the principles of supply and demand, that principle, though un-named, has existed since the evolution of the species.

That poster doesn't believe in capitalism, don't waste your time.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

what? of course i do, i believe capitalism is one of the finest things humans have created

And supply and demand laws?
One of the most important tenets of capitalism and free market?


Unless you've had a sea change in attitude since last we spoke I dont think so!

Wanderer78 wrote: »

again, these are not laws, theres plenty of research out there to support this, these ideas are more ideologically based than actual fact based, free market libertarians just love neoclassical economics, but the wheels are falling off it, globally. we need to move beyond this frankly dangerous form of capitalism, and realise our world doesnt work in the equilibrium depicted manner of neoclassical

Welcome back Wanderer, that's better, you had me in shock with your earlier post espousing capitalism. More neoclassical rants

Wanderer78 wrote: »

again, these are not laws, theres plenty of research out there to support this, these ideas are more ideologically based than actual fact based, free market libertarians just love neoclassical economics, but the wheels are falling off it, globally. we need to move beyond this frankly dangerous form of capitalism, and realise our world doesnt work in the equilibrium depicted manner of neoclassical

Market efficiencies is what drives capitalism. Economic theories/laws whether you want to acknowledge them or not exist and operate every day in everybodys lives. They operate independently of any culture/country.

They are not working because they are being hampered by interference. Interference which by its very nature is driving capitalists to find other ways to achieve their goals.

You can't "cherry pick" parts of a market and expect it all to work. You either let it run without interference or the state supplies the service.

However with this comes the inefficiencies of the state to supply services, the cost of running this inefficient supply of the service and the states unwillingness to actually efficiently manage the service.

Our world would work in equilibrium if it was allowed actually find its own equilibrium, but this will never be found because humans by their very nature want more than their counterparts and the only fair way to achieve this is by the allowing the economic law/theory to actually happen.

There will always be a place for the sick, children and old outside of the above. However the state has included others not part of the above groupings who are capable of a degree of self sufficiency but opt to rely on the state and its various supports.

The above is one of the reasons the current situation is not working for anyone!

meeeeh wrote: »

And what happens when state efficiently manages inefficient system. Or if efficient system is managed inefficiently despite the efficiency built into the system to prevent it being inefficient. There is whole lot of efficient inefficiency there.

Now that I used and probably misspelled a whole pile of efficiently inefficient words I can pretend that I know something about subject I know nothing about. Like the post above.

Yeah!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a pointlessly rude contribution. In the post you were referring to there were 230 words. 4 of them were either "efficient" or "inefficient".

I didn't want to quote the whole post. It's a very simplistic post, I just picked the worst paragraph. It's looking to at capitalism from very archaic point of view. State is constantly interfering into market with regulations about minimum wage, import duties, health and safety regulations and whole plethora of other ways. To suggest rental market is somehow different and should be pure supply and demand without regulation is ridiculous. Not to mention that countries with more secure and sustainable rental models have very clear regulations that benefit renters and landlords.

1) Guy tries his luck with woman
2) woman says no
3) guy stops

Is this not the consent that everyone is harping on about?

JJayoo wrote: »

1) Guy tries his luck with woman
2) woman says no
3) guy stops

Is this not the consent that everyone is harping on about?

Yeah lets leave out the power dynamic that makes all of this 100 times sleazier

Guard pulls over a woman and says in lieu of a speeding fine she can give him a blowjob - no harm no foul right?

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

JJayoo wrote: »

1) Guy tries his luck with woman
2) woman says no
3) guy stops

Is this not the consent that everyone is harping on about?

Yeah lets leave out the power dynamic that makes all of this 100 times sleazier

Guard pulls over a woman and says in lieu of a speeding fine she can give him a blowjob - no harm no foul right?

There was no power dynamic, the woman was moving out of the house in a few days, she would never have to see the guy again, she didn't owe him anything.

The example you gave is absolutely ridiculous.

Mod Note

Use of this language in this forum is not permitted.
Continue and it will result in a ban.

Consider this an on thread warning.

meeeeh wrote: »

I didn't want to quote the whole post. It's a very simplistic post, I just picked the worst paragraph. It's looking to at capitalism from very archaic point of view. State is constantly interfering into market with regulations about minimum wage, import duties, health and safety regulations and whole plethora of other ways. To suggest rental market is somehow different and should be pure supply and demand without regulation is ridiculous. Not to mention that countries with more secure and sustainable rental models have very clear regulations that benefit renters and landlords.

Where exactly did I suggest the rental market was different?

If you read my post you will see that I mentioned that the sick, old and children were outside the capitalist model. This is where social housing plays a part. But why should this accommodation be provided smack bang in the middle of the city. Everybody can commute to work, Dublin is not a big city by any stretch and you can get to work within an hour using public transport or even a bicycle.

If we actually had some constructive dialogue and engagement with both sides of the rental market we actually might come up with a better solution than that that current exists.

Yet again this goes back to the old approach of lets just tar all landlords as bad. Yes this landlord was wrong and should be held accountable for his actions. But remember over 70% of landlords out there own just one property, the local taxi driver, local plumber, local electrician who bought a property as a pension.

Have you ever asked yourself if being a landlord was easy money why are individual landlords leaving the market in their droves.

Have you ever considered exactly who is making the most out of this current housing crisis? its the State, not only are they making a killing on the income tax from the tenant but also from the landlord, the State does not have the responsibility for the tenant and even if the tenants stops paying rent it can take nearly a year to get the tenant out.

We are all responsible for the housing crisis in one shape or another. We have this bizarre notion that people should be housed where they want and at a price they want. How many people have not paid their rent, mortgages or council rent and been evicted?

Look at the high profile case of the Pamela Flood and her husband. Look at the rent arrears for council tenants.

Anyway getting back to the actual topic of the post. What this landlord did is wrong and he should suffer the consequences of his actions.

Tony EH wrote: »

They'd all sing a very different song if it was their own kid.

I think they'd be disappointed to hear their own child had made the offer of sex for rent. Or if their child was in a position where they needed to trade sex for rent.

I can't Imagine them being so supportive if sex for rent on hearing their son has to leave Sunday dinner early because he has to go give his landlord a blowjob.

I really can't imagine them saying "OK son, God bless. Don't forget to play with his balls and keep eye contact".