I lived in a tent in unincorporated land for several months when i was unable to find a place that would rent to me in my early 20s and I was moved on by the police and council repeatedly. that argument is not valid at all. it quite simply is illegal to be homeless.
when I was homeless cops once made me move from where I was having a phone call on a busy public street. It wasn't illegal for me to be there. Before and since as a housed person Ive had lots of phone conversations on public streets. Even with luggage, even when upset. It took a specific "tell" that I was homeless for cops to harass me like that (Im white). I didnt have a TON of bags because I had to carry everything everywhere (I was train homeless / couch surfing) but I just read just enough as a distressed homeless person that there was suddenly a special law against me taking up space there I guess.
@@dompromat alright I’m not trying to be a grammar nazi but I genuinely do not understand what you are trying to say. Can you elaborate or something so I could get your point?
As a young woman living on my own it's honestly really disturbing how my landlord has keys to my place. Like I trust him and don't think he would do anything but they fact that he COULD if he wanted to is.... v unsettling
why does he have a key anyway??? i dont think any of my two landlords ive had had keys for my place? isnt it illegal for them to just go into my apartment without me knowing anyway? i think so! which is why they dont need a fucking key anyway! that system is fucked😔
@@jannecapelle_art They own the house. Yes, they very much have a key to the house, whether or not it is legal for them to use it without speaking to you.
@@galechan4724 well yes, my landlord owns a key to the house, but not for my apartment specifically. idk how common this is in America, but i live in germany and my landlord owns the whole house with the 6 apartments in it, but he does not have a key to all the actual apartments, just the house itself. at least as far as im aware, he gabe us all the keys he had🤔
@@jannecapelle_art They own it. There'll never be a situation where they don't have keys. They legally cannot just enter willy Billy though, they need to give you warning and a reason Note: This might be US only, look up local laws
I once had a landlord do a really good thing for me by threatening to resign from the company he ran with his two brothers, if they went through with evicting us. At the time my parents had just gone through with a divorce, and he couldn’t justify to himself evicting a single mother with two kids. He effectively stuck his own neck out to keep us from being homeless. The problem is that the model of his business put him in a position where it was in his financial and personal best interests to evict us. A man of lesser moral integrity might have done that eviction, and *that* is the problem.
That happened to a friend of mine. Turned out the landlord was just looking to use her desperation to get tail and for the next yr she let him fck her saved up all the money age would have spent on rent and then when she knew he'd be gone for several days in a row was able to move everything out and into storage then gave his wife a bunch of photos of them in bed together and a note to get a good lawyer and take him for everything he was worth. My friend got even for having to sell her body for a yr to make sure her children had shelter, the wife took him for everything (never sign a pre nup without a joint adultery clause folks) and he ended up going to jail for tax fraud. 😈
Also, "just pitching a tent on unincorporated land" is broadly illegal, worldwide, and in the places where it's some legal framework (like the US and Canada) it's on very specific places and very strict regulations, often requiring permits and other stuff. Libertarians are stuck in a time before the commons were enclosed. There are no commons anymore. All land is owned by *someone*. You simply *can't* go live in the woods. Hunting out of season is illegal, hunting certain species altogether is illegal, damaging certain plants is illegal... AND FOR A GOOD REASON, too. They need to start living in the 21st century.
That was my thinking too! Here in Germany you have nowhere to go. Setting up a tent in the woods, even without hunting or taking anything out of nature, is illegal.
It's because any political and economic ideas they have are based on assumptions and abstract hypothetical scenarios made by well-to-do Europeans in the 18th century. Obviously they have little idea what they're talking about
@@rob8224-x4h Right, instead we have slumlords who build shitty apartment complexes that poor people can rent and we still have the problem of bad schools because there are no taxes collected to pay for them. I'm not seeing how allowing landlords to charge rent automatically gets rid of the bad schools problem.
@@rob8224-x4h I mean we could change the way schools are funded ... bc funding schools with property taxes creates a cycle or poverty and poor education...
@@rob8224-x4h Fun fact; school-districts (and especially funding schools through property value) were invented to enforce segregation without explicitly doing so. It's why, to this day, 70% of students go to non-integrated schools in the US and why people of color receive worse education in the US. Surely you can see that the solution is to nationalize housing and eliminate school districts, not to just throw your hands up and say "well thats just how things work!"
In Spain, it is written in the Constitution, that all citizens have a right to a decent home. Ofc that doesn't prevent homelessness or some people living in horrible housing conditions.
Clean water? Lil's anecdote: As a kid we had a geography lesson about some dam in Egypt and the through line was along the lines of "people now have to pay for water they used to take out of the Nile for free for generations". Me and some other pupils were outraged at the injustice of that, asking, in a way only kids can I guess: isn't water a basic need and thus a human right that should be free? Teacher: yeah, one should think. But also here, your parents pay for the tap water (we had either not thought about that at all, or in my case, assumed that was one of the things you pay taxes to get provided).
@@allymog5228 its like when you give a dog dinner table food all the time. eventually, the dog will expect it and if you dont provide it, the dog will act out.
@@joshbrock2663 except that poor *people* are not dogs or animals, they are *people*, and thus have rights regardless of how you treat your animals. Secondly, this analogy suggests that people are given a basic level of food and so to give them more is unnecessary. Putting aside the questionable nature of that assumption, this most certainly does not apply in cases of humanitarian aid. I wrote that with Moggs' comments regarding UNICEF provisions for British children in mind, and there is no way a moral good human being can argue that they do not deserve basic essential food.
"Being a landlord is a risk because a socialist may seize the house." ...what? There are thousands of actual risks that he could bring up; fire, water damage, tenants refusing to pay, war, economic downturns, poor investment skills; things beyond a landlord's control that results in a loss of money. None of these are justifications of landlord, merely consequences of seeking profit with property, but they do fit into the capitalist framework. Edit: Stinky Matt brings this up
"As a griefter and con-man, I always am running the risk that the people I dupe and steal money from might realize that I'm taking their money and stop me from conning more people."
Well to if your are completely fair. Those are the risks of being an home owner. Not an Landlord. There are only two risks of being an landlord that are unique to being a landlord. 1) tenants harming your property. 2) tenants not paying. And since both those risks are actually caused by the mechanics of ownership and not business mechanics There really is 0 economic risk taking involved. If Landlords did not exist these risk would not exist. And there would still be an housing market. Landlords is pure capital pressure and absolutely nothing else
@@jthom0027 well you see, these people are getting in the way of profit! its not a win-win for capitalist matt! (i dont think he knows what a win-win means). Its pretty obvious from that ending that capitalist matt views tenants as objects to extract money from, or be discarded, even if he hasn't sat down and said those exact words to himself. He understands the power imbalance. He brings up Mazlow's Heirarchy of Needs. So he understands that housing is one of the big ones. And he understands that hes commodifying it. So idk what there is that he is not getting. If tenants can just choose to live in the woods and forfeit their jobs and earning potential, then why cant he stop being a landlord? Why cant he just move to the woods and stop collecting money for a basic and mandatory NEED? The buck stops literally anywhere else!
@@Flippwn1 "Win-win" means I *win* some of THA MAAHNEY, then use that money to take resources other people need and hold it as leverage to *win* some more of THA MAAHNEY.
"The government won't even let me kick unemployed people out of their homes right away during a global pandemic, how could I possibly have the power here."
The government probably won't let a landlord raise rent from $800/month to $10,000/month because you know, the government is always on the side of the landlord.
Brian Dean having trouble telling if this is agreement via hyperbole or disagreement via trying to pretend hyperbole is a normal concern Not trying to be snarky here I’m genuinely butting up against Poe’s Law
@Moroccan Kingdom Nah, I don't think they care about life. The warmongering and frightened screeching over assistance programs disabused me of that notion.
There seem to be a lot of people online that think legality and morality are the same thing. This becomes more hilarious or terrifying when one realizes most seem to be right libertarians
@@scottsbarbarossalogic3665 It's even more hilarious when you realize that virtually all of those laws are the result of _leftist reform_ "You dumbass libs, labor isn't that bad, just look at all the sick time and weekends you get! Just be grateful we're giving you those things you literally forced us to give you"
I became a landlord unintentionally, when I had to move but was unable to sell my home (because of the housing crash it was underwater). The arrangement made me very uncomfortable. I didn’t own the whole residence - I was still paying off its mortgage. BUT I was able to collect more than enough rent to cover the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and expenses. I figured out quick that basically the renters were buying the place FOR me. Every month, my mortgage payment would increase how much of the property I owned, and then the rent check would replace the money I’d used to pay the mortgage. The renters were buying the place for me. All because I had been able, once, to scrape together $50k and put down a down payment and buy it. And the renters couldn’t scrape that together. That’s it! Basically, because they were more poor than me, I could make them buy the property for me. Not only did I own a little more of it each month, but it’s value went up every year as the housing market appreciated. And I got all that too. Eventually my renters left to buy their own home. A relative of theirs had died and left them some money. Incidentally, some of that $50k I used to buy was left to me by my grandfather. Which all goes to show how the cycle perpetuates itself. People from well off families whose relatives leave them a little bit of money get to sit on their ass while poorer people buy properties for them. I wasn’t sitting pretty because I was smarter or better or more risk tolerant. Nope. Just my grandpa died before theirs. That is literally the story. So let’s all think about that the next time someone says that everyone has equal opportunities in America. No, no they don’t. Everyone has some opportunity which is not zero, but the same? Nope.
Even if they had equal opportunities, it does not matter. Someone should not have to live in financial servitude, regardless their opportunities. Its truly vile when you see people promoting this system (buying a house, then getting the tenants to pay off the mortgage for you) as if its somehow a good thing or a smart business move.
@@courtjester1135 No it was pretty cash neutral most months but then when we sold the property we realized a lot of the gains. I worked the entire time. It was more like, at the end of four years, we walked away with $150K for not doing very much at all except invest $50k at the beginning.
The fact one of his main points was "yeah, this profit-seeking enterprise is inherently exploitative and evil but don't worry, *every* profit-seeking enterprise is exploitative and evil in the same way!" without any hint of irony or self-reflection is genuinely insane to me. I had to doubletake. This dude is drinking the cappy koolaid so hard that one of his main methods of hand waving criticisms of specific aspects of capitalism is "yeah but all of capitalism is also that terrible too!" And I think the worst thing about that argument is that it isn't even particularly new or uncommon: liberals and other pro-capitalists just legitimately can't imagine any way of living other than capitalism due to how they've been raised their entire life to see it as humanity's default, and so all of its overwhelmingly terrible, inherent flaws are just 'human nature' or 'life simply being unfair'. Depressing.
@@Shadowfolk369 and it isn't even some weird vanguardism where he's deluded himself into thinking he is ACTUALLY HELPING people. He just straight up knows it sucks and is fine with that.
@@manuelantuna26 I think the most convincing argument is "Render unto Caesar". Caesars picture is on the coin, because he set up and controls the monetary system, setting up the rules for exchange of value. Including taxes. So, you could do the anarchist thing and argue that all money is theft, but you can't just single out the one rule you don't like. Explain this to a Southern Baptist, wait until his lengthy explanation, why you totally misunderstood the Bible is done, then ask him to point out the actual Bible quotes that contradict this interpretation. The popping sounds you hear from their exploding heads is worth it.
@@stefanb6539 I'm sure it's not a common interpretation of "Render unto Caesar" but I've always felt that by juxtaposing "That which is Caesar's" with "That which is God's" the point you're supposed to take away is fuck Caesar what is he really due when he's just a man and not God?
Yeah most ghouls completely fall flat on their face whenever you bring up that disabled people exist. Most of the time they continue to deny disabled people exist. We really put a dampener on their plans don't we?
But if someone didn't go and buy all the tickets to a concert then concerts wouldn't be put on any more because there wouldn't be anyone wanting tickets! Someone was telling me recently that without landlords no new houses would be built because who on earth would buy them?
@@magellanicraincloud I agree with you, however, to answer your question, I wouldn't want to own a house/apartment, even if I could afford one (at the moment, I'm 19 and live on rent). Owning a house comes with a lot of risks - for example, having to renovate the house when necessary, and that costs money. But now, as I rent an apartment, if there's a serious problem witht the house, I can just move out and on the problem isn't mine anymore. I understand that many people cannot just move out and find a new place, but many (I dare to say most) can. I also understand all of the problems of the concept of renting Matt (stinky) explained on this video, but they still don't concern everyone that is renting a house and thus a solution that concerns everyone isn't necessary.
@@oskarileikos Agreed; we need a system where you rent, but pay no more than what the home costs to maintain and eventually replace. Buying homes is just not a good system for the vast majority of people.
@@oskarileikos If you agree, you are a moron, the person you are agreeing with was making a joke. Scalpers aren't the intended demand for concerts. If everyone scalped, if nobody wanted the tickets, scalping would lose money. Scalping only works, because people want to go to the show and Scalpers lose money if they can't offload their merch. Exactly the same as landlords. All it takes is a 20K deposit and you have a lease and a mortgage. You get someone else to stay there and pay your mortgage, at the end you have a house, for the cost of the deposit. Living in a house does not come with risks, idiot. Not above living in the house and paying for it yourself. If the toilet fails, if the heating fails, you fix it or the property is worth less and nobody else can stay there. But you still gain in equity on a property, for simply asking someone else to do the repairs the same way anyone else would. So someone covers part of your mortgage and you get money free. If you don't understand how this is wrong, you're so right wing, and so stupid, even Adam Smith the "father of capitalism" would send you to the guillotine.
@@IMatchoNation Only because people with wealth inflate the price of homes to make that impossible for most. For most, living in one place, with decent housing for their family, and a good job, is perfect. It's people stealing up the houses because they had the option for a loan sooner that hurts that. A market you're advocating for. A market that has inevitably cost the heats of those who support it over the last half century. Frankly, I'd dance as they did you in.
Matt: It's all ok because we landlords bear risks *Pandemic happens* Matt: Why should we landlords bear the risks of an epidemic making people unable to pay rent!? We should be allowed to evict the victims!
"Risk" is the dumbest argument capitalists use. The only risk they face is... becoming one of us?? Lol. And we're supposed to agree that THAT justifies their power and control 😂
@@nfinn42yes because we had to work to get the property to rent roof gets damaged well looks like no vacation to grandma house. Bad tenant with meth lab? We might loose property to seizure so my kid can't goto college.
I worked between 45 and 60 hours a week for 6 years, never got a raise more than 20 cents, and still couldn't afford the basic cost of rent where I live. Health and car insurance, phone service, student loan payments, gas, and food made it so I only went further into debt on my minimum wage job. I talk like this is past tense... I'm still living it.
Meanwhile you are not supposed to exceed 30% (the absolute maximum) of your income towards rent anywhere because otherwise you're simply losing too much of income to unaffordable housing lol.
@@astraldragon5483 The problem with this is the rent market makes rent prices too high all around so that if you work a job in a location, you can't pay just 30% of your income for rent and live near your work.
As a lawdude with a law license, this person is dead-wrong. a) This is why we have Landlord-Tenant Acts which govern landlords and tenants differently from other businesses, and b) both parties in leases do not have equal bargaining power, and leases are usually drafted with the landlord having far more favorable provisions than the tenant. tldr Stink Matt is a handsome boy with handsome ideas.
Coulda been a bit clearer that "this person" refers to Matt and not Stink Matt (who is handsome and may or may not stink but I cannot judge the latter given current technology available to me). I thought you lawdudes were all about that specificity.
@@Quintinohthree As in the ever handsome, manly Stink Matt is 100% correct, and Regular Matt is 100% wrong. The lawdudeness has been overcome by pure derp today.
Capitalists, "We deserve the profits because we take the risk!" The same Capitalists when facing a risk, "There is no way its fair for me to be stuck with these costs!"
