dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed
« geography
This is a sub-selection from Not entirely wrong


Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16
Bronx, NY
reply to CXM_Splicer

Re: Not entirely wrong

I agree with you and here in the Bronx some landlord want to charge and extra fee for people having and AC(mind you the electricity you pay it yourself since most landlords don't include utilities with your rent....I only heard of this practice in my home state of Massachusetts). I remember my old buildings management corp sending letter to the tenants saying they have to pay 25 dollars more in their rent because of the increase in their electricity bill. Some of the tenants took then to court for that and won and what do you think the management corp did? Change the wording from "electricity increase" to "window frame protection cost" You got to love this leeches trying to dupe the tenant anyway they can.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
Yeah, it is definitely sad. It is also sad that people come out and try and defend this greed as 'good'.


Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16
Bronx, NY

1 recommendation

The only way people would defend those kind of actions are those that gain anything from it, but since we all know that 90% of the people in here aren't going to get any yet still defend this action is the saddest part.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:

Yeah, it is definitely sad. It is also sad that people come out and try and defend this greed as 'good'.

Ok, I'll bite.
Greed is good.
It motivates production and competition, which results in surplus and lower prices.

In the case of the landlord, his exclusive contract can avail services that tenants might otherwise not get, at a lower cost/door than they could achieve on their own.

If the landlord isn't allowing the desired service, another "greedy" landlord will be motivated to acquire the tenant by offering it.


Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16
Bronx, NY
Ok then i will counter your point.

Greed is not good when just one person inherits the wealth. Look when the landlord allows some company is that say company needs to recoup the investment which mean you are paying for it regardless. which in turn is not good for the tenant only for the Owner or management company. I do agree we need competition but not when it comes out of the customers pocket when there was never a need to do so in the first place.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to elray
I guess it all depends on your definition of greed. I would say that need is the thing which motivates production and greed is the obsession with obtaining more than one needs. Now, this will obviously just shift the discussion to 'how much does a person need' and that is an extremely subjective question but it is more proper to look at it in those terms.

Neither the service provider nor the landlord needs to limit the services to the tenant. The landlord didn't have some need added by a new service being made available. This goes beyond need into greed and it is at the expense of competition (which is a need for capitalism to function properly).

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to Eddy120876
Greed does not mean "one person inherits the wealth".
The wealth is created by the greedy person, not inherited.

But it is not an obsession, except perhaps from envious eyes.
It is just the term we use to describe the motivation to produce, as you say, "more than one needs". Have you considered what things would cost, and what the world would be like, if the "greedy" people only produced enough for themselves?

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
Wealth is created by labor and siphoned off by the wealthy. The point of producing more than one needs is to trade for the things you need that you don't produce. If you want to produce everything you need you are going to have to live like a caveman.

Do you think there is even such a thing as an obsession with money? Something that would be considered 'bad'?

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
We agree that production in excess of need is a good thing.
Why, however, would anyone invest in overproducing, if they didn't believe they had the opportunity to do so at a profit? I'm as altruistic as anyone, but history has shown us that self-interest, by far, produces abundance, while feel-good / marxist philosophy yields hoarding, scarcity, black markets and bureaucracy.

Any obsession can be deleterious to one's well-being.
The trouble here is that you're implying an "obsession with money" where there is none.

Wealth is not created by labor. It is created by investment - taking risks, in the hopes of adding value and returning a profitable result. Labor is often a major factor in that process, but labor is renumerated through payroll, independent of the capital risks. Your personal wealth derives from your paycheck and how you choose to manage it.

If you believe you're entitled to a greater portion of the potential pie, then you need to assume some of the risk, you need to buy in.


Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16
Bronx, NY
reply to elray
I understand pretty well friend when I said inherit . Envious no sir what I said was that is wrong from one person to keep getting richer and passing the buck to the tenants because of this which should be illegal. Also the cost what cost are Landlord and management corps worry about since you know before they allow anybody into the building the cable/phone company must show then the plans for the new addition,money for labor,disturbing the tenants safety hours and also insurance so is not like they won't get a penny or be protected or increase the value of their property. Thats why I said they are just greedy SOB's

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to elray
Of course people will desire to profit from producing extra and there is nothing wrong with that per se. Breaking even though would not be altruistic and many non-profits operate in exactly this manner. Altruism would be to produce at a loss to yourself.

I disagree completely on creation of wealth but that is an entirely different discussion. I was not speaking of individual wealth. From your statement 'The wealth', I didn't think you were either.

If a producer is in stasis... they are producing in excess and generating a profit from that excess... why alter the parameters in zero-sum fashion to profit more? Simply because they have the power to do so? That crosses the boundary of need into greed, an obvious obsession not to the eyes of the envious but the eyes of those being taken away from. Do you think it would be better to remove any restrictions on monopolies?

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
Apartment rentals are not a monopoly. Far from it. There are approximately 10,000,000 sellers in this country.

There are natural monopolies, de facto monopolies, and de jure monopolies. Each requires a different set of rules. But in general, the more rules we apply, the worse the outcome is for the consumer. In the case of NYC apartments, forcing the owner to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to wire the building would be a disaster both physically and financially for all players.

Producers are never in stasis; profit is something that must be pursued on an on-going basis, and can disappear overnight. Who are you to decide that a given person or entity has "too much"; should we be allowed to decide the same for you?

Producers aren't "taking" from you - most often, they're the ones taking the risk and providing you with the opportunity to earn a living, or the goods you desire.

Very, very few companies have any power to simply set prices for additional profit - there is always a reaction in the market.

Have you ever run a substantial, profitable business, with a payroll?

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
True apartment rentals are not a monopoly but you moved the discussion away from the particulars of rentals to include production. My question was regarding business in general... if greed is good shouldn't we remove any legal restrictions on monopolies and let them flourish to the best of their ability?

Producers (and landlords) can most certainly be in stasis. There is no given that it will last forever true, things change and they can be expected to adapt and plan ahead for such changes proactively. But at what cost? Anything and everything that doesn't cross the line of blatantly illegal? No, sorry.

It is funny that you (and most others with this position) resort to the 'who are you to decide' moral argument when the greed we are discussing and the business practices that effect it are most definitely amoral and sometimes immoral. But the real answer to that question is very simple... We are the ones being taken away from and we have every right to decide. While there may not be anything that can be done about it in many instances, there are laws which are intended to protect people from these situations. The question in relation to landlords would be: Should we remove all legal restrictions to what landlords can & must do and let the 'market' decide where people live?

No, I have never run a business with a payroll.