Wow, you would think all that market pressure would make house prices fall. Surely people would want to sell those properties, as renting sounds like a death sentence.

The houses price would fall if all these houses would be put on the market at (roughly) the same time. Keeping them empty rise the house price because there is less offer on the market. And they sell these properties, simply in a very diluted period, so when they really need some money, for whatever reason.

Its almost as if they’re lying and making a killing as they’re doing it.

To be clear, keeping an empty house cost money to the owner (taxes, maintenance and some other expenses depending on the house) but this amount is still less of the money it would cost to rent it to the (way too often) wrong tenant. It is simply a lesser evil solution.

How did the message delivery work out for you?

Well, if only the left wing would understand the message it would be better, but at least they are not in any position to make more damages.

At least we can agree they both suck.

Yeah. And I am afraid that there seems not to be an alternative

Wait a moment, maybe I understand wrong (English is not my first language) but I understand that you said that the Great Filter is the reason why we don’t see them and point out 3 possible points.

I dispute your first point to be not really an explanation or an option since saying “never feasible for any civ, no matter how advanced” just seems to be a too harsh limit on what a civ could do, which looking at our past history seems an unreasonable limit.

My friend, that’s exactly my point. That is, they’ve had enough time to show up but they are nowhere to be seen.

Your point seems to be that since there is the Great Filter (btw, to be proven) then there is no one else out there.
You exclude way simpler possibillities like the option that a civ just a couple centuries ahead of use could already be colonizating the nearby stars, they just are 1000 LY away so we cannot yet see them (assuming we even know what to look for).

1. interstellar travel is never feasible for any civ, no matter how advanced,

I like the idea behind the concept of the Great Filter, but that point does not seems logic as it would imply that irregardless of how advanced a civ is, they would not be able to build anything that can even make just a one way travel to a star just a few year light far away. Right, it is not simple, but a civ even just a couple centuries head of us should be able to do it.

Also, probably nobody capable of traveling the stars wants to settle a planet. Once you figure out how to make huge spaceships (which you’ll need to travel interstellar space) you’ve essentially learned how to make cities in space.

I don’t think it is a valid point. Yeah, if we can build a ship that take us to Alpha Centauri it would lool like a small city, but that does not mean that it can last forever and the traveller would never need to settle on a planet. And looking what the humans did in the past, it seems logic that while a part would want to continue to explore, another part would want to settle on a planet.

Our solar system would support a lot of people if we just used the resources available for space habitats, and by “lot” I mean in the quadrillions. And it turns out that all you need to support that population is a star to provide energy, and some planets to source materials from.

So with that in mind, why bother finding another habitable planet?

Because it is habitable and can be used as a transit point, advanced outpost, refuelling base or any other use you can do of an habitable planet where to do things you have not to fight even with the environment (tourism for example).

Where are all these empty houses? Even then, they appreciate in value, even empty and propery price appreciation is the best place for a trust fund based in the caymans to obscure ownership of earnings. There isn’t a bigger effect from a few empty properties than house prices exploding 2 of 300% in a couple of decades.

Here I can speak for Italy: everywhere, since there are too many risks to rent them, even for the a trust fund based in the Caymans

• No easy way to get the house back at the end of the contract if the tenant decide to not leave. The eviction process can last years, assuming there is not some laws to block all the eviction processes (a quite common thing)
• No easy way to get the house back if the tenants do not pay the rent: you cannot simply evict them
• The landlord often still need to pay for some expense of the rented home which would be way lower if the home is empty (some consumption-based expenses)
• In case of damages from the tenant, you need years to recover them (if you are lucky), and most often than not what are paid is way less of what you need to repair them
• If you register the contract to have done it lawfully, you need then to pay taxes bases on the rent income (correctly) even if the tenant is not paying you. Basically the state say “you have x income from the rent, pay me y even if you are not getting paid and I (the State) do not want help you to be paid”
• if you use some kind of agent to find the tenants, they obviously are not responsible (should they?) for what the tenant do after, and you need to pay them a share of the rent.
• last but not least, you can decide to sell a rented house but assuming you can, the price would be way lower given the