SkepticalButOpenMinded

Yes. In case it wasn’t clear, that was precisely the point of my analogy.

I don’t get why this is so confusing. This is basically a rotating theme restaurant/theme shop. Disneyland, Universal Studios, the new Nintendo park, etc. aren’t really about the rides or food either. Will tourists buy Stranger Things tchotchkes and Bridgerton merch? Sure, we’re a hyper consumeristic society that loves pop culture doodads and experiences. I somehow get the feeling this will fail, Netflix’s brand has lost its luster recently, but I don’t think this idea is totally out there.

Hey maybe we can do what almost every other developed country does, what we used to do during past housing crises? Build public and non-market housing alongside the market stuff. Just like healthcare, there’s no reason, even in theory, to think that the “free market” alone will provide everyone with adequate housing.

I’m NOT saying I disagree with the conclusion, but the judge’s reasoning would negate all sorts of consumer protections as paternalistic. You agreed to join Facebook, so you “voluntarily” allow them to track you, manipulate you, and sell your information without any limits. It’s a kind of deeply libertarian argument, just like how you “voluntarily” agreed to work a job, so why would you get worker protections? If you don’t like it, just quit!

Some “paternalistic” laws function under the reasoning that markets don’t always work. Not all consent is informed. Not all choices have sufficient alternatives that allow consumers to choose otherwise. Busy consumers may not have the information or energy to understand all the ways corporations abuse their power.

I am. What’s going on? Does it not show up that way on everyone’s account?

Don’t worry, there isn’t a rent control anywhere in Canada that’s “frozen in amber”. I’m reminded of the economist Lawrence Summers who gave an example of worrying about the wrong thing in policy: “I’m overweight and I need to lose weight. It’s true that if I lose too much, I could starve to death and die, but that’s not my problem.”

Rent being too low is not our problem.

It’s a club with people lining up outside then.

I don’t know where you got the idea that profiting off of land value is some exotic and untenable investment strategy, one that requires “insane risk” and “passion”. Your example of landlords being reduced to desperate concerts is very silly.

You dismiss this as “personal opinion” without explanation, but the objective fact is that land value has gone up a lot in Canada, and real estate has tons of arbitrary tax advantages (like the Smith Maneuver). This has made real estate a remunerative investment. That’s been the consensus of the domestic and international investment community, which has poured money into Canadian real estate. This is so obvious, I’m surprised I’m having to say it!

You know what makes the Nobel Prize so valuable? Not everyone gets one.

Blue sky is following the early Facebook playbook of artificial exclusivity. When the feeling of FOMO is widespread enough, they’ll gradually open the door wider.

Edit: I don’t mean to imply that blue sky is good like the Nobel prize is good. I just mean they’re using artificial scarcity to drum up demand.

Nope. Even setting aside rental income, the increase in property value itself has been plenty remunerative. Having the building paid off also allows one to borrow against the value of the asset, which offsets some opportunity costs.

I’m surprised people are actually arguing that real estate investors haven’t been richly rewarded enough. Ridiculous.

Especially if the building is already paid off, it never made sense that rent needs to match market prices to cover costs. The tiny increase in property taxes and maintenance costs is more than covered by the allowed rent increases.

That’s a theoretical issue. In actuality, I haven’t faced anything close to windows level pop ups. I think Apple has struck the right balance personally and I would definitely not want to go back.