@@rob8224-x4h Perhaps this will help you understand why landlords are unecessary parasites. Did landlords create the land that they charge for rent? No, the land already existed Do landlords manage the property? Technically the property management company does that not the landlords. In that case the economy could run better without landlords. Rent seeking is not employment income, it is investment income. If you rely stealing your tenant's labor value (through rent) to survive then you are a societal parasite. Being a landlord is not a job.
@@RiggsBF The landlord pays for property maintenance...Also, they don't charge rent on land, they charge rent on property that's built. Stop making fallacious nonarguments.
@@mementomori1749 1. There is no reason why tenants couldn’t pay for maintenance themselves and be cheaper off. 2. Yes, but the landlord also had no part in creating this property. Kid, your “counter-arguments” only help to prove why landlords are inherently parasitic.
@@jimgoldflower3006 1. It is irrelevant if the tenants themselves can't or can pay for maintenance, what is relevant is they aren't. 2. Uhm, and the tenant does? also, yes they do. There's always a land owner who pays for a house to be built, then voluntarily hands it over to a landlord who then offers a voluntary trade for money to housing, which in turn benefits the tenant by giving them a place to live. The landlord takes care of property taxes, electricity and water bills, property maintenance, and everything in between. Landlords aren't parasites. A parasite is "an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.". At the expense on the tenant's what? the tenant is being granted a house to live in, shelter, they are at no expense.
"landlords pay for repairs and maintenance" my friends lived in an apartment that had mould and the bins outside were overflowing so much that they could barely open their door and they have since moved but for some reason they couldn't get out of their lease despite the clear hygiene issues so they still have to pay rent to live in a place that they no longer live in
Where I live, besides rent, in most apartments you have to pay an extra 30-60 euros every month for cleaning and maintenance, but anyways when I lived in an apartment as a student the plumbing was old af and the sink would get periodically clogged regardless of how careful we were at avoiding particles from going down the drain. We'd call the landlord and he'd say we shouldn't use any corrosive products to unclog it because the plumbing was too old. But he offered no other solution. He didn't even offer to call the plumber cause he would've had to pay for it. So we used the product anyways.
I lived in a an apartment where a leak in the roof was causing blood red ooze to come out of our ceiling and walls (it was probably rusty water). We could also see mold growing out of the attic entrance in our bathroom. We assumed this was related to the leaking roof and contacted our landlord. He told us to spray some bleach on the mold, take shorter showers, and just wait out the red ooze.
I lived in an apartment that was a renovated old school department store. There was only one thermostat per floor. Our neighbors had control and being from Africa they kept the place at 80 something during winter. They were cool folx but damn it was hot. Also anybody living there could pop up into the ceiling and pop down into other apartments.
I lived in a basement apartment where the pipe leading from the building to the sewers had roots growing in it and needed to be replaced. At least once a month a toilet paper dam would form and all the sewage from all twelve units would back up into my bathtub and my neighbor's sink. On more than one occasion my roommate and I had to use buckets to haul 60+ gallons of shit water to the storm drain out front so our apartment wouldn't flood with human feces. Instead of replacing the pipe, the landlord would just hire a plumber to roto-root the toilet paper. The first time it happened the landlord took 3 days to hire a plumber, but the second time it happened I sent pictures to my friend who worked at the county health department. The landlord always had a plumber there the same day after that.
Becoming a landlord turns good people into bad people. Years back when I was homeless, a new landlord was very helpful to me. They definitely got into the business for altruistic reasons and wanted to help people. A couple years later they were bullying people into moving out by trying to get them to commit themselves...and even tried to make me do the same. Putting all the blame of a bedbug problem on single tenants to make them leave. They were even giving notice for inspections by emailing me literally an hour before coming. They tried to sue me for damages to the floor....which they backed off of when I showed them pictures of the floor in the exact same shape that I had taken the week I moved in. I saw their personality completely change over five years of being a landlord. The whole setup is toxic. You cannot be an ethical landlord, and anyone who thinks they are us deluding themselves. All my landlord had in the end was personal mind games to trick herself into thinking she was doing good. Which is how you get people like Not-Slime-Mat.
When people become just ATMs in your eyes, there's no incentive to keep a defective ATM in your building. Landlord Matt is the same as any businessman who loses touch with the humanity of the people under their control. It's just becomes an objective emotionless decision-making process. I worked in both Finance and HR, and I've seen this, and continue to see it, a lot. People simply seeing others as money-generating means, rather than actual humans. This doesn't mean that they're moustache-twirling evil people. The environment of capitalistic business just makes people dispensable and changes those with power over time. They might be good people in general, but horrible when it comes to business decisions.
The only kind of landlord that isn’t inherently corrupt imo is people who rent out spare rooms privately. That actually does feel mutually beneficial, someone who would normally be in a much smaller place having access to the common spaces and sometimes better location of a house, and homeowner gets a bit of help paying for mortage, and they tend to act more like roommates albeit with a bit of a power dynamic. Every other landlord pretty much sucks though.
"We have win win relationships with a lot of our tenants." I'm sure lords thought the same of their serfs. You give me all of the value of your labor and you get to like.....not starve. WIN WIN!
They get a house. Houses have to be built. Some people don't want the state to asign them to one house for their entire life. They want to live in a place for some time and maybe move again. So they don't want to build a house or buy a house. Fortunately there is nice people, who will let you use a house temporarily without buying it. Besides it's rather horrible that you're suggesting that serfs worked on the land voluntarily.
@@MrCmon113 Serfs were every bit as much "voluntary" as home renters. People don't rent homes because they "want to live somewhere voluntarily", they do it because they _are too poor to afford a down payment on a house._ And to be quite frank, let's weigh those two outcomes: On one side, people "have to put up with a state assigned house", and on the other, _people live in the streets._ Even if that were the problem, I'd choose to hurt those peoples feelings if it meant _saving thousands of lives._ Secondly, _housing markets could still exist in a socialist system._ The system only needs to redistribute vacant homes to the homeless, not force all people to live in specific buildings. People would just have an unalienable right to their own home, and would still be able to apply for other homes or even trade homes. Fun fact: did you know that vacant homes actually outnumber the homeless? Even if we housed every last homeless person, one to one, without having to share with roommates, _you'd still have a surplus of homes to choose from._ And besides, _building_ homes would still be a business: nothing would stop people wealthy enough from building new homes. Better yet, the system we have now is _more_ restrictive for mobility: Landlords demand leases and deposits, forcing people to stay tied to one location, and making it harder to break into others. And the price of rent dictates where people can and can't live. You know, when you mentioned the "state might assign a house to you for your life", that's already happening. People don't get to choose to live somewhere better, they have to consider the prices. And worse yet, the prices then dictate _how_ they can live. People in inner cities with higher rent now have that pressure when considering their job options, and have to work extra hard to make sure they can continue to live where they are. Meanwhile, they are constantly funneling the majority of their income into a basic necessity, which harshly limits their potential. The grand majority of people in poverty are there with every bit as much choice as the serfs: they're trapped in a system where they can either agree to unfair, unreasonable and unproductive conditions that only give them just enough to survive, all while a class above them gets free money, simply because they _own_ the land. _Or_ they can choose to try and hack it on their own, which will end up with them either freezing, starving, or getting thrown in jail. And the only reason they're in this position while the lords are in theirs, is genetic lottery.
@@potaterjim @taxtro As a side note, to Jim's points, I've lived in at least one city which was TEARING DOWN HOUSES, because they had been defaulted on, due to the job market crashing after several manufacturing plants closed. The original owners were evicted, noone could afford to purchase the houses, and the banks didn't want to spend money on upkeep. These were gorgeous, turn-of-the-century, multi-storey homes. But there were homeless people squatting, and we can't have that! Weird that there were homeless people, and empty houses nobody wanted, tho. Just odd.
Landlords don’t always call the sheriff sometimes they wait until the tenant has left the rental property and then change the locks so the tenant cannot access their personal property within the rental property.
@@KingBobXVI capital punishment is win-win because a robust legal system will exonerate the innocent (a win for the accused) and society gets protected from the most violent offenders (a win for the state)
"Win win" is almost always used by the person with the leverage in the relationship to justify their exploitation to the other side by making it sound as the best possible alternative. "We have a win-win relationship" simply means "I could've given you a much worse deal but I want you to appreciate that I didn't". This is, of course, not true. Because people determine their demands in a leveraged position by the maximum amount of sustainable exploitation possible. If they charge you 60% of your salary to rent, you will be evicted and the property will be empty for long periods during the year. So they charge you 35% of your salary so that you can rent throughout the year, minimizing potential revenue loss from overpricing. Because they want to win now and win later. It's win-win, guys.
First the tenet gets served. Then there is a court appearance for eviction. Then you have to pay the sheriff to move the tenants off property. It's not simple, quick or cheap. If you don't follow the rules you can get sued.
@@courtjester1135 yes, it's basically officiating a divorce, but much more tragic either painful because the tenants will die, the mess will kill you [tho less likely than the evicted tenants] such as making the fridge go rotten or otherwise growing germs, or else both.
In the Netherlands it is already impossible to contact the police without paying, police stations only work an appointment one has to make by call you have to pay a lot of money from.
"when has a regulation ever helped you?" it was cool when the ACA/"Obamacare" prevented insurance companies from discriminating against me for pre-existing chronic health problems, idk Also, the ADA has been pretty helpful.
No, it is not intellectually dishonest to discuss a situation and identity a problem without having a specific solution in mind. It's inconvenient for people with power to not have a specific alternate policy that they can attack. Sucks for them, I guess.
It's not dishonest, but it also doesn't really leave a lot of room for discussion. The only response you can reasonably give is either "You're right, I guess my entire worldview is wrong" (nobody will give this response) or "Even if you have a point, you don't have a better solution, so I'll stick with this one rather than nothing at all."
@@Nuvizzle Sure, but then the latter position is something that can be built upon. Pitching the entire solution to this is immensely complicated, and there are many different positions, most of which are very difficult to achieve on a large/world scale. To me it makes sense that we'd at least get people to "okay I see a lot of flaws but this is the best we've got" first so that they are then ready to listen to various solutions for those flaws. I'm also receptive to the idea that maybe humans don't work that way and that lefties should take a different approach, but pitching an entirely different method of social, political, and economic organization from the ground up is kind of a big task.
@@Nuvizzle Nobody asks for the "OH YOU HAVE A PROBLEM BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION SO YOU'RE BAD/WRONG" concept in anything else other than from a position of a bad debater. If I stumble up to a doctor saying my heart is beating fast, I can't breathe, and I'm dizzy, the doctor doesn't say, "Hey, all you did was describe a problem, not give me any actionable solutions. Go learn heart medicine and come back in 10 years with a solution."
Imagine if you went to the emergency room because you're having chest pain and the doctor was like actually it's intellectually dishonest to come in here complaining without bringing any solutions to the table smh
People who create homes are exploited too. People who create homes get a fixed wage for the hours worked building the home and that's all! A lot of labourors can't afford the houses they build on the wages they earn for building them, whereas landlords get to make perpetual money.
My friend from school went directly from school to bricklaying. I've not seen him in decades, but I can be fairly certain he does not now own the bricks.
I framed houses for 8 years. Big McMansion types. I used to always comment on the fact I was building homes I could never afford. Then I got hurt at work when a wall fell on me and crushed me. A broken back and hip later I’m no closer...and now I can’t even physically build them for a living. Solidarity comrades. ✊🏴✊
My dads a carpenter and growing up, I always heard him and my mum talking about builders who hadn't paid them yet, sometimes months after the facr and sometimes he didn't get paid at all. There was usually nothing he could do. The building industry is rife with exploitation
Not if literally no one is paying rent. If tenants collectively withhold their rent, perhaps save it up, they will cut off a landlord's income entirely, forcing them to the table to sell their property to the tenants.@@Boguardis
@@Boguardis It's when NOBODY pays rent so the landlords don't have any money to kick anyone out with. You know, like one worker who doesn't work gets fired, but if all the workers don't work, the boss has a problem.
I've had my landlord put a note on my door telling me to vacate in 3 days (3 DAYS!) cuz THEIR EMPLOYEE locked my rent payment in a drawer, along with several others, rather than placing it where it should have gone to be processed before they left...and no one, but that person could access it. (Tenents couldn't access the box they put it in themselves otherwise I would have done that.) They also dated the notice falsley showing it was placed earlier than it was. So I then had to go prove to them I already paid or they would take legal action against me for something I had zero control over.
Gerr, it's a reference to Elon Musk. Michael knows they're all capitalist enterprises. He's just pointing out how he and Thought Slime are both in on the joke that Thought Slime made, which you do not appear to be in on.
lmao, he's a landlord in London Ont? that is like the easiest place to be a landlord. It's a university town and students don't know their tenant rights. I've seen so many homes foreclose because landlords buy old students houses, do nothing to them but rent them for absurd prices and leave them in decay and disrepair. honestly leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see someone promoting taking advantage of and making a profit off of my community, there a people here in desperate need of housing
Matt is the kind of person that is not actually thinking about landlord-ism critically, and is only attempting to justify the position he holds because it benefits him personally and emotionally. He is thinking of excuses to justify what he is doing because he wants to keep doing it.
My father is a landlord. A while back we lived in another city, and he hasn't been able to sell the house. As a result, it's being rented out for a price he can't lower due to dumb laws and the house is a massive tax burden on everyone involved. He isn't nearly as exploited by the system as the tenants who have to live in that house, but he regularly complains about not being able to get rid of the house and unfair the situation is for his tenants. If he, a landlord, can see the problem with landlords why can't Matt McKeever?
Not all landlords are bad. My mother husband has a severe disability and cant work. His father used to be a small store owner (small grocery) and has bought a place that he inherited. And this leads him enough money to live his daily life but nothing extra. And in a perfect world he would not have the need to exploit someone to live and he knows that. Landlording is bad.
Out of curiosity, when you say "hasn't been able to sell the house", do you mean that there isn't anyone willing to buy the house or that he is somehow legally prohibited from selling the house?
Whenever a capitalist starts talking about how regulations are bad, I typically go into things like copyright and patent laws. Things that corporations spend lots of da money to keep and enforce
I am more a fan of medieval history, so I am usually rather try to ask them, what the building was, that defined a market: It was the market court! A market is a place, that regulates exchange of goods by punishing extortion, theft and fraud, and all "regulations" are just specifications to what is considered as extortion, theft or fraud. A "free" market a la Ayn Rand, without any regulations, is as absurd as an immobile vehicle. I don't convince many with that line of arguments, but that won't stop me from nerding unto others with my medieval geekery.
@@stefanb6539 I find that really interesting and wouldn't mind learning about that, but I imagine it's a little too removed from our current set-up for most to connect it
I typically go with the fact that the Cuyahoga River is no longer repeatedly catching fire (though I understand they're Canadians, or at least "stinky" Matt is)
1 - Most businesses operate like landlords? That doesn't mean it's not a problem, Matt. It just means that it's a _LARGER_ problem than initially discussed.
The difference between working for a coffee shop or grocery store and being a landlord is that being a landlord is being the boss, who takes home an outsize paycheck in relation to the labor they actually do, where the tenants are your employees and customers at the same time. Your property, as a landlord, is only productive when lived in, because that’s how it sees any use. When you work for a coffee shop or grocery store, you are the employee doing the work.
I feel like selling water to man dying of thirst in a desert and signing a contract under duress is the perfect analogy for those on the wrong side of Capitalism.
More like a selling a man swimming in sweet water other sweet water. Who's forcing you to live in a popular city? Why do those cities need to be attractive infinitely into the future?
The "we have to hire the sheriff" argument is either disingenuous or incredibly dense. "We literally can't throw you out" is not the same as "there is *a step* between us and throwing you out."
"The law is against me because in order to harm you, I have to speak to a law enforcement officer." I think landlord Matt just wants to be able to drag people out of their homes and shoot them in the face for missing a rent payment. It's a win-win relationship with his tenants.
“Hiring the sheriff” is such a boldly honest statement too. “This public official ostensibly working for the common good, funded by tax money? Yeah we filled his dress slacks with tooneys to toss a family’s possessions into the street.”
This is what it means to be a libertarian, though. If the connection between any two things isn't completely and absolutely direct, they go "what connection?" That's it; that's the whole thing.
@@r_bear Why don't you ask Joseph Dejacque, the anarcho-communist who coined the term libertarian, what it means to be a libertarian? And maybe don't let far right lunatics steal our political language?
If I remember correctly, all of these points have already been answered in the thought slime video: "Is capitalism voluntary" just without directly adressing landlords, nonstinkMatt is treading water
It doesn't matter. Capitalism depends on the doctrine that the nominally voluntary parts of capitalism are absolutely voluntary and the obligatory parts (backed by the state or de facto state) are just facts of nature. Therefore, any suggestion to the contrary (e.g. that agreements are coercive whenever there's a power imbalance, that private property is a social convention rather than an absolute law of reality, etc.) must be wrong a priori and can be ignored (and a good capitalist can even insist that these suggestions have never been made, because they can't have been, because that might make capitalism wrong...).
People like this should be forced to move house every four months; not only to show them the costs, but also the hassle. Hell, me and the fam had to move because of a dickhole landlord like Matt; 0/10 would not recommend.
Should be easier than staying in a city you can't afford. How is this supposed to continue in your head? We intervene in the market until every single individual occupies the same exact spot in spacetime? Not everyone can live in the same neighborhood. At some point you have to allow the neighborhood to become less attractive.
It cost me over 2 grand to move and ai thought it would be cheap but since I had to throw so much shit away and rebuy it later because my new landlords fucked me and made me wait 3 days since my old apartment contract expired and I had to live in a hotel during that time.
@@MrCmon113 - It's not easy to move in general because many places ask for you to pay a deposit, as first months rent, sometimes even last months rent, too. My partner and I are moving and we've been looking since April, to a place that's cheaper. But, it's still expensive when you think about everything that comes with moving like buying things for storage, and other general moving prep. I don't think everyone is asking to live in an affluent place or anything. They just want something affordable that isn't taking away 1/3rd of their monthly income.
@@LiLzZluvinJ Part of the reason I adopted minimalism over the years. I read a book by a guy who got to a point where it took him between 30 minutes to an hour to be packed up and gone in case of an environmental or economic emergency. It's nice to not have to worry about that personally.
Probably because they are benign.... We are all comfortable with a certain level of "exploitation" including you . Landlords don't surpass the level of exploitation we're comfortable with. So there's no real incentive to get rid of them .
Brutus Lugo yeah sure, except the millions of tenants and organizers who oppose them vehemently and correctly, like the people you’re having a grand, fruitless time trying to one up in the whole comments section. You know, the classic ‘no one cares as long as I impose an artificial limitation on who counts as a “valid” opposition, so that I feel good and right.’ You have peepee brain disease.
Stink-Matt, i wont be watching this video. i love you, but i watched 45 seconds of this other man talking and had to quit. bless you for sitting through his whole hour and responding, it seems like genuine psychological torture.
"Yo what up I am this dude's hype man who incidentally happens to be his employee, filming this statement wholly of my own volition and not as an attempt to curry favor with my source of income, Stink Matt you are a butt and Regular Matt is a benevolent and wise productive member of society."
Yes, but then he could not exploit others. That would increase the chance that someone else exploits this humble landlord. So it is better that you exploit others rather then be exploited, and to make up for any potential guilt, you just have to buy some socks for the homeless people (ofc Matt loves the homeless, they keep the prices up for him)
But how would they then make money with wealth and possession. inherited from family and ever growing vs the non owning class that does all the work! What are you... stupid? :P.
“They grew the food, they harvest the food, they distribute the food by putting it in the little bin so that the mayor comes and gets it.” Listening to this while harvesting my parsnips.
@@bugdracula1662 Pffft. There are no such things as woodland spirits ! If you want your bus repaired, you need to give money to the corporate overlord that is trying to take over the valley you live in ! duh !
They wouldn't need the money if the system wasn't set up in such a way to make them desperate for it. You won't find any computer engineers or hedge fund accountants offering their lives up for monetary stability.
@rb5286 It's a shortsighted analogy. The first question is how do we know the "contractor" is competent to enter into such an arrangement? Unless, hunting was closer to a game of tag or paint ball. There are laws prohibiting intentional harm that prohibit "hunting." So that makes it a stupid analogy. Now, if she said "dwarf tossing" how would you feel about that?
@@asmodiusjones9563 lmfao omfg so true. The psychopath who wants fellatio is somehow the good guy and the person who wants the coconuts but not to be violated orally is the bad guy
“Landlord’s right has its origin in robbery. The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent for even the natural produce of the earth.” -Adam Smith
Adam Smith does not say what you think he does here. Educate yourself on what "rent" is in economics. I suggest looking up Georgism, which is essentially Smiths arguments here expanded.
@@freesoftwareextremist8119 When I heard of Georgism and read about it on Wikipedia and a few other places, it was really interesting. It would be cool to see a good explanation of it on TH-cam or something.
@@d.w.stratton4078 For sure! A lot of people especially on the right don't realise Marx spent countless hours at the British library both as worker and freelancer, he studied people like Smith and Hume meticulously, his less famous trilogy of books that isn't Das Kapital, the theory of labour value was taken straight from Adam Smith and expanded upon
His rebuttal to thoughtslime's argument that landlords can kick tenants out on the street is basically: a) no, there's a state-run, taxpayer-funded service for that And b) I wish I could, but there's all these bureaucratic hoops I have to jump through (as if that was an unreasonable thing)
This could be a somewhat good argument for some places outside US. Where I live it can be extremely hard to kick someone out. This results in some shitty situations where the landlord is actually actively losing money, time and nerves over a problematic tenant who has demolished the place, refuses to pay the rent or leave and have nowhere to go. As much as I dislike the practice of landlording, this is just shitty.
Luckily in our socialist utopia there will be resources for anyone to try to make an innovative venture to refine cars or space travel if they want to without having to make profit to invest in future ventures right?
Nope. There are two tested form of business that does not. Non profits and employee owned and operated (Laborist). Not ironically both of these business models have a far higher rate of success then investor ownership (capitalism) in the free market,(America's economy) but grow slower. Like mighty oak trees the laborist business model grows in a field of weeds, eventually they will take over no matter what, but why not accelerate the rise by weeding the field? I think "stinky" Matt would prefer the laborist methodology to restructuring since he is a anarchist, and I prefer it because I am antiestablishment and believe that the state is only valid when the state is servant to the people.
Your sense of humor is really becoming honed to a fine point, oh slime, Lord of Canada. Your last few videos have had me laughing out loud multiple times. Love it.
Is insulin covered in a single payer system on your homeworld? If so could you do a posadism soon? We need free healthcare here on earth. Many people cant get help. Pleeeeeaaaseeee can you do a posadism to us?
We're having a huge cold wave in Canada right now, and it really highlights the absurdity of 'just go live in the woods'. Like it's -40 during the day in some places, you cannot reasonably survive that in a tent.
Better yet: _TEXAS_ got a taste of something close to that, and it disabled their entire electrical grid. Over one hundred people died _in the middle of a fully industrialized state,_ not because it was extremely cold, but because it was colder than they were prepared for. The worst thing is, "go live outside" is exactly as much of a choice as "subject yourself to unfair conditions": it's something you would literally only do because you have no choice other than starve.
@@potaterjim and to add insult to injury? the reason texas's electric grid was so unstable is because, unlike a lot of other states, it's completely insular and privatized, and while it does keep costs low, that's done by basically removing all redundancy. Capitalism "streamlined" your electric grid, but just like every other system of logistics built by capitalism, very small changes can completely ruin it.
Buy a house!? Gosh, I should've thought about that earlier. Thank god Matt responded to stink Matt, otherwise I'd never have realized that I could've just bought a house instead. Gosh darn me, I gave 27k to my landlords in those past 5 years for nothing. I should've bought a house! I'm such a dummy.
Oh what you wanna buy a house? Too bad me and my landlord buddies bought a bunch, carved them up into premium luxury 1/2 bedroom micro apartments, 50 to a building, and/or converted them into Air BnBs.
"Just buy a house if you don't like it." Oh yeah, right, Im'ma just buy a... uh-oh, looks like I can't, 'cause all landlords turbo-fucked the economy for the next few decades
"But the arguments you make about landlords, under capitalism, work the same way all things work under capitalism, so-" "Yes. Yes. You see, they're all bad."
@@GrottoGroveGroves socialism is when da goverment does stuff. the more stuff it does, the more socialist it is. and if it does a REAL lot of stuff, its communsim!
I've always loved the "complying with [unjust thing] is voluntary, and [unjust thing] is therefore fine, because you have the option to [flee to the wasteland and probably die]" argument. The best alternative they can come up with for me is going into fucking exile, something so awful it used to be a criminal punishment, and yet it somehow doesn't click that this is a coercive arrangement.
Just live the woods, mate. If there are no woods near you, how about the desert? That's a feasible lifestyle, right? Living alone hundreds of miles away from a city. That's the dream, I would say. /s There are no unincorporated lands. It's either owned by individuals, corporations, the states, or the federal government. If you just setup a tent on random land for daily living, you will almost certainly be jailed if caught. This reminds me of a youtube series by a guy who goes to camp in uninhabited islands. Even recreational camping with proper equipment is hard as shit.
I fucking wish I could just live in the woods and not partake in capitalist society, tbh. Sadly, I was born with chronic fucking health problems and need medication to survive. I guess the "voluntary" part only applies to able-bodied people?
It’s just like during the Reformation, one of the “reforms” that happened was that they made usury legal again. John Calvin argued that people who rent homes are technically usurers and nobody has a problem with that so why shouldn’t bankers do it too.
Reminds me of when people say their wage isn't enough to buy proper food etc. and rich people are like "well, actually, if you buy a package of crackers and macaroni per week, and wouldn't buy fancy food, you would be just fine!" which is just... wow, you really want us to live in tents and eat garbage
Lol should we constantly repeat that? I only ask because Land lord matt and his gross beard over here acts as if there are those who don't see such a obvious fact lolz.
This isn't even bad for capitalism. Like, if housing were supplied without profit, people would have more money to buy or rent luxuries. Wouldn't gross beard Matt rather run a theme park or sell hoagies then spend all day trying to ignore his tenants asking him to come fix their toilets? I sure would!
He's right though, if we make being a landlord not profitable, or abolish the concept of landlords, then no one will want to be a landlord. That was an argument I heard him make in there.
@@draco89123 without landlords/investors there is no development and no growth. The big cities wouldn't be what they are today without development and home prices wouldn't be any better.
@@1barak1 nah my area would be better off. Big companies buy up all of the property to rent which drives up housing costs. No thanks. Home prices would literally have to be better because they wouldn't sell otherwise.
When the argument starts off with "landlords are good because they're just capitalists like all the other capitalists" you know it's gonna be a bad time
I love when these types of dude say shit like "that's an emotional response" as if the reason they just said that wasn't, you know, an emotional response. Like, you wouldn't be responded had you not felt attacked as a landlord, and had you not felt immediately attacked, you wouldn't have missed the part at the beginning about how it's not an attack on your character.
RIGHT? Nobody with political power is threatening the institution of rentseeking. Dude just doesn't want to feel bad about doing something nobody is stopping him from doing.
Also the whole premise that if it's an emotional response, it must therefore be false. Humans are emotional creatures, and we (quite literally) cannot make value judgments without invoking our emotions. It is rational to have and express emotions while balancing them with reason; it is irrational to try to only use reason without emotion.
@@perchy22 This is what gets me. The whole point of humanity improving is to improve quality of life, right? Not, uh, profit for 5 people? Emotional responses aren't inherently bad. The whole point is feeling better and providing conveniences so we can further improve.
Matt’s Friend: “And all those followers you’re sending over to this video...” Nope. Not gonna watch it. Don’t need to. Your bid for eyeballs has failed, Mr. Phone-A-Friend.
That was the most cringe thing I've ever seen. Homie just had to jump in to rebut some insults that never occurred, declare his love for his beard buddy, AND paint him as a humanitarian/mentor/kickass successful businessman. I think it's pretty clear how much control landlords have over their tenants just by that short speech.
He talked like a guy with a gun to his head, for being "given the opportunity" to work for this man. He talked like an employee that's afraid to lose their job.
I got real multi-level marketing vibes from it. Talking about how he used to be a server, but now Matt has let him in on these investment opportunities or whatever.
"I personally believe that we have win-win relationships with a lot of our tenants" 1. As the video mentions, that implies that you *don't* with the rest. 2. If we were to ask those "a lot" (the ones who aren't your employees), would they agree? 3. What is "a lot"? Do you have 20 tenants and believe you have a "win-win" relationship with 6 of them? Does that mean the other 14 can go fuck themselves and it's ok to exploit them? This is why an anecdote isn't evidence.
"I personally believe my tenants love having me as a landlord, I've had no complaints!" My ex landlord could probably say this too. Even though he refused to fix anything that couldn't be done by his friend and one lone screwdriver. Just because I was understandably scared to push back against him saying "I did what I could, I called my friend to look at it!". Then he went and kicked me out anyway even though he admitted I've been a perfect tenant. But my buttering him up was all out of being scared of that outcome. Funny that.
What if the landlord has a minimum wage job and worked their ass off to afford their property while you got pissed at the club every saturday? Why are they the evil person because they were financially responsible and invested their money? Or are you just jealous because you think they got the house for free and cant see the tens of thousands of hours of work they had to do at their job to afford the property.
In this case, he's referring to carbon dioxide by carbon though, so I think climate scientist or atmospheric chemist would be better. Not that you're wrong though of course.
Jack Cox Do carbon scientists know much about ozone? Because I think it’s ozone depletion in the stratosphere, combined with ozone pollution in the troposphere that causes the most warming. Ozone literally generates heat from UV photons instead of just trapping it.
To switch gears, organic chemistry should probably get a rename to Carbon Chemistry because organs are "organ"ized tissue and most of Orgo were just polymers, not even tissue. And organs use tons of inorganic material.
@@draco89123 Organic chemistry has an irritating history that would make it hard to rename to 'carbon chemistry'. The only thing that actually defines something as chemically organic is if it contains covalent bonds with Carbon. I don't know what organs you have that are made out of inorganic material though... Are you a silicon-based life form?
@@draco89123 It's not Organic refering to organs, they share root words but one is not the root word of another. It's not about tissue. It's about all organic compounds, which arent nessecarily things we might consider as organic in non-chemistry contexts.
Defending landlords is kinda bullshit when there's great alternatives out there. Currently, I'm living in an apartment rented by a...well, it's sort of like a worker coop for renting (I'm sorry if there's a proper term for this, english isn't my first language). It works like this: When you rent an apartment, you also buy a share in the company that owns these apartments. You still pay rent, but you also end up getting dividends on the profits your "landlord" makes; you are considered a shareholder of that company. The coop also negotiates all prices for repairs, janitorial work or all other kinds of services that need to be done on the property and splits them up equally among the tenants. You also get to democratically elect a council that represents the interests of the tenants, decides what funds are allocated to, etc etc. So you can have a say on what your rent-money is spent on, and if there's a profit at the end of the day, you even get some of it back. Even from a purely capitalist perspective, this is objectively better for me than renting an apartment from a "regular" landlord; it's literally cheaper than "regular" rent in the same city AND I get paid dividends.
It's been a while, but if I remember, it's set up like a condo, but the building is owned by a corporation which acts like an HOA and a share represents the value of one apartment. Usually the share you purchase is coupled with a loan similar to a mortgage and may allow your share to be sold on the open market or establish specific sales procedures. Make sure you review the corporate financials and understand the authority of the Board of Directors. Remember that you are an owner so you don't have quite as much freedom as a tenant and you have some landlord responsibilities as well. When run well, I've heard they can be great.
I have really great landlords. They are lovely people who charge way less for the apartments in their house than the average rent in our area, they keep in contact with their tenants, they repair everything, they generally go way beyond what's expected from landlords. They still make a nice a profit. And I dread the day they decode to sell the house to cover their retirement. I won't hold it against them, they just do what's in their best interest under capitalism. But it will most likely result in a steep price hike which will result in a lot of people who lived in this house, sometimes for decades, no longer being able to pay their rent. It will destroy a great community that has grown over the years. Landlords suck. Not necessarily the individuals (though many do), but the whole concept.
is this possible in cities where property tax is massive, but you don't want to live in a commune? From what I have seen, housing coops seem to all have to be extremely space efficient and very very tight. Also a very niche choice for people who are down for that kind of lifestyle. This might just be my exposure to them though
Anyone else tweaked by the fact that right-wingers use words like "socialism" and can't even begin to give a middle school level definition on the word. It's like the other day when some goon on TH-cam tried to make the claim that Antifa is "well organized and highly regimented" (not knowing its completely decentralized and more aptly described as a strategy then a group) and that they're into bolshevism... I tried to explain how bolshevism and anarchism couldn't be further from each other, but I even asked, "If you're going to spend your time hating something, shouldn't you at least know what the hell it is?"
That's true, @@nicolasglemot6760. But considering most antifa are anarchist, that would seem pretty rare considering what the Bolsheviks did to Nestor Makhno and the revolutionary army he lead.
The definition I learned in high school was that socialism is a compromise between capitalism and communism. Also just because Antifa is decentralized doesn’t mean there isn’t an invisible hand subverting it. Some Antifa cells might be bought out by Big Capital.
@@vegnsk8588 Tell that to all the individualist and post-left wankers who spam shit like "Platformists are ackshually secret tankies". (platformism being a form of anarcho-communist strategy devised by Black Army veterans in exile in response to their being crushed by the bolsheviks)
Dude needs to come to Arkansas where landlords ONLY have to make sure the property they rent out has four walls, don't HAVE to perform ANY kind of maintanance on the property, AND tenants can go to jail for missing just one month of rent.
I like how this video avoids one of the pitfalls lefties can fall into when arguing against landlords. Some liberal will say something like, "Oh, you object to profiting off the need for shelter? Then you should also object to grocery stores for profiting off the need for food" and the leftist will respond "yes, I also object to that." That may be true, but it ignores the fundamental difference that grocery stores provide a valuable, needed service, whereas landlords do not, and understanding the difference between making money from your labor and making money from your ownership is a necessary step to becoming a leftist. Props to you for centering that in this video.
The key difference to me is that when I pay for groceries, the groceries become mine to do with as I please. When I'm done paying rent, my landlord expects me to give back the house I've been paying for.
Landlords make money by pissing on a territory and when somebody else trespasses making a deal not to attack you for being on it. Even though they don’t use the territory.
The way Matt says "win-win relationships" while deflecting things Stink Matt says that clarify or debunk his disfavorable assertions feels really slimy and deceptive to me.
ppl love to derail conversations by saying “whats the alternative”. esp when our pedagogy is centered around NOT imagining solutions. its cyclical oppression to withhold the tools to imagine and then be upset when we have no answers but can adequately assess the issues holding us FROM finding the solutions in the first place. hate this slippery slope method so much.
@@jankthunder4012 well, I'd argue it's at least part of the premise. It's not like we like in a world of unlimited resources which people can freely share.
@@jankthunder4012 It actually is the underlying assumption of capitalism. It's why so much "personal freedom" is important for a capitalistic society: the specter of everyone out to get you and your need to defend yourself from coercion, either through liberty from that coercion or the power to enforce your freedom with violence if necessary. One of the recurring individualistic-capitalist critiques I hear, quite often, of collectivist solutions to problems is that they can be easily manipulated by the people who are out to get everyone else to harm the collective to their own benefit, and so the solution is to allow all of us the freedom to screw over everyone else and get ours before they get us. The fundamental point of the free market as modern capitalists understand it is to mitigate or harness the impulse to screw over other people. Some capitalists even admit this ("capitalism accounts for human nature" is a defense I see quite often). To quote Pink Floyd from "Dogs," a song written fifty years ago about the people on top of the capitalist peak: Deaf, dumb, and blind, you just keep on pretending That everyone's expendable and no-one has a real friend And it seems to you the thing to do would be to isolate the winner And everythings done under the sun And you believe at heart, everyone's a killer.
@@marinary1326 sure but capitalism was an antagonistic response to mercantilism which was based on the premise that classchair describes. The premise of capitalism is actually to promote trade between distinct entities in order to maximize the utility of the resources we do have
"I can't believe Mr. Thought Slime doesn't think using vast reserves of capital to lock the poor out of empty houses for my personal betterment isn't a service that has value in society! The audacity!" Matt Capital may be a nice landlord, but the kind of world he's inspired by is cruel and abhorrent.
A nice landlord doesn't exist. They might start off nice. But once they've been collecting money for a while, it turns them cynical and makes them view their tenants as ATMs rather than humans. At the point a landlord has at least evicted one person, they're no longer "nice".
In these parts of the world we have these co-ops or smth that are - in my humble opinion - perhaps the best kind of landlord there can be. (Except for that ex who allows you to live in her ill grandma's apartment if you just pay the bills.) Something in between a not-for-that-much-profit organization and a friendly faceless corporation that's not gonna give you too much grief easily, even if you were a bit noisy or slow on payments. If that doesn't really sound convincing the reason might be that it's not, but at least the rent is 30% cheaper than it could be and they regularly send some chill dude to maintain the property. I guess it's both the law and their rules on operate the way they do. I guess this is place is just another communist hellscape according to neolibtards and our pall non-Stinky-Matt.
Landlord Matt: "Do you live in this scarcity world?" Me: "YES. I'm sorry, I don't have a bunch of tenants making me passive income to allow me such a secure, stable, and comfortable life style."
@@DarkExcalibur42 at the end when he's all "I'm genuinely scared for your audience Matt, you're risking upsetting my fellow landlords, and then we might be forced to do something like kick them out!", it's the epitome of "real nice noun you have here, be a shame if something happened to it". Fake concern dressed up as real concern. Crocodile tears. Predatory as fuck
I was legit taken aback by that “lost boy” friend popping up. At first, I thought it was something you were editing into the video. What was the point of that? “He’s my boss-he’s a nice guy” Such a bold statement to speak kindly on your boss...in his video
It had very heavy "This is multi-level marketing, which is a legally distinct form of organization different from a pyramid scheme" vibe. I've seen that play a dozen times.
The weirdest thing about his friend popping in is that you specifically said “I don’t think that all landlords are bad people... the institution that they take part in is what I take issue with.” Then he hopped in to say “Hey! My friend (actually he’s my boss...) is a REALLY GREAT PERSON!!!!!!” It’s like he didn’t even watch your video...
I lived in a tent in unincorporated land for several months when i was unable to find a place that would rent to me in my early 20s and I was moved on by the police and council repeatedly. that argument is not valid at all. it quite simply is illegal to be homeless.
Yeah but dude is such a trust fund baby that he has no idea of what it's like to live even anywhere near that level of poverty.
when I was homeless cops once made me move from where I was having a phone call on a busy public street. It wasn't illegal for me to be there. Before and since as a housed person Ive had lots of phone conversations on public streets. Even with luggage, even when upset. It took a specific "tell" that I was homeless for cops to harass me like that (Im white). I didnt have a TON of bags because I had to carry everything everywhere (I was train homeless / couch surfing) but I just read just enough as a distressed homeless person that there was suddenly a special law against me taking up space there I guess.
Then you should have moved somewhere that was less visible to the leering eyeballs of the law /s
And this video was posted almost 3 years ago...thanks to the Supreme Court now it really, truly IS illegal to be homeless.
commit a crime to live in jail
"You could always choose to be homeless and live in a tent"
USA: Criminalizes homelessness
I always hear: "You can always die."
@@crystalfullerton3908 That *is* basically what they're saying.
nobody owes you anything for simply existing
@@hamzaimam9650 I apparently have to do a lot of paperwork to do so for some reason
@@dompromat alright I’m not trying to be a grammar nazi but I genuinely do not understand what you are trying to say. Can you elaborate or something so I could get your point?
As a young woman living on my own it's honestly really disturbing how my landlord has keys to my place. Like I trust him and don't think he would do anything but they fact that he COULD if he wanted to is.... v unsettling
I've literally come home to my door wide open before after I know i locked both locks. Legit terrifying.
why does he have a key anyway??? i dont think any of my two landlords ive had had keys for my place? isnt it illegal for them to just go into my apartment without me knowing anyway? i think so! which is why they dont need a fucking key anyway! that system is fucked😔
@@jannecapelle_art They own the house. Yes, they very much have a key to the house, whether or not it is legal for them to use it without speaking to you.
@@galechan4724 well yes, my landlord owns a key to the house, but not for my apartment specifically. idk how common this is in America, but i live in germany and my landlord owns the whole house with the 6 apartments in it, but he does not have a key to all the actual apartments, just the house itself. at least as far as im aware, he gabe us all the keys he had🤔
@@jannecapelle_art They own it. There'll never be a situation where they don't have keys. They legally cannot just enter willy Billy though, they need to give you warning and a reason
Note: This might be US only, look up local laws
I once had a landlord do a really good thing for me by threatening to resign from the company he ran with his two brothers, if they went through with evicting us. At the time my parents had just gone through with a divorce, and he couldn’t justify to himself evicting a single mother with two kids. He effectively stuck his own neck out to keep us from being homeless.
The problem is that the model of his business put him in a position where it was in his financial and personal best interests to evict us. A man of lesser moral integrity might have done that eviction, and *that* is the problem.
That happened to a friend of mine. Turned out the landlord was just looking to use her desperation to get tail and for the next yr she let him fck her saved up all the money age would have spent on rent and then when she knew he'd be gone for several days in a row was able to move everything out and into storage then gave his wife a bunch of photos of them in bed together and a note to get a good lawyer and take him for everything he was worth. My friend got even for having to sell her body for a yr to make sure her children had shelter, the wife took him for everything (never sign a pre nup without a joint adultery clause folks) and he ended up going to jail for tax fraud. 😈
Also, "just pitching a tent on unincorporated land" is broadly illegal, worldwide, and in the places where it's some legal framework (like the US and Canada) it's on very specific places and very strict regulations, often requiring permits and other stuff.
Libertarians are stuck in a time before the commons were enclosed. There are no commons anymore. All land is owned by *someone*. You simply *can't* go live in the woods. Hunting out of season is illegal, hunting certain species altogether is illegal, damaging certain plants is illegal... AND FOR A GOOD REASON, too. They need to start living in the 21st century.
Libertarians are the children of the original landlords who _enclosed_ the commons
i think you can still homestead land in New Mexico, but it's like "Mad Max with meth" in those areas.
That was my thinking too!
Here in Germany you have nowhere to go. Setting up a tent in the woods, even without hunting or taking anything out of nature, is illegal.
Ah yes, let me just go live in the common land which has been collectively owned for millen - oh wait the capitalists stole it I can't
It's because any political and economic ideas they have are based on assumptions and abstract hypothetical scenarios made by well-to-do Europeans in the 18th century. Obviously they have little idea what they're talking about
"If everyone is housed, landlords will be out on the stree-- wait a minute" LOL
Government does public housing, they're called the PJs. Then people complain of bad schools, that is because there no taxes collected to pay for them.
@@rob8224-x4h Right, instead we have slumlords who build shitty apartment complexes that poor people can rent and we still have the problem of bad schools because there are no taxes collected to pay for them. I'm not seeing how allowing landlords to charge rent automatically gets rid of the bad schools problem.
@@rob8224-x4h I mean we could change the way schools are funded ... bc funding schools with property taxes creates a cycle or poverty and poor education...
@@rob8224-x4h ring-fencing school budgets to property taxes is a problem too
@@rob8224-x4h
Fun fact; school-districts (and especially funding schools through property value) were invented to enforce segregation without explicitly doing so. It's why, to this day, 70% of students go to non-integrated schools in the US and why people of color receive worse education in the US.
Surely you can see that the solution is to nationalize housing and eliminate school districts, not to just throw your hands up and say "well thats just how things work!"
"if housing is a right, what's next? healthcare? food as a right?!" *grinch smile*
"Ew, imagine letting poor people eat!"
This post sponsored by Jacob Rees-Mogg
In Spain, it is written in the Constitution, that all citizens have a right to a decent home. Ofc that doesn't prevent homelessness or some people living in horrible housing conditions.
Clean water?
Lil's anecdote: As a kid we had a geography lesson about some dam in Egypt and the through line was along the lines of "people now have to pay for water they used to take out of the Nile for free for generations". Me and some other pupils were outraged at the injustice of that, asking, in a way only kids can I guess: isn't water a basic need and thus a human right that should be free? Teacher: yeah, one should think. But also here, your parents pay for the tap water (we had either not thought about that at all, or in my case, assumed that was one of the things you pay taxes to get provided).
@@allymog5228 its like when you give a dog dinner table food all the time. eventually, the dog will expect it and if you dont provide it, the dog will act out.
@@joshbrock2663 except that poor *people* are not dogs or animals, they are *people*, and thus have rights regardless of how you treat your animals. Secondly, this analogy suggests that people are given a basic level of food and so to give them more is unnecessary. Putting aside the questionable nature of that assumption, this most certainly does not apply in cases of humanitarian aid. I wrote that with Moggs' comments regarding UNICEF provisions for British children in mind, and there is no way a moral good human being can argue that they do not deserve basic essential food.
I love watching him “we can’t throw you out on the street, we need the sheriff to do that!”, realize what he just said and FURIOUSLY rationalize it.
What worries me most is that he used the phrase "hire the sheriff." I guess it's accurate, but still...
@@bird2793 yes, very scary shit
He got mad and accidentally told on himself.
"Being a landlord is a risk because a socialist may seize the house."
...what?
There are thousands of actual risks that he could bring up; fire, water damage, tenants refusing to pay, war, economic downturns, poor investment skills; things beyond a landlord's control that results in a loss of money. None of these are justifications of landlord, merely consequences of seeking profit with property, but they do fit into the capitalist framework.
Edit: Stinky Matt brings this up
"As a griefter and con-man, I always am running the risk that the people I dupe and steal money from might realize that I'm taking their money and stop me from conning more people."
A HUGE risk. And this isn't even factoring in the possibility of an asteroid collision or an inevitably exploding sun.
@@pkmcburroughs I find these proposed risks to be a little on the extreme side considering the most probable hypothetical is obviously kaiju rampages
Well to if your are completely fair. Those are the risks of being an home owner. Not an Landlord. There are only two risks of being an landlord that are unique to being a landlord. 1) tenants harming your property. 2) tenants not paying. And since both those risks are actually caused by the mechanics of ownership and not business mechanics There really is 0 economic risk taking involved. If Landlords did not exist these risk would not exist. And there would still be an housing market. Landlords is pure capital pressure and absolutely nothing else
Zombie Mao is a real danger.
He talks like a person who's at least tried to evict someone in the middle of a pandemic
I know right? He seemed genuinely put off that regulations aren't allowing him to toss people out whenever he would want to.
@@jthom0027 well you see, these people are getting in the way of profit! its not a win-win for capitalist matt! (i dont think he knows what a win-win means). Its pretty obvious from that ending that capitalist matt views tenants as objects to extract money from, or be discarded, even if he hasn't sat down and said those exact words to himself. He understands the power imbalance. He brings up Mazlow's Heirarchy of Needs. So he understands that housing is one of the big ones. And he understands that hes commodifying it. So idk what there is that he is not getting. If tenants can just choose to live in the woods and forfeit their jobs and earning potential, then why cant he stop being a landlord? Why cant he just move to the woods and stop collecting money for a basic and mandatory NEED? The buck stops literally anywhere else!
@@Flippwn1 "Win-win" means I *win* some of THA MAAHNEY, then use that money to take resources other people need and hold it as leverage to *win* some more of THA MAAHNEY.
"Go set up a tent in the woods, buddy. It's a free country!"
@@Emajenus That slogan is copyrighted, did you pay the owner of that slogan for the use of their intellectual capital about being free?
"The government won't even let me kick unemployed people out of their homes right away during a global pandemic, how could I possibly have the power here."
The government probably won't let a landlord raise rent from $800/month to $10,000/month because you know, the government is always on the side of the landlord.
Brian Dean having trouble telling if this is agreement via hyperbole or disagreement via trying to pretend hyperbole is a normal concern
Not trying to be snarky here I’m genuinely butting up against Poe’s Law
@@jewthulhu I hate how hard satire is to spot these days.
@@elzoog That would be the government protecting the landlord from their own stupidity.
@Moroccan Kingdom Nah, I don't think they care about life. The warmongering and frightened screeching over assistance programs disabused me of that notion.
Love how his arguments at the end are "i'm not a bad person because laws that i would oppose have been passed that stop me"
There seem to be a lot of people online that think legality and morality are the same thing. This becomes more hilarious or terrifying when one realizes most seem to be right libertarians
@@scottsbarbarossalogic3665 It's even more hilarious when you realize that virtually all of those laws are the result of _leftist reform_
"You dumbass libs, labor isn't that bad, just look at all the sick time and weekends you get! Just be grateful we're giving you those things you literally forced us to give you"
"yeah i wish i could do that a la 19th century liberland but the filthy governments have put some laws to stop me"
LMAO YES
@@potaterjim you never gave anyone anything, don´t take credit for what people before you did.
I became a landlord unintentionally, when I had to move but was unable to sell my home (because of the housing crash it was underwater).
The arrangement made me very uncomfortable. I didn’t own the whole residence - I was still paying off its mortgage. BUT I was able to collect more than enough rent to cover the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and expenses.
I figured out quick that basically the renters were buying the place FOR me. Every month, my mortgage payment would increase how much of the property I owned, and then the rent check would replace the money I’d used to pay the mortgage.
The renters were buying the place for me. All because I had been able, once, to scrape together $50k and put down a down payment and buy it. And the renters couldn’t scrape that together. That’s it!
Basically, because they were more poor than me, I could make them buy the property for me. Not only did I own a little more of it each month, but it’s value went up every year as the housing market appreciated. And I got all that too.
Eventually my renters left to buy their own home. A relative of theirs had died and left them some money. Incidentally, some of that $50k I used to buy was left to me by my grandfather.
Which all goes to show how the cycle perpetuates itself. People from well off families whose relatives leave them a little bit of money get to sit on their ass while poorer people buy properties for them.
I wasn’t sitting pretty because I was smarter or better or more risk tolerant. Nope. Just my grandpa died before theirs. That is literally the story.
So let’s all think about that the next time someone says that everyone has equal opportunities in America. No, no they don’t. Everyone has some opportunity which is not zero, but the same? Nope.
Even if they had equal opportunities, it does not matter. Someone should not have to live in financial servitude, regardless their opportunities. Its truly vile when you see people promoting this system (buying a house, then getting the tenants to pay off the mortgage for you) as if its somehow a good thing or a smart business move.
Most people I know with property say it’s a money pit.
So you got to sit on your ass while your expenses were being paid? You got to quit your job and just lounge around?
@@courtjester1135 No it was pretty cash neutral most months but then when we sold the property we realized a lot of the gains. I worked the entire time. It was more like, at the end of four years, we walked away with $150K for not doing very much at all except invest $50k at the beginning.
Bars
The fact one of his main points was "yeah, this profit-seeking enterprise is inherently exploitative and evil but don't worry, *every* profit-seeking enterprise is exploitative and evil in the same way!" without any hint of irony or self-reflection is genuinely insane to me. I had to doubletake.
This dude is drinking the cappy koolaid so hard that one of his main methods of hand waving criticisms of specific aspects of capitalism is "yeah but all of capitalism is also that terrible too!"
And I think the worst thing about that argument is that it isn't even particularly new or uncommon: liberals and other pro-capitalists just legitimately can't imagine any way of living other than capitalism due to how they've been raised their entire life to see it as humanity's default, and so all of its overwhelmingly terrible, inherent flaws are just 'human nature' or 'life simply being unfair'. Depressing.
The old "Well if not me someone's going to benefit from this, so it might as well be me"
@@Shadowfolk369 and it isn't even some weird vanguardism where he's deluded himself into thinking he is ACTUALLY HELPING people. He just straight up knows it sucks and is fine with that.
Essentialism is going to get us all killed
I literally exclaimed "No shit, Sherlock!" when he said that in the video.
What are people's favourite videos by anyone for some alternative ideas to capitalism? I kinda identify with not being able to see an alternative
Beard!Matt: you have the ability to move anywhere and live anywhere! You could just camp out somewhere!
Me: *laughs in Disabled*
That's a good answer to why taxation is not theft..
You could just live in the wild..
@@manuelantuna26 I think the most convincing argument is "Render unto Caesar". Caesars picture is on the coin, because he set up and controls the monetary system, setting up the rules for exchange of value. Including taxes. So, you could do the anarchist thing and argue that all money is theft, but you can't just single out the one rule you don't like. Explain this to a Southern Baptist, wait until his lengthy explanation, why you totally misunderstood the Bible is done, then ask him to point out the actual Bible quotes that contradict this interpretation. The popping sounds you hear from their exploding heads is worth it.
@@stefanb6539 I'm sure it's not a common interpretation of "Render unto Caesar" but I've always felt that by juxtaposing "That which is Caesar's" with "That which is God's" the point you're supposed to take away is fuck Caesar what is he really due when he's just a man and not God?
Yeah most ghouls completely fall flat on their face whenever you bring up that disabled people exist. Most of the time they continue to deny disabled people exist. We really put a dampener on their plans don't we?
hAvE yOu TrIEd NoT bEInG diSaBleD??
"Why are we so precious about shelter??" HMMMMM GEEE I WONDER WHAT SO SPECIAL ABOUT SHELTER
This TH-camr here is like a smaller Version of Hbomberguy... nice!
Breaking News: Leftists Response Video Shorter Than Video It Responds To
holy shit its a miracle
"Shaun wants to know your location"
Still over 8 Sargons long.
Only other time I've seen this is when Jack Saint responded to Mauler
@@xant8344 And that was after he deliberately padded the run time.
God, Mauler really likes the sound of his own voice, doesn't he?
If it was 150 years ago, this dude would be talking about what a kind slaveowner he is.
Omg so true 😅 what a goober he is
if you buy up all the tickets available to a concert, it isn't win-win that you're willing to sell them to the rest of us
But if someone didn't go and buy all the tickets to a concert then concerts wouldn't be put on any more because there wouldn't be anyone wanting tickets!
Someone was telling me recently that without landlords no new houses would be built because who on earth would buy them?
@@magellanicraincloud I agree with you, however, to answer your question, I wouldn't want to own a house/apartment, even if I could afford one (at the moment, I'm 19 and live on rent). Owning a house comes with a lot of risks - for example, having to renovate the house when necessary, and that costs money. But now, as I rent an apartment, if there's a serious problem witht the house, I can just move out and on the problem isn't mine anymore.
I understand that many people cannot just move out and find a new place, but many (I dare to say most) can. I also understand all of the problems of the concept of renting Matt (stinky) explained on this video, but they still don't concern everyone that is renting a house and thus a solution that concerns everyone isn't necessary.
@@oskarileikos Agreed; we need a system where you rent, but pay no more than what the home costs to maintain and eventually replace. Buying homes is just not a good system for the vast majority of people.
@@oskarileikos If you agree, you are a moron, the person you are agreeing with was making a joke.
Scalpers aren't the intended demand for concerts. If everyone scalped, if nobody wanted the tickets, scalping would lose money.
Scalping only works, because people want to go to the show and Scalpers lose money if they can't offload their merch.
Exactly the same as landlords. All it takes is a 20K deposit and you have a lease and a mortgage. You get someone else to stay there and pay your mortgage, at the end you have a house, for the cost of the deposit.
Living in a house does not come with risks, idiot. Not above living in the house and paying for it yourself. If the toilet fails, if the heating fails, you fix it or the property is worth less and nobody else can stay there. But you still gain in equity on a property, for simply asking someone else to do the repairs the same way anyone else would. So someone covers part of your mortgage and you get money free.
If you don't understand how this is wrong, you're so right wing, and so stupid, even Adam Smith the "father of capitalism" would send you to the guillotine.
@@IMatchoNation Only because people with wealth inflate the price of homes to make that impossible for most. For most, living in one place, with decent housing for their family, and a good job, is perfect. It's people stealing up the houses because they had the option for a loan sooner that hurts that.
A market you're advocating for.
A market that has inevitably cost the heats of those who support it over the last half century.
Frankly, I'd dance as they did you in.
Matt: It's all ok because we landlords bear risks
*Pandemic happens*
Matt: Why should we landlords bear the risks of an epidemic making people unable to pay rent!? We should be allowed to evict the victims!
"Risk" is the dumbest argument capitalists use. The only risk they face is... becoming one of us?? Lol. And we're supposed to agree that THAT justifies their power and control 😂
@@nfinn42yes because we had to work to get the property to rent roof gets damaged well looks like no vacation to grandma house. Bad tenant with meth lab? We might loose property to seizure so my kid can't goto college.
So you are pro slavery? If someone else provides your basic needs who pays for it? Because whoever they are yuu are making them slaves
Ok sport no rentals go live in street until you can pay cash for a house
@@thumper84 people not getting evicted = slavery. LOL, what are you smoking and CAN I HAVE SOME?
Also like 30-40% of your paycheck going to rent is a pretty optimistic situation in a lot of places.
Yeah if I was to rent alone it would be about 60% because rent is super whack anywhere around me.
I worked between 45 and 60 hours a week for 6 years, never got a raise more than 20 cents, and still couldn't afford the basic cost of rent where I live. Health and car insurance, phone service, student loan payments, gas, and food made it so I only went further into debt on my minimum wage job. I talk like this is past tense... I'm still living it.
Meanwhile you are not supposed to exceed 30% (the absolute maximum) of your income towards rent anywhere because otherwise you're simply losing too much of income to unaffordable housing lol.
I FUCKING WISH THAT WAS THE GOING RATE.
@@astraldragon5483 The problem with this is the rent market makes rent prices too high all around so that if you work a job in a location, you can't pay just 30% of your income for rent and live near your work.
As a lawdude with a law license, this person is dead-wrong. a) This is why we have Landlord-Tenant Acts which govern landlords and tenants differently from other businesses, and b) both parties in leases do not have equal bargaining power, and leases are usually drafted with the landlord having far more favorable provisions than the tenant.
tldr Stink Matt is a handsome boy with handsome ideas.
Coulda been a bit clearer that "this person" refers to Matt and not Stink Matt (who is handsome and may or may not stink but I cannot judge the latter given current technology available to me). I thought you lawdudes were all about that specificity.
@@Quintinohthree As in the ever handsome, manly Stink Matt is 100% correct, and Regular Matt is 100% wrong. The lawdudeness has been overcome by pure derp today.
@@pootisthederp8927 Your lawdudeness is most humble.
All hail the eyeballs!
Capitalists, "We deserve the profits because we take the risk!"
The same Capitalists when facing a risk, "There is no way its fair for me to be stuck with these costs!"
Landlord here. You just made that up and slam dunked your own made up comment.
@@rob8224-x4h Perhaps this will help you understand why landlords are unecessary parasites.
Did landlords create the land that they charge for rent?
No, the land already existed
Do landlords manage the property?
Technically the property management company does that not the landlords.
In that case the economy could run better without landlords.
Rent seeking is not employment income, it is investment income. If you rely stealing your tenant's labor value (through rent) to survive then you are a societal parasite. Being a landlord is not a job.
@@RiggsBF The landlord pays for property maintenance...Also, they don't charge rent on land, they charge rent on property that's built. Stop making fallacious nonarguments.
@@mementomori1749 1. There is no reason why tenants couldn’t pay for maintenance themselves and be cheaper off.
2. Yes, but the landlord also had no part in creating this property.
Kid, your “counter-arguments” only help to prove why landlords are inherently parasitic.
@@jimgoldflower3006 1. It is irrelevant if the tenants themselves can't or can pay for maintenance, what is relevant is they aren't.
2. Uhm, and the tenant does? also, yes they do. There's always a land owner who pays for a house to be built, then voluntarily hands it over to a landlord who then offers a voluntary trade for money to housing, which in turn benefits the tenant by giving them a place to live. The landlord takes care of property taxes, electricity and water bills, property maintenance, and everything in between.
Landlords aren't parasites. A parasite is "an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.". At the expense on the tenant's what? the tenant is being granted a house to live in, shelter, they are at no expense.
"landlords pay for repairs and maintenance" my friends lived in an apartment that had mould and the bins outside were overflowing so much that they could barely open their door and they have since moved but for some reason they couldn't get out of their lease despite the clear hygiene issues so they still have to pay rent to live in a place that they no longer live in
Where I live, besides rent, in most apartments you have to pay an extra 30-60 euros every month for cleaning and maintenance, but anyways when I lived in an apartment as a student the plumbing was old af and the sink would get periodically clogged regardless of how careful we were at avoiding particles from going down the drain. We'd call the landlord and he'd say we shouldn't use any corrosive products to unclog it because the plumbing was too old. But he offered no other solution. He didn't even offer to call the plumber cause he would've had to pay for it. So we used the product anyways.
My house needs to be rewired, they just keep patching the bad wiring
I lived in a an apartment where a leak in the roof was causing blood red ooze to come out of our ceiling and walls (it was probably rusty water). We could also see mold growing out of the attic entrance in our bathroom. We assumed this was related to the leaking roof and contacted our landlord. He told us to spray some bleach on the mold, take shorter showers, and just wait out the red ooze.
I lived in an apartment that was a renovated old school department store. There was only one thermostat per floor. Our neighbors had control and being from Africa they kept the place at 80 something during winter. They were cool folx but damn it was hot. Also anybody living there could pop up into the ceiling and pop down into other apartments.
I lived in a basement apartment where the pipe leading from the building to the sewers had roots growing in it and needed to be replaced. At least once a month a toilet paper dam would form and all the sewage from all twelve units would back up into my bathtub and my neighbor's sink. On more than one occasion my roommate and I had to use buckets to haul 60+ gallons of shit water to the storm drain out front so our apartment wouldn't flood with human feces. Instead of replacing the pipe, the landlord would just hire a plumber to roto-root the toilet paper. The first time it happened the landlord took 3 days to hire a plumber, but the second time it happened I sent pictures to my friend who worked at the county health department. The landlord always had a plumber there the same day after that.
Becoming a landlord turns good people into bad people.
Years back when I was homeless, a new landlord was very helpful to me. They definitely got into the business for altruistic reasons and wanted to help people.
A couple years later they were bullying people into moving out by trying to get them to commit themselves...and even tried to make me do the same. Putting all the blame of a bedbug problem on single tenants to make them leave. They were even giving notice for inspections by emailing me literally an hour before coming. They tried to sue me for damages to the floor....which they backed off of when I showed them pictures of the floor in the exact same shape that I had taken the week I moved in.
I saw their personality completely change over five years of being a landlord.
The whole setup is toxic. You cannot be an ethical landlord, and anyone who thinks they are us deluding themselves. All my landlord had in the end was personal mind games to trick herself into thinking she was doing good.
Which is how you get people like Not-Slime-Mat.
they would do ANYTHING to protect their precious profits
When people become just ATMs in your eyes, there's no incentive to keep a defective ATM in your building.
