Wrong. My entire argument is that one of these people is already advantaged heavily in society and doesn't need further help being more advantaged, and that all business, including the "business" of renting property, has risk. Of course you're allowed to minimize risk. I suggest you get out of the business entirely, can't get more risk-free than that.
> This won't get far with me
I cannot express to you in words how little your opinion means to me.
> and seems to me to be a pointless response.
On that point however, we agree.
> Are you seriously of the thought that owning more than one home is wrong? And renting it to someone that cannot afford to buy a home is wrong? If so, why?
Because you are artificially restricting the supply of an essential good for life or business and charging for access to it. Not ownership, merely access. Numerous, well-thought of economists decry the practices of rent seeking for this exact reason: you are not adding value, you are using your financial position to restrict access to things others need and then charging them for that access.
In fact the dictionary defines rent-seeking behavior as such: "Rent-seeking is a concept in economics that states that an individual or an entity seeks to increase their own wealth without creating any benefits or wealth to the society. Rent-seeking activities aim to obtain financial gains and benefits through the manipulation of the distribution of economic resources."
> This is essentiall your argument.
No it isn't, your straw-man is pathetic.
The post you originally responded to, simply explained the risks involved in renting, and why a credit check is often used to reduce that risk.
As a response you went on a rant about, essentially, "screw landlords" inline with "because they have what I don't". This is effectively what you said, and you've doubled down here.
No matter what, you're blaming the wrong people. If you have an issue with how certain aspects of our free economy works, I'll listen. But blaming landlords is akin to blaming car dealerships because a car is expensive. It's finger pointing without cause.
I came into this argument sympathetic to your point of view, and I think I might have flipped my position.
OP's arguments are far from straw men.
Please review the HN guidelines before commenting further.
This won't get far with me, and seems to me to be a pointless response.
Are you seriously of the thought that owning more than one home is wrong? And renting it to someone that cannot afford to buy a home is wrong? If so, why?
Do you get mad if that person just leaves the money in the bank, and the second home isn't built?
Are you mad people may make more than you? Do you believe everyone should just be given all the same stuff?
This is essentiall your argument.
How does that function, societally? Magic?