"Private equity generating rental income" is a lie fed you by the rich lobby. The real reason (everywhere in US and Europe) is zoning, which is a subsidy to the owners of existing buildings at the cost of everyone else.
Zoning change would spike land value in more populated area much more closely located to metro center, but it will depress demand on locations further away from the urban center.
1/3 of the houses bought in the US are bought by these kinds of organizations. Zoning might matter, but large capital owners are buying up a large fraction of the houses that are for sale and this is obviously driving up prices.
Real estate investors, both individual and institutional, bought one-third of all single-family residential properties sold in the second quarter of 2025.
Institutional investors are selling more homes than they buy and have been for six consecutive quarters.
While large institutional investors continue to get most of the headlines in the single-family rental space, small investors account for more than 90% of the market. These are individuals owning 10 properties or less. The largest investors, those with 1,000 or more properties, make up just 2% of all investor-owned homes.
>Real estate investors, both individual and institutional, bought one-third of all single-family residential properties sold in the second quarter of 2025.
is, as I view things, what I said. You may say that individual real estate investors are not typically large capital owners, but that's a definitional thing, or a matter of assessment that isn't interesting to debate.
No matter how you choose to define it, investors buying homes are buying a substantial fraction of the homes on the market (1/3) and presumably have a substantial effect on prices.
"Definitional things" are often pretty important to productive discourse, and both of the recent comments you responded to with your assertion that "these kinds of organizations" are buying up 1/3rd of homes were clearly talking about large institutional investors, not some guy who owns a few rental homes.
It's entities bigger than them driving up prices. The adversarial situation might even be even more apparent with the guy buying up 'a few' rental homes.
You’re commenting on a story about how housing demand is cooling, so why are you talking about how investors are driving prices up? Especially when the institutional investors are selling more than they’re buying…
Calling it a "subsidy for existing owners" is a slighty of hand that avoids blaming the literal hordes of useful idiots who are happy to see all manner of asinine provisions written into the zoning code to cater to their interest, whatever that may be. If it were just property owners it wouldn't have gotten done. It's busybodies, environmentalists, moralizing jerks, etc, etc that provide the necessary political will.
I estimate the fraction of carbon removal cost wasted to regulation at 100% rather than 50%. Regulation must be truly insane if producing synthetic oil and pumping it underground is somehow more appealing than not extracting the equivalent amount of fossil oil in the first place.
Java checked exceptions suffer from a lack of generic exception types ("throws T", where T can be e.g. "Exception", "Exception1|Exception2", or "never") This would also require union types and a bottom type.
Without generics, higher order functions are very hard to use.
> Breaking off pieces of the code into microservices ...
I was with you until "into". Then continue with "Maven modules" (or Gradle modules, or some other kind of modules) and solve some real issues instead of imaginary deployment structure issues.
1. The article states "In 2023, the UK produced no commercial ships at all." It does not consider military ship building, which still exists in the UK.
2. Given the scale of problems described in the article, it is probably easier to restart a civilian ship building industry from scratch than to expand it from the previously existing.
The conclusions of the FT article are completely wrong. With fewer rich people around, chances are that legislation would be less frequently bought to benefit them at the cost of the country's overall prosperity.
Out of interest what are the positives? Other than cultural, in flagrant displays of excess, I can't think of anything they couldn't accomplish by them existing as poorer business leaders and having competent national wealth funds empowered to lend/give grants.
What I'm saying is you may be defending billionaires when you mean to be defending a system you believe is optimal but still has the negative outcome of billionaires (not to imply the billionaires themselves are intrinsically bad as people but the concentration of wealth in their hands is).
That is closer to my intent, yes, not a direct defense of billionaires as an intrinsic good, more a rejection of the idea that removing them via any means automatically leads to a less bad state of affairs. Careful reform that reduces them can be good, but it depends on what exactly that reform entails. Simply scaring them away and experiencing capital flight does not achieve good things.
Coming next: edit simple, easily understandable (even by kiddies) SQL, directly from your web app (no need for a separate admin page!), and execute it right in your production DB.
I don't know about CS, but in mathematics the vast majority of researchers would not have enough funding to pay for a good quality full review of their articles. The peer review system mostly runs on good will.
[0] https://openjdk.org/jeps/506
reply