Landlord Matt is the same as any businessman who loses touch with the humanity of the people under their control. It's just becomes an objective emotionless decision-making process.
I worked in both Finance and HR, and I've seen this, and continue to see it, a lot. People simply seeing others as money-generating means, rather than actual humans.
This doesn't mean that they're moustache-twirling evil people. The environment of capitalistic business just makes people dispensable and changes those with power over time. They might be good people in general, but horrible when it comes to business decisions.
The only kind of landlord that isn’t inherently corrupt imo is people who rent out spare rooms privately. That actually does feel mutually beneficial, someone who would normally be in a much smaller place having access to the common spaces and sometimes better location of a house, and homeowner gets a bit of help paying for mortage, and they tend to act more like roommates albeit with a bit of a power dynamic. Every other landlord pretty much sucks though.
They also murder animals by forcing people to send them to a shelter.
I'm persuaded. I will throw everyone out and leave the houses empty.
"We have win win relationships with a lot of our tenants."
I'm sure lords thought the same of their serfs. You give me all of the value of your labor and you get to like.....not starve. WIN WIN!
And ofcourse you join to my army when I need.
They get a house.
Houses have to be built. Some people don't want the state to asign them to one house for their entire life.
They want to live in a place for some time and maybe move again. So they don't want to build a house or buy a house.
Fortunately there is nice people, who will let you use a house temporarily without buying it.
Besides it's rather horrible that you're suggesting that serfs worked on the land voluntarily.
@@MrCmon113 That is like...the point. They didn't.
@@MrCmon113 Serfs were every bit as much "voluntary" as home renters.
People don't rent homes because they "want to live somewhere voluntarily", they do it because they _are too poor to afford a down payment on a house._
And to be quite frank, let's weigh those two outcomes: On one side, people "have to put up with a state assigned house", and on the other, _people live in the streets._ Even if that were the problem, I'd choose to hurt those peoples feelings if it meant _saving thousands of lives._ Secondly, _housing markets could still exist in a socialist system._ The system only needs to redistribute vacant homes to the homeless, not force all people to live in specific buildings. People would just have an unalienable right to their own home, and would still be able to apply for other homes or even trade homes. Fun fact: did you know that vacant homes actually outnumber the homeless? Even if we housed every last homeless person, one to one, without having to share with roommates, _you'd still have a surplus of homes to choose from._ And besides, _building_ homes would still be a business: nothing would stop people wealthy enough from building new homes.
Better yet, the system we have now is _more_ restrictive for mobility: Landlords demand leases and deposits, forcing people to stay tied to one location, and making it harder to break into others. And the price of rent dictates where people can and can't live. You know, when you mentioned the "state might assign a house to you for your life", that's already happening. People don't get to choose to live somewhere better, they have to consider the prices. And worse yet, the prices then dictate _how_ they can live. People in inner cities with higher rent now have that pressure when considering their job options, and have to work extra hard to make sure they can continue to live where they are.
Meanwhile, they are constantly funneling the majority of their income into a basic necessity, which harshly limits their potential. The grand majority of people in poverty are there with every bit as much choice as the serfs: they're trapped in a system where they can either agree to unfair, unreasonable and unproductive conditions that only give them just enough to survive, all while a class above them gets free money, simply because they _own_ the land. _Or_ they can choose to try and hack it on their own, which will end up with them either freezing, starving, or getting thrown in jail. And the only reason they're in this position while the lords are in theirs, is genetic lottery.
@@potaterjim @taxtro
As a side note, to Jim's points, I've lived in at least one city which was TEARING DOWN HOUSES, because they had been defaulted on, due to the job market crashing after several manufacturing plants closed. The original owners were evicted, noone could afford to purchase the houses, and the banks didn't want to spend money on upkeep. These were gorgeous, turn-of-the-century, multi-storey homes.
But there were homeless people squatting, and we can't have that!
Weird that there were homeless people, and empty houses nobody wanted, tho. Just odd.
Landlords don’t always call the sheriff sometimes they wait until the tenant has left the rental property and then change the locks so the tenant cannot access their personal property within the rental property.
"libertarians think the world is minecraft" ICONIC
@@DecimatorPrime I still want to buy a Christie Pits shirt, and would buy his Minecraft shirt... but first I need the moneys. =|
😅👍
thanks grandma
Anarchists think the world is Harvest Moon
jason d libertarians also think the world is princess maker, cause they wanna groom children
'win win' just reeks of 'let them eat cake' energy
It's easy for the "winner" of a "win lose" relationship to mislabel it as a "win win" relationship.
@@KingBobXVI capital punishment is win-win because a robust legal system will exonerate the innocent (a win for the accused) and society gets protected from the most violent offenders (a win for the state)
"Win win" is almost always used by the person with the leverage in the relationship to justify their exploitation to the other side by making it sound as the best possible alternative.
"We have a win-win relationship" simply means "I could've given you a much worse deal but I want you to appreciate that I didn't".
This is, of course, not true. Because people determine their demands in a leveraged position by the maximum amount of sustainable exploitation possible. If they charge you 60% of your salary to rent, you will be evicted and the property will be empty for long periods during the year. So they charge you 35% of your salary so that you can rent throughout the year, minimizing potential revenue loss from overpricing.
Because they want to win now and win later.
It's win-win, guys.
@@Emajenus Great analysis.
"hire" the Shariff........ That is a disturbing choice of word. If you can hire law enforcement it sounds an awful lot like a private mercenary
As a life long renter I just imagined calling the cops on my landlord for something (like not returning my deposit) and I laughed and laughed.
Perfectly illustrates a capitalists mindset. They think they can buy anything from anyone.
First the tenet gets served. Then there is a court appearance for eviction. Then you have to pay the sheriff to move the tenants off property. It's not simple, quick or cheap.
If you don't follow the rules you can get sued.
@@courtjester1135 yes, it's basically officiating a divorce, but much more tragic either painful because the tenants will die, the mess will kill you [tho less likely than the evicted tenants] such as making the fridge go rotten or otherwise growing germs, or else both.
In the Netherlands it is already impossible to contact the police without paying, police stations only work an appointment one has to make by call you have to pay a lot of money from.
"when has a regulation ever helped you?" it was cool when the ACA/"Obamacare" prevented insurance companies from discriminating against me for pre-existing chronic health problems, idk
Also, the ADA has been pretty helpful.
that's a good one! personally i like not having lead in gasoline
@@tookiwolfpaint5142 Or paint!
Compulsory health insurance is wrong.
@@trapfethen Or chemicals and industrial pollution in the water
Or rotting meat sold in the store. Or lard made with people.
No, it is not intellectually dishonest to discuss a situation and identity a problem without having a specific solution in mind. It's inconvenient for people with power to not have a specific alternate policy that they can attack. Sucks for them, I guess.
It's not dishonest, but it also doesn't really leave a lot of room for discussion. The only response you can reasonably give is either "You're right, I guess my entire worldview is wrong" (nobody will give this response) or "Even if you have a point, you don't have a better solution, so I'll stick with this one rather than nothing at all."
@@Nuvizzle Sure, but then the latter position is something that can be built upon. Pitching the entire solution to this is immensely complicated, and there are many different positions, most of which are very difficult to achieve on a large/world scale. To me it makes sense that we'd at least get people to "okay I see a lot of flaws but this is the best we've got" first so that they are then ready to listen to various solutions for those flaws.
I'm also receptive to the idea that maybe humans don't work that way and that lefties should take a different approach, but pitching an entirely different method of social, political, and economic organization from the ground up is kind of a big task.
@@Nuvizzle Nobody asks for the "OH YOU HAVE A PROBLEM BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION SO YOU'RE BAD/WRONG" concept in anything else other than from a position of a bad debater.
If I stumble up to a doctor saying my heart is beating fast, I can't breathe, and I'm dizzy, the doctor doesn't say, "Hey, all you did was describe a problem, not give me any actionable solutions. Go learn heart medicine and come back in 10 years with a solution."
Imagine if you went to the emergency room because you're having chest pain and the doctor was like actually it's intellectually dishonest to come in here complaining without bringing any solutions to the table smh
@@The_NickTL ahaha jinx
The agriculture equivalent of a landlord is indentured servitude
Actually I think the term is share cropping but that’s just farming indentured servitude
Feudalism
You mean like... a feudal lord?
@@minim-ms TIL about sharecropping! Thanks.
It is not, but I think I see your point
People who create homes are exploited too. People who create homes get a fixed wage for the hours worked building the home and that's all! A lot of labourors can't afford the houses they build on the wages they earn for building them, whereas landlords get to make perpetual money.
My friend from school went directly from school to bricklaying. I've not seen him in decades, but I can be fairly certain he does not now own the bricks.
I framed houses for 8 years. Big McMansion types. I used to always comment on the fact I was building homes I could never afford. Then I got hurt at work when a wall fell on me and crushed me. A broken back and hip later I’m no closer...and now I can’t even physically build them for a living.
Solidarity comrades. ✊🏴✊
My dads a carpenter and growing up, I always heard him and my mum talking about builders who hadn't paid them yet, sometimes months after the facr and sometimes he didn't get paid at all. There was usually nothing he could do. The building industry is rife with exploitation
@@Jessica-jm5fl So, if they dont pay within a reasonably alloted time stated in a contract or invoice isnt that considered theft?
Schnokers yeah, how much you think civil suits cost? Cause they aren’t prosecuted criminally.
"Rent strikes will be bad for you"
No, it will be bad for you. Hard projection
I have a feeling the implied threat was 'because people like me will MAKE it bad for you.'
Wtf is a rent strike? You know you can get your ass kicked real fast if you don't pay rent..
Not if literally no one is paying rent. If tenants collectively withhold their rent, perhaps save it up, they will cut off a landlord's income entirely, forcing them to the table to sell their property to the tenants.@@Boguardis
@@Boguardis It's when NOBODY pays rent so the landlords don't have any money to kick anyone out with. You know, like one worker who doesn't work gets fired, but if all the workers don't work, the boss has a problem.
I've had my landlord put a note on my door telling me to vacate in 3 days (3 DAYS!) cuz THEIR EMPLOYEE locked my rent payment in a drawer, along with several others, rather than placing it where it should have gone to be processed before they left...and no one, but that person could access it. (Tenents couldn't access the box they put it in themselves otherwise I would have done that.) They also dated the notice falsley showing it was placed earlier than it was. So I then had to go prove to them I already paid or they would take legal action against me for something I had zero control over.
"An emerald mine, or a car factory, or a rocket factory" what a strange and completely unrelated three things to mention in succession
Hey, don’t question El... - I mean, nobody!
well all are needed for a "giant laser"
Gerr, it's a reference to Elon Musk. Michael knows they're all capitalist enterprises. He's just pointing out how he and Thought Slime are both in on the joke that Thought Slime made, which you do not appear to be in on.
@Gerr Gerring mate. I was being a smartass since throop slomp was clearly referencing Elon Musk specifically
@Gerr Gerring wooosh
lmao, he's a landlord in London Ont? that is like the easiest place to be a landlord. It's a university town and students don't know their tenant rights. I've seen so many homes foreclose because landlords buy old students houses, do nothing to them but rent them for absurd prices and leave them in decay and disrepair. honestly leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see someone promoting taking advantage of and making a profit off of my community, there a people here in desperate need of housing
Private student housing is probably the best example of what landlords will do when they know they can get away with it.
I'm lucky my parents made sure I know my rights. My fiance wasn't so lucky and now we're going to have to take her landlord to small claims court.
Matt is the kind of person that is not actually thinking about landlord-ism critically, and is only attempting to justify the position he holds because it benefits him personally and emotionally. He is thinking of excuses to justify what he is doing because he wants to keep doing it.
Now this is a click bait title.
Left is best
nun-uh! it was a typo, he said so!
left is beft
Trev DeTal crest is brest
hadoodz dido breasts are best
Dumisani Nkosi Yes
My father is a landlord. A while back we lived in another city, and he hasn't been able to sell the house. As a result, it's being rented out for a price he can't lower due to dumb laws and the house is a massive tax burden on everyone involved. He isn't nearly as exploited by the system as the tenants who have to live in that house, but he regularly complains about not being able to get rid of the house and unfair the situation is for his tenants.
If he, a landlord, can see the problem with landlords why can't Matt McKeever?
I'd imagine McKeever would file that under one of the risks involved with being a landlord.
Not all landlords are bad.
My mother husband has a severe disability and cant work. His father used to be a small store owner (small grocery) and has bought a place that he inherited. And this leads him enough money to live his daily life but nothing extra. And in a perfect world he would not have the need to exploit someone to live and he knows that.
Landlording is bad.
Out of curiosity, when you say "hasn't been able to sell the house", do you mean that there isn't anyone willing to buy the house or that he is somehow legally prohibited from selling the house?
@@1BlueYoshi I mean that no one has any interest in buying it. It's in a poorer area in what has been dubbed "the crime capital of Canada".
Mauro césar “not all landlords are bad” did you watch the video?
Whenever a capitalist starts talking about how regulations are bad, I typically go into things like copyright and patent laws. Things that corporations spend lots of da money to keep and enforce
I am more a fan of medieval history, so I am usually rather try to ask them, what the building was, that defined a market: It was the market court! A market is a place, that regulates exchange of goods by punishing extortion, theft and fraud, and all "regulations" are just specifications to what is considered as extortion, theft or fraud. A "free" market a la Ayn Rand, without any regulations, is as absurd as an immobile vehicle.
I don't convince many with that line of arguments, but that won't stop me from nerding unto others with my medieval geekery.
Capitalism cannot exist without the state, they never seem to grasp that
@@stefanb6539 I find that really interesting and wouldn't mind learning about that, but I imagine it's a little too removed from our current set-up for most to connect it
@@post-leftluddite And when you remove the state, whoever has the most capital effectively becomes a state to control things
I typically go with the fact that the Cuyahoga River is no longer repeatedly catching fire (though I understand they're Canadians, or at least "stinky" Matt is)
1 - Most businesses operate like landlords? That doesn't mean it's not a problem, Matt. It just means that it's a _LARGER_ problem than initially discussed.
The difference between working for a coffee shop or grocery store and being a landlord is that being a landlord is being the boss, who takes home an outsize paycheck in relation to the labor they actually do, where the tenants are your employees and customers at the same time. Your property, as a landlord, is only productive when lived in, because that’s how it sees any use. When you work for a coffee shop or grocery store, you are the employee doing the work.
I feel like selling water to man dying of thirst in a desert and signing a contract under duress is the perfect analogy for those on the wrong side of Capitalism.
More like a selling a man swimming in sweet water other sweet water.
Who's forcing you to live in a popular city?
Why do those cities need to be attractive infinitely into the future?
@@MrCmon113 how dare people live in cities with the most opportunities
@@MrCmon113 I think you don't understand what a analogy is
...... kinda like how many signed land treaties under threat of starvation or death..... crazy how we just keep doing atrocious shit
The "we have to hire the sheriff" argument is either disingenuous or incredibly dense. "We literally can't throw you out" is not the same as "there is *a step* between us and throwing you out."
"The law is against me because in order to harm you, I have to speak to a law enforcement officer."
I think landlord Matt just wants to be able to drag people out of their homes and shoot them in the face for missing a rent payment.
It's a win-win relationship with his tenants.
“Hiring the sheriff” is such a boldly honest statement too. “This public official ostensibly working for the common good, funded by tax money? Yeah we filled his dress slacks with tooneys to toss a family’s possessions into the street.”
This is what it means to be a libertarian, though. If the connection between any two things isn't completely and absolutely direct, they go "what connection?"
That's it; that's the whole thing.
@@r_bear Why don't you ask Joseph Dejacque, the anarcho-communist who coined the term libertarian, what it means to be a libertarian? And maybe don't let far right lunatics steal our political language?
@@garrett2439 it's already too late for that...
If I remember correctly, all of these points have already been answered in the thought slime video: "Is capitalism voluntary" just without directly adressing landlords, nonstinkMatt is treading water
It doesn't matter. Capitalism depends on the doctrine that the nominally voluntary parts of capitalism are absolutely voluntary and the obligatory parts (backed by the state or de facto state) are just facts of nature. Therefore, any suggestion to the contrary (e.g. that agreements are coercive whenever there's a power imbalance, that private property is a social convention rather than an absolute law of reality, etc.) must be wrong a priori and can be ignored (and a good capitalist can even insist that these suggestions have never been made, because they can't have been, because that might make capitalism wrong...).
@@mgroesbeck4503 I am going to use parts of this comment from now on. You helped me explain some of my points with better, more concise, language...
@@mgroesbeck4503 I'm just going to -steal- expropriate it entirely.
(with attribution)
It shows how privileged he is that he doesnt undersrand how hard it is to MOVE to a new city on a barely making it budget
People like this should be forced to move house every four months; not only to show them the costs, but also the hassle. Hell, me and the fam had to move because of a dickhole landlord like Matt; 0/10 would not recommend.
Should be easier than staying in a city you can't afford.
How is this supposed to continue in your head? We intervene in the market until every single individual occupies the same exact spot in spacetime?
Not everyone can live in the same neighborhood. At some point you have to allow the neighborhood to become less attractive.
It cost me over 2 grand to move and ai thought it would be cheap but since I had to throw so much shit away and rebuy it later because my new landlords fucked me and made me wait 3 days since my old apartment contract expired and I had to live in a hotel during that time.
@@MrCmon113 - It's not easy to move in general because many places ask for you to pay a deposit, as first months rent, sometimes even last months rent, too. My partner and I are moving and we've been looking since April, to a place that's cheaper. But, it's still expensive when you think about everything that comes with moving like buying things for storage, and other general moving prep. I don't think everyone is asking to live in an affluent place or anything. They just want something affordable that isn't taking away 1/3rd of their monthly income.
@@LiLzZluvinJ Part of the reason I adopted minimalism over the years. I read a book by a guy who got to a point where it took him between 30 minutes to an hour to be packed up and gone in case of an environmental or economic emergency. It's nice to not have to worry about that personally.
Landlords are not uniquely evil. But they are an evil that is uniquely defended as benign.
Identifying With Your Oppressor 102: Electric Stockholm Syndrome Boogaloo
This is a really good way of putting it
Probably because they are benign.... We are all comfortable with a certain level of "exploitation" including you . Landlords don't surpass the level of exploitation we're comfortable with. So there's no real incentive to get rid of them .
Brutus Lugo yeah sure, except the millions of tenants and organizers who oppose them vehemently and correctly, like the people you’re having a grand, fruitless time trying to one up in the whole comments section. You know, the classic ‘no one cares as long as I impose an artificial limitation on who counts as a “valid” opposition, so that I feel good and right.’ You have peepee brain disease.
Zip ok? Not enough opposition . Most people don’t mind landlords . Too bad for you This will not change .
Stink-Matt,
i wont be watching this video. i love you, but i watched 45 seconds of this other man talking and had to quit. bless you for sitting through his whole hour and responding, it seems like genuine psychological torture.
I broke it up across a couple days. Much needed.
"Yo what up I am this dude's hype man who incidentally happens to be his employee, filming this statement wholly of my own volition and not as an attempt to curry favor with my source of income, Stink Matt you are a butt and Regular Matt is a benevolent and wise productive member of society."
Shout out to all the unincorporated land you can walk to carrying all of your stuff from the middle of Manhattan if you get evicted
sure, he doesn't WANT to hurt people, he just.. does. As a direct result of his chosen form of exploitation
"Power drunk... and also regular drunk"
Laughed my ass off.
Also "Libertarians thinking the world is like Minecraft" is so good.
Good vid.
I feel like all of his problems about being a landlord would be solved if he just simplly stopped being a landlord.
Yes, but then he could not exploit others. That would increase the chance that someone else exploits this humble landlord. So it is better that you exploit others rather then be exploited, and to make up for any potential guilt, you just have to buy some socks for the homeless people (ofc Matt loves the homeless, they keep the prices up for him)
But how would they then make money with wealth and possession. inherited from family and ever growing vs the non owning class that does all the work! What are you... stupid? :P.
As if that changes anything Matt Slime argued against. If someone saved up from traditional job to eventually buy a slave, that does not make it OK.
“They grew the food, they harvest the food, they distribute the food by putting it in the little bin so that the mayor comes and gets it.” Listening to this while harvesting my parsnips.
This guy has no idea how farmers work, you don’t use money to buy a sword, you give it to the woodland spirits so they fix your bus
@@bugdracula1662 Pffft. There are no such things as woodland spirits ! If you want your bus repaired, you need to give money to the corporate overlord that is trying to take over the valley you live in ! duh !
"why SHOULDN'T i be able to pay someone $10,000 to let me hunt them on my private island. it's their choice!" LMAOOO
The Most Dangerous Game AU where they sign a 50 Shades contract at the beginning and money changes hands.
They wouldn't need the money if the system wasn't set up in such a way to make them desperate for it.
You won't find any computer engineers or hedge fund accountants offering their lives up for monetary stability.
@rb5286 The statement is outlandish so explain how it's a Strawman argument or a Red Herring. Saying it's stupid isn't an argument just an opinion.
Selling organs to save lives is outlawed too but the doctor and hospital still get to charge a hefty price for the procedure.
@rb5286 It's a shortsighted analogy. The first question is how do we know the "contractor" is competent to enter into such an arrangement? Unless, hunting was closer to a game of tag or paint ball. There are laws prohibiting intentional harm that prohibit "hunting." So that makes it a stupid analogy.
Now, if she said "dwarf tossing" how would you feel about that?
The title concerned me but the video is CHOICE, exceptional bamboozle
Bamboozles for the foozles
did he bamboozle you?
If thought slime really did say something good about landlords, I'd probably end it all because at that point I wouldve seen literally everything
I was very happy that smart slime bamboozled me.
@@Meggiesoarsrex thought soup
“....cobblers, (both pie and shoe.)”
Glorious. These are some very good words. I giggled.
Indeed. Some of the best words. I laughed out loud.
😆
To balance with "carbon scientist"
Anyone else think we should bring back the cobblers that make shoes that fit your feet perfectly?
@@aj7058 Isn't that just an organic chemist?
Stink-Matt's canteen analogy IMMEDIATELY made my brain go "so you crash land on a desert island... and this other guy has all the coconuts"
"We have a completely voluntary, win-win relationship, between your throat and my ...."
It’s amazing how many people find the guy with the coconuts as the good guy in that scenario, for providing coconuts.
@@asmodiusjones9563 lmfao omfg so true. The psychopath who wants fellatio is somehow the good guy and the person who wants the coconuts but not to be violated orally is the bad guy
Except i can just take the coconut man's coconuts.
I cant do that with landlords tho.
“Landlord’s right has its origin in robbery. The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent for even the natural produce of the earth.” -Adam Smith
Adam Smith does not say what you think he does here. Educate yourself on what "rent" is in economics. I suggest looking up Georgism, which is essentially Smiths arguments here expanded.
@@freesoftwareextremist8119 steuern sind wirklich Diebstahl.... Die Idee ist gut aber die Umsetzung ist ...... Naja
@@freesoftwareextremist8119 When I heard of Georgism and read about it on Wikipedia and a few other places, it was really interesting. It would be cool to see a good explanation of it on TH-cam or something.
I've often said that if Adam Smith were alive today, the right would call him a far left Socialist.
@@d.w.stratton4078 For sure! A lot of people especially on the right don't realise Marx spent countless hours at the British library both as worker and freelancer, he studied people like Smith and Hume meticulously, his less famous trilogy of books that isn't Das Kapital, the theory of labour value was taken straight from Adam Smith and expanded upon
His rebuttal to thoughtslime's argument that landlords can kick tenants out on the street is basically:
a) no, there's a state-run, taxpayer-funded service for that
And b) I wish I could, but there's all these bureaucratic hoops I have to jump through (as if that was an unreasonable thing)
Man's rebuttal was literally "I wish" and didn't see the issue
This could be a somewhat good argument for some places outside US. Where I live it can be extremely hard to kick someone out. This results in some shitty situations where the landlord is actually actively losing money, time and nerves over a problematic tenant who has demolished the place, refuses to pay the rent or leave and have nowhere to go. As much as I dislike the practice of landlording, this is just shitty.
So they should be required to just let a person stay on their property indefinitely?
@@ikilledthemoon If you live in a fantasy world where no one is bigoted against anything or anyone, sure!
@@ikilledthemoon bot
> I also think it's immoral to own an emerald mine, or a car factory, or a rocket factory!
Elon Musk has entered the chat
I heard 'Emerald' and thought of Minecraft even though it's clearly a Musk reference.
This is communism, I'm calling the police
@@adressatinbaut5334 Elon, no !
Luckily in our socialist utopia there will be resources for anyone to try to make an innovative venture to refine cars or space travel if they want to without having to make profit to invest in future ventures right?
@@Waywardpaladin "...to refine -cars- trains and -space- -travel- space trains..."
FTFY
17:55 "...and I enact my sinister plan to ensure everyone's basic needs are met."
Bruh I can't stop laughing.
It's hysterical until you realise that that's genuinely how the Far-Right views anyone left of Joe Biden 😬
"This is any for-profit business" so what youre saying is all businesses are bad 🤔
Nope.
There are two tested form of business that does not. Non profits and employee owned and operated (Laborist).
Not ironically both of these business models have a far higher rate of success then investor ownership (capitalism) in the free market,(America's economy) but grow slower. Like mighty oak trees the laborist business model grows in a field of weeds, eventually they will take over no matter what, but why not accelerate the rise by weeding the field?
I think "stinky" Matt would prefer the laborist methodology to restructuring since he is a anarchist, and I prefer it because I am antiestablishment and believe that the state is only valid when the state is servant to the people.
Don donny non profits can still easily navigate tax loopholes and exploit their workers
@@allhumansarejusthuman.5776 "Like mighty oak trees the laborist business model grows"...
Laborist? More like arborist.
@@SirArthurTheGreat Can't navigate loopholes if the loopholes get closed. That's probably a long way off though, and you're not wrong by any means.
blarg2429 since the loopholes are created directly or through lobbying by those who use them, they’ll never be closer under this system
Your sense of humor is really becoming honed to a fine point, oh slime, Lord of Canada. Your last few videos have had me laughing out loud multiple times. Love it.
I like to think of We're in Hell as the King of Canada. Thought Slime here can be his Queen though :3
I wasn't going to say something, but I agree, his delivery has gotten really good.
"The thumbnail, thats also a typo,"
I howled lmao
yeah, he really had me going there.
Is insulin covered in a single payer system on your homeworld? If so could you do a posadism soon? We need free healthcare here on earth. Many people cant get help. Pleeeeeaaaseeee can you do a posadism to us?
@@JazzyFizzleDrummers Do not worry. Soon my friend. Soon.
We're having a huge cold wave in Canada right now, and it really highlights the absurdity of 'just go live in the woods'. Like it's -40 during the day in some places, you cannot reasonably survive that in a tent.
Better yet: _TEXAS_ got a taste of something close to that, and it disabled their entire electrical grid. Over one hundred people died _in the middle of a fully industrialized state,_ not because it was extremely cold, but because it was colder than they were prepared for.
The worst thing is, "go live outside" is exactly as much of a choice as "subject yourself to unfair conditions": it's something you would literally only do because you have no choice other than starve.
@@potaterjim and to add insult to injury? the reason texas's electric grid was so unstable is because, unlike a lot of other states, it's completely insular and privatized, and while it does keep costs low, that's done by basically removing all redundancy.
Capitalism "streamlined" your electric grid, but just like every other system of logistics built by capitalism, very small changes can completely ruin it.
The pro-landlord point of view is essentially, "They provide the housing, so there's no problem. Buy a house if you don't like it."
I hear those seafront houses for aqua-people are going cheap nowadays. The water is literally right on the doorstep!
Buy a house!? Gosh, I should've thought about that earlier. Thank god Matt responded to stink Matt, otherwise I'd never have realized that I could've just bought a house instead.
Gosh darn me, I gave 27k to my landlords in those past 5 years for nothing. I should've bought a house! I'm such a dummy.
@@bitnewt yay I'm not the only one relating this to Hbomberguy's video lmao
Oh what you wanna buy a house? Too bad me and my landlord buddies bought a bunch, carved them up into premium luxury 1/2 bedroom micro apartments, 50 to a building, and/or converted them into Air BnBs.
"Just buy a house if you don't like it." Oh yeah, right, Im'ma just buy a... uh-oh, looks like I can't, 'cause all landlords turbo-fucked the economy for the next few decades
"But the arguments you make about landlords, under capitalism, work the same way all things work under capitalism, so-"
"Yes. Yes. You see, they're all bad."
Ras P. you prefer the slavery of socialism? or it's big brother communism?
@@GrottoGroveGroves false dichotomy much?
@@GrottoGroveGroves lol get a load of this clown
@@GrottoGroveGroves socialism is when da goverment does stuff. the more stuff it does, the more socialist it is. and if it does a REAL lot of stuff, its communsim!
Please explain why capitalism is bad and communism will save everyone.
"If everyone is housed, landlords will be out on streetWait a minute..."
@@DaddyAZTL that's the joke
You are literally a subjuglator.
based gamzee
GAMZEE!
never thought id say this to a homestuck... but I must say based
8:55 "I think it's wrong to profit off of the ownership of an emerald mine or a car factory or a rocket factory."
I see what you did there...
Left is best
Right is blight
You're right! I mean left.
Correct: you will lead us now.
I am not right, I am more than right, as a matter of fact, I am Left. And the righter I am, the lefter I get. Even now... my power grows...
Left is beft
I've always loved the "complying with [unjust thing] is voluntary, and [unjust thing] is therefore fine, because you have the option to [flee to the wasteland and probably die]" argument.
The best alternative they can come up with for me is going into fucking exile, something so awful it used to be a criminal punishment, and yet it somehow doesn't click that this is a coercive arrangement.
Just live the woods, mate. If there are no woods near you, how about the desert? That's a feasible lifestyle, right? Living alone hundreds of miles away from a city. That's the dream, I would say. /s
There are no unincorporated lands. It's either owned by individuals, corporations, the states, or the federal government. If you just setup a tent on random land for daily living, you will almost certainly be jailed if caught.
This reminds me of a youtube series by a guy who goes to camp in uninhabited islands. Even recreational camping with proper equipment is hard as shit.
I fucking wish I could just live in the woods and not partake in capitalist society, tbh.
Sadly, I was born with chronic fucking health problems and need medication to survive. I guess the "voluntary" part only applies to able-bodied people?
It’s just like during the Reformation, one of the “reforms” that happened was that they made usury legal again. John Calvin argued that people who rent homes are technically usurers and nobody has a problem with that so why shouldn’t bankers do it too.
Reminds me of when people say their wage isn't enough to buy proper food etc. and rich people are like "well, actually, if you buy a package of crackers and macaroni per week, and wouldn't buy fancy food, you would be just fine!" which is just... wow, you really want us to live in tents and eat garbage
It'd be like if a mugger had a gun on you and asked for all your money. Technically you could say no and risk death. Is it really voluntary?
"Without the profit motive, no one would want to be a landlord!"
Yup
Lol should we constantly repeat that? I only ask because Land lord matt and his gross beard over here acts as if there are those who don't see such a obvious fact lolz.
'Without the profit motive, no one would want to use cheap child labor!'
Oh no what a shame
there's a TW account called "accidentally leftist" with loads of takes like this. it's hilarious
@@chagoriver7159 accidental communism on reddit is also good, one of the only non-toxic leftist subs
This isn't even bad for capitalism. Like, if housing were supplied without profit, people would have more money to buy or rent luxuries. Wouldn't gross beard Matt rather run a theme park or sell hoagies then spend all day trying to ignore his tenants asking him to come fix their toilets? I sure would!
He's right though, if we make being a landlord not profitable, or abolish the concept of landlords, then no one will want to be a landlord. That was an argument I heard him make in there.
Haha self own. Decommodification.
@@draco89123 without landlords/investors there is no development and no growth. The big cities wouldn't be what they are today without development and home prices wouldn't be any better.
@@1barak1 nah my area would be better off. Big companies buy up all of the property to rent which drives up housing costs. No thanks. Home prices would literally have to be better because they wouldn't sell otherwise.
$2000 a month for a studio is absurd.
Sounds good to me lol
When the argument starts off with "landlords are good because they're just capitalists like all the other capitalists" you know it's gonna be a bad time
The ol' "Well everyone else is doing it" argument.
I love when these types of dude say shit like "that's an emotional response" as if the reason they just said that wasn't, you know, an emotional response. Like, you wouldn't be responded had you not felt attacked as a landlord, and had you not felt immediately attacked, you wouldn't have missed the part at the beginning about how it's not an attack on your character.
RIGHT? Nobody with political power is threatening the institution of rentseeking. Dude just doesn't want to feel bad about doing something nobody is stopping him from doing.
Also the whole premise that if it's an emotional response, it must therefore be false. Humans are emotional creatures, and we (quite literally) cannot make value judgments without invoking our emotions. It is rational to have and express emotions while balancing them with reason; it is irrational to try to only use reason without emotion.
@@perchy22 This is what gets me. The whole point of humanity improving is to improve quality of life, right? Not, uh, profit for 5 people? Emotional responses aren't inherently bad. The whole point is feeling better and providing conveniences so we can further improve.
“Maslov’s Triangle”
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
This made me cringe way more than I thought it would…
I was like, who is this Maslov? Is his triangle a special one? Does it suggest a... hierarchy, perhaps? 🤔
My favorite kind of landlord is the struggling one. Like, if i were them, i'd simply not buy extra properties i can't afford.
"If everyone is housed, landlords will be out on the street" HILLARIOUS
@Jude D lol you are so fulla shit dude.
@@ikilledthemoon too small minded to look past your personal profits
Promise?
@@ikilledthemoon maybe if that person had access to housing he wouldn't of had to live with you and coulda had mental health support instead of rent
@@ikilledthemoon if only he did it. Landlords deserve it.
Matt’s Friend: “And all those followers you’re sending over to this video...”
Nope. Not gonna watch it. Don’t need to. Your bid for eyeballs has failed, Mr. Phone-A-Friend.
That was the most cringe thing I've ever seen. Homie just had to jump in to rebut some insults that never occurred, declare his love for his beard buddy, AND paint him as a humanitarian/mentor/kickass successful businessman.
I think it's pretty clear how much control landlords have over their tenants just by that short speech.
For real, I'm not going to feed the algorithm so it can generate traffic for some dime-a-dozen, brainless chud with a stupid hat
Yeah that was really cringey.
He literally employed someone to say what a super guy he is.
@m norton buswell 😅👏👏👏
He talked like a guy with a gun to his head, for being "given the opportunity" to work for this man.
He talked like an employee that's afraid to lose their job.
His real estate friend sounded like he was talking about a cult leader.
Ha wow for real
Success Bro is a religion
"sounded like". Yeah.
I got real multi-level marketing vibes from it. Talking about how he used to be a server, but now Matt has let him in on these investment opportunities or whatever.
@@Timothy-xh3xp Sounds just like the MLM I fell for in my early twenties tbh
"I personally believe that we have win-win relationships with a lot of our tenants"
1. As the video mentions, that implies that you *don't* with the rest.
2. If we were to ask those "a lot" (the ones who aren't your employees), would they agree?
3. What is "a lot"? Do you have 20 tenants and believe you have a "win-win" relationship with 6 of them? Does that mean the other 14 can go fuck themselves and it's ok to exploit them?
This is why an anecdote isn't evidence.
"I personally believe my tenants love having me as a landlord, I've had no complaints!"
My ex landlord could probably say this too. Even though he refused to fix anything that couldn't be done by his friend and one lone screwdriver. Just because I was understandably scared to push back against him saying "I did what I could, I called my friend to look at it!".
Then he went and kicked me out anyway even though he admitted I've been a perfect tenant. But my buttering him up was all out of being scared of that outcome. Funny that.
This guy is seriously like "being a landlord is so hard" THEN GET ANOTHER JOB
*"job"
Many elderly and disabled people go into debt to become landlords just so they can keep income streams. They aren't rich.
@@BuildinWings aww look at you simping for landlords
@@weofparadigm
*The disabled and the elderly. But you want things for you, so they can fuck off eh?
What if the landlord has a minimum wage job and worked their ass off to afford their property while you got pissed at the club every saturday? Why are they the evil person because they were financially responsible and invested their money? Or are you just jealous because you think they got the house for free and cant see the tens of thousands of hours of work they had to do at their job to afford the property.
FYI: A "carbon scientist" is normally referred to as an organic chemist.
As carbon chemistry is organic chemistry.
In this case, he's referring to carbon dioxide by carbon though, so I think climate scientist or atmospheric chemist would be better. Not that you're wrong though of course.
Jack Cox Do carbon scientists know much about ozone? Because I think it’s ozone depletion in the stratosphere, combined with ozone pollution in the troposphere that causes the most warming. Ozone literally generates heat from UV photons instead of just trapping it.
To switch gears, organic chemistry should probably get a rename to Carbon Chemistry because organs are "organ"ized tissue and most of Orgo were just polymers, not even tissue. And organs use tons of inorganic material.
@@draco89123 Organic chemistry has an irritating history that would make it hard to rename to 'carbon chemistry'. The only thing that actually defines something as chemically organic is if it contains covalent bonds with Carbon. I don't know what organs you have that are made out of inorganic material though... Are you a silicon-based life form?
@@draco89123 It's not Organic refering to organs, they share root words but one is not the root word of another. It's not about tissue. It's about all organic compounds, which arent nessecarily things we might consider as organic in non-chemistry contexts.
Defending landlords is kinda bullshit when there's great alternatives out there.
Currently, I'm living in an apartment rented by a...well, it's sort of like a worker coop for renting (I'm sorry if there's a proper term for this, english isn't my first language).
It works like this:
When you rent an apartment, you also buy a share in the company that owns these apartments. You still pay rent, but you also end up getting dividends on the profits your "landlord" makes; you are considered a shareholder of that company. The coop also negotiates all prices for repairs, janitorial work or all other kinds of services that need to be done on the property and splits them up equally among the tenants. You also get to democratically elect a council that represents the interests of the tenants, decides what funds are allocated to, etc etc.
So you can have a say on what your rent-money is spent on, and if there's a profit at the end of the day, you even get some of it back. Even from a purely capitalist perspective, this is objectively better for me than renting an apartment from a "regular" landlord; it's literally cheaper than "regular" rent in the same city AND I get paid dividends.
That actually sounds pretty neat
It's been a while, but if I remember, it's set up like a condo, but the building is owned by a corporation which acts like an HOA and a share represents the value of one apartment.
Usually the share you purchase is coupled with a loan similar to a mortgage and may allow your share to be sold on the open market or establish specific sales procedures.
Make sure you review the corporate financials and understand the authority of the Board of Directors. Remember that you are an owner so you don't have quite as much freedom as a tenant and you have some landlord responsibilities as well.
When run well, I've heard they can be great.
That sounds pretty great
I have really great landlords. They are lovely people who charge way less for the apartments in their house than the average rent in our area, they keep in contact with their tenants, they repair everything, they generally go way beyond what's expected from landlords. They still make a nice a profit. And I dread the day they decode to sell the house to cover their retirement. I won't hold it against them, they just do what's in their best interest under capitalism. But it will most likely result in a steep price hike which will result in a lot of people who lived in this house, sometimes for decades, no longer being able to pay their rent. It will destroy a great community that has grown over the years. Landlords suck. Not necessarily the individuals (though many do), but the whole concept.
is this possible in cities where property tax is massive, but you don't want to live in a commune? From what I have seen, housing coops seem to all have to be extremely space efficient and very very tight. Also a very niche choice for people who are down for that kind of lifestyle. This might just be my exposure to them though
Anyone else tweaked by the fact that right-wingers use words like "socialism" and can't even begin to give a middle school level definition on the word.
It's like the other day when some goon on TH-cam tried to make the claim that Antifa is "well organized and highly regimented" (not knowing its completely decentralized and more aptly described as a strategy then a group) and that they're into bolshevism... I tried to explain how bolshevism and anarchism couldn't be further from each other, but I even asked, "If you're going to spend your time hating something, shouldn't you at least know what the hell it is?"
It just means the enemy right? The enemy of America? Why do you have to bring actual definitions or logic into this?
Well, some antifa *are* into bolshevism. Their ideology is not monolithic, precisely because it's a decentralised movement.
That's true, @@nicolasglemot6760. But considering most antifa are anarchist, that would seem pretty rare considering what the Bolsheviks did to Nestor Makhno and the revolutionary army he lead.
The definition I learned in high school was that socialism is a compromise between capitalism and communism.
Also just because Antifa is decentralized doesn’t mean there isn’t an invisible hand subverting it. Some Antifa cells might be bought out by Big Capital.
@@vegnsk8588 Tell that to all the individualist and post-left wankers who spam shit like "Platformists are ackshually secret tankies". (platformism being a form of anarcho-communist strategy devised by Black Army veterans in exile in response to their being crushed by the bolsheviks)
Dude needs to come to Arkansas where landlords ONLY have to make sure the property they rent out has four walls, don't HAVE to perform ANY kind of maintanance on the property, AND tenants can go to jail for missing just one month of rent.
I apologise for sending Matt a Club Penguin message about the Landlord video. We needed a response!
The bards will sing of your service to mankind.
I like how this video avoids one of the pitfalls lefties can fall into when arguing against landlords.
Some liberal will say something like, "Oh, you object to profiting off the need for shelter? Then you should also object to grocery stores for profiting off the need for food" and the leftist will respond "yes, I also object to that."
That may be true, but it ignores the fundamental difference that grocery stores provide a valuable, needed service, whereas landlords do not, and understanding the difference between making money from your labor and making money from your ownership is a necessary step to becoming a leftist. Props to you for centering that in this video.
The key difference to me is that when I pay for groceries, the groceries become mine to do with as I please. When I'm done paying rent, my landlord expects me to give back the house I've been paying for.
Landlords make money by pissing on a territory and when somebody else trespasses making a deal not to attack you for being on it. Even though they don’t use the territory.
The way Matt says "win-win relationships" while deflecting things Stink Matt says that clarify or debunk his disfavorable assertions feels really slimy and deceptive to me.
You say that like slime is a bad thing
@@DylanDrinksWater Slime is bourgeois degeneracy. The proletariat needs its fluids to be pure and uncorrupted, with a low viscosity.
Win-win is grifter talk.
@@tuuudes3449 so like lube?
@@DylanDrinksWater You're right, a poor choice of words on my part. Hail the true slime!
ppl love to derail conversations by saying “whats the alternative”. esp when our pedagogy is centered around NOT imagining solutions. its cyclical oppression to withhold the tools to imagine and then be upset when we have no answers but can adequately assess the issues holding us FROM finding the solutions in the first place. hate this slippery slope method so much.
Big fan of Stink-Matt, personally
Likewise!
"Do you live in this scarcity world where everyone is out to get everyone else" does he mean the premise of capitalism?
that's not the premise of capitalism lol
@@jankthunder4012 well, I'd argue it's at least part of the premise. It's not like we like in a world of unlimited resources which people can freely share.
@@jankthunder4012 It actually is the underlying assumption of capitalism. It's why so much "personal freedom" is important for a capitalistic society: the specter of everyone out to get you and your need to defend yourself from coercion, either through liberty from that coercion or the power to enforce your freedom with violence if necessary.
One of the recurring individualistic-capitalist critiques I hear, quite often, of collectivist solutions to problems is that they can be easily manipulated by the people who are out to get everyone else to harm the collective to their own benefit, and so the solution is to allow all of us the freedom to screw over everyone else and get ours before they get us.
The fundamental point of the free market as modern capitalists understand it is to mitigate or harness the impulse to screw over other people. Some capitalists even admit this ("capitalism accounts for human nature" is a defense I see quite often).
To quote Pink Floyd from "Dogs," a song written fifty years ago about the people on top of the capitalist peak:
Deaf, dumb, and blind, you just keep on pretending
That everyone's expendable and no-one has a real friend
And it seems to you the thing to do would be to isolate the winner
And everythings done under the sun
And you believe at heart, everyone's a killer.
@@christophercheck1590 the short answer would've been yes that's my world view!
@@marinary1326 sure but capitalism was an antagonistic response to mercantilism which was based on the premise that classchair describes. The premise of capitalism is actually to promote trade between distinct entities in order to maximize the utility of the resources we do have
"I can't believe Mr. Thought Slime doesn't think using vast reserves of capital to lock the poor out of empty houses for my personal betterment isn't a service that has value in society! The audacity!"
Matt Capital may be a nice landlord, but the kind of world he's inspired by is cruel and abhorrent.
A nice landlord doesn't exist.
They might start off nice. But once they've been collecting money for a while, it turns them cynical and makes them view their tenants as ATMs rather than humans.
At the point a landlord has at least evicted one person, they're no longer "nice".
It should be illegal to extract rent unless you’re letting them rent to own it.
In these parts of the world we have these co-ops or smth that are - in my humble opinion - perhaps the best kind of landlord there can be. (Except for that ex who allows you to live in her ill grandma's apartment if you just pay the bills.)
Something in between a not-for-that-much-profit organization and a friendly faceless corporation that's not gonna give you too much grief easily, even if you were a bit noisy or slow on payments. If that doesn't really sound convincing the reason might be that it's not, but at least the rent is 30% cheaper than it could be and they regularly send some chill dude to maintain the property. I guess it's both the law and their rules on operate the way they do.
I guess this is place is just another communist hellscape according to neolibtards and our pall non-Stinky-Matt.
@@Emajenus
Horrible. I'm just gonna throw everyone out and let the houses be empty then. I don't want to turn evil.
@@MrCmon113 See your first reaction? Instead of being "I'm gonna let people live for free", it's "I'll throw everyone out".
Fucking landlords, mate.
32:00 "We literally can't kill you! We have to pull the trigger on the gun that kills you. And it doesn't even work if it isn't loaded."
Landlord Matt: "Do you live in this scarcity world?"
Me: "YES. I'm sorry, I don't have a bunch of tenants making me passive income to allow me such a secure, stable, and comfortable life style."
holy shit, that guy's video reads like a bizarre propaganda video
@@DarkExcalibur42 at the end when he's all "I'm genuinely scared for your audience Matt, you're risking upsetting my fellow landlords, and then we might be forced to do something like kick them out!", it's the epitome of "real nice noun you have here, be a shame if something happened to it". Fake concern dressed up as real concern. Crocodile tears. Predatory as fuck
I was legit taken aback by that “lost boy” friend popping up. At first, I thought it was something you were editing into the video. What was the point of that? “He’s my boss-he’s a nice guy” Such a bold statement to speak kindly on your boss...in his video
It had very heavy "This is multi-level marketing, which is a legally distinct form of organization different from a pyramid scheme" vibe. I've seen that play a dozen times.
The weirdest thing about his friend popping in is that you specifically said “I don’t think that all landlords are bad people... the institution that they take part in is what I take issue with.” Then he hopped in to say “Hey! My friend (actually he’s my boss...) is a REALLY GREAT PERSON!!!!!!” It’s like he didn’t even watch your video...
This is the video that radicalized me. It was recommended to me randomly by TH-cam. Thank you. ♥️