irmoz

Dude. It was entirely a deflection. Answer my fucking comment. I have literally no need whatsoever to respect your "recommendation". It was an attempt to avoid answering my statements and nothing more than that. So go ahead, answer. Or are you too scared?

Also, I have Cowbee's statements to lean on, which you yourself conceded to, to know what the book is like.

The very first thing they said was "what history? What economics?" - so yeah, they've asked for information.

fosforus uses deflection!

It's not very effective!

Answer me instead of making bad jokes, coward.

By the way - are you unaware of the incredible self own inherent in this? In your attempt to "recommend" a book for more information on these issues, you recommend "basic economics". Well...

Try and think a little more deeply. An accident in itself is not a financial risk. Even flooding isn't inherently a financial risk. Do you know what is?

Also, "market changes" is a part of what I'm pointing at ;)

It's capitalism!

there’s always a significant additional bureaucratic cost when selling a house and buying another one.

This really only affects landlords and estate agents. Most people looking for a home are looking for a place to stay for life, and any "bureaucratic cost", if you're purely talking about red tape, form-filling, phone calls etc, is more than worth it for a lifetime home. Again, citation needed. If you're talking about a literal monetary cost... whoa, look at that - capitalism!

renting has at least a single clear benefit beyond just being able to afford it: greater flexibility

"Flexibility" is a daft measure, only useful for people who plan to move often, which, again, is not common, except in the case of people needing to move often for work, which - hey, it's capitalism again!

Also, the financial risk is almost zero when you rent.

"Almost" is doing a lot of work in this sentence. The risk of being made homeless by your landlord for petty reasons is a pretty clear risk. Having your rent hiked is a financial risk. Having to bite the bullet and choose an expensive place to rent because it's the only one reasonably close to work is a financial risk. Being under someone's thumb to provide them income is itself an inherent financial risk.

And by the way - what do you think causes the financial risk of home ownership, since you're so intent on proving my point for me?

some of those 30% choose to not own a house

[citation needed]

And even if true, what do you think is driving that decision? Decisions aren't made in a vacuum. I posit - it's the financial burden.

Still more focused on results than profits tho, and more accountable

Abso-fucking-lutely, this, all the way.

People aren't "work-a-holics." They ain't there because it's their dream. They're there because they need absurd amounts of money to survive in this neoliberal capitalist dystopia.

Those that say they rise and grind and love it are faking it til they make it. They'll never make it, and will fake it to the grave.

This is seen in human society, and is called a Cargo cult

How can a stateless, classless, moneyless society have a 1%?

What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back? It's certainly not right wing.

If you think the world is fucked because of the greed of the 1%, and you want those people to pay for their crimes through class war, you're communist.

If you want to fight a class war, you're a communist