And others might be able to buy a house for the first time. The issue with houses being the main form of families to acquire wealth is that newcomers to the market have it much much harder to enter participate in it as time goes on and house values increase.
So people losing some "paper" savings is a price to pay so other people can also own.
But in reality, when homeowners struggle and sell their homes is mostly large real-estate funds that buy them. So it's possible that homes losing their value means owners lose savings but newcomers still can't enter the home ownership virtuous cycle.
The principle paid down on those repayment mortgage came from homeowner income and was diverted away from other savings and investments.
Punishing millions of people who just sought housing security because, for reasons beyond their control, the Fed decided to cut rates after the GFC and keep them low for 15 years is just not tenable.
Fortunately, in the UK at least, it looks like (nominal) house prices will remain stagnant until real earnings catch up with rates. A better all round solution.
> So it's possible that homes losing their value means owners lose savings but newcomers still can't enter the home ownership virtuous cycle.
if a house is cheap, but is still valuable (as new owners _want_ to buy because it's worth it while it's cheap), then this means it's a mis-pricing. And mis-pricing means that any investing entity will want to buy as well. In aggregate, this _should_ push the price back to the correct equilibrium.
Therefore, housing being expensive today is a reflection of how many people value it high. It might also indicate that the reason it was cheap before was a mispricing, and those who got in early was merely lucky.
I’d argue that there’s so many buyers waiting in the wings (not even counting hedge funds and Blackrock), that there’s an effective floor on home prices. 5% down swing will mean more buyers and in that kind of market a 20% drop just isn’t happening.
From the wikipeida: Smith has appeared on the Neoliberal Project's podcast multiple times[21] and was labeled the "Chief Neoliberal Shill" by the group in 201
And to be completely clear, noeliberalism and leftism are NOT one and the same. Leftism is defined by a goal of communism or socialism. "Smith has expressed disagreements with socialism and communism". Calling Noah (Or Biden, Or most mainstream democrat politicians) leftist is totally incorrect and one of my pet peeves that online commenters tend to do.
"Leftism is defined by a goal of communism or socialism"—but that is just communism. No other ideology seeks communism as a goal, and socialism is just a stepping stone to communism, or at least that is what they taught me in my Soviet high school.
> "Leftism is defined by a goal of communism or socialism"—but that is just communism. No other ideology seeks communism as a goal, and socialism is just a stepping stone to communism, or at least that is what they taught me in my Soviet high school.
Outside of communist thought (wherein socialism is a stage on the route to communism—and the only concrete stage to which there is a roadmap in most communist thought, though different schools of communism have different maps), socialism is a thing sought in its own right by socialists who are not communists.
Obviously, its unsurprising that a Soviet high school would only teach the dogma of the particular brand of communism then currently held to be orthodox in the USSR, but that's a rather limited view.
Yeah, imo communism is a subset of leftism, which includes other ideas all of which are defined by a general opposition to global free market capitalism.
I'm sure there's better definitions too, but neoliberals are not a leftist in any of them.
I'm a 30 year linux veteran and windows free for over 22. I di d have a windows vm for some time because I have some music stuff that doesn't work with linux, like a nord keyboard and some guitar stuff.
It didn't work for me for the macOS version I tried (not the latest one). Probably because the installer is not available from Applr's servers anymore.
There's been some recent big budget games compiled for Apple Silicon; Lies of P and Baldur's Gate 3 come to mind. Of course, that's just a tiny fraction of big budget games and I haven't actually played any of them to know how good the experience is.
I've been playing BG3 on an m1 Mac mini and it's surprisingly good. I haven't bothered loading it on my big-GPU gaming PC to compare, but that alone says something.
(I'm in no way a serious gamer, so there may be plenty of things I overlook)
It's nice when it works, but papercuts still degrade the experience. The M-series chips are really impressive when they get a chance to stretch their legs. It feels like we're still in the chicken-and-egg phase though. I don't foresee that changing unless Apple dumps a ton of money to incentivize publishers to port to Mac, or they do what Valve did and make their own equivalent of Proton - aimed at developers. The licensing on GPTK kinda kills that though.
"By way of example, its fascinating the LGBT+ community is so tightly allied with radical Islamic voices against the LGBT+ friendly country of Israel. Its fascinating because of network effects that drive this apparent alliance, whereby a group likely to be outlawed (or worse) identifies with its avowed oppressors."
- Interesting. I never considered network effects role in this "strange bedfellows" phenomenon, thinking this was primarily due to intersectionality i.e. all the "oppressed" unite against all the "oppressors."
