Sex is Not Rent

Miike wrote: »

On what basis?

Edit: Nevermind, it's been pointed out the poster has no understanding of GDPR legislation.

Doubt the tenant is Ruth’s and her looking for sex, bad attempt at making light of her silliness. Sorry, I’ll put an explanatory note for you next time.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It shows how dysfunctional are housing market has become, even though I'm sure this isn't the first time this has happened in this country, housing crisis or not

No, it really doesn’t. It is a guy chancing his arm and a politician looking for publicity. Dysfunctional is shortage of supply and government interference in private enterprise.

Arghus wrote: »

You guys have some strange notions around here.

That was, at best, highly creepy stuff in those messages, to say anything else is a bit mad, quite frankly.

Ye might all hate Ruth Coppinger, but I guess there are none so blind as those that will not see.

It’s a creepy person being creepy/chancing their arm. It’s not indicative of a trend in the housing market.

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!

ELM327 wrote: »

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

I know, but there is still time.

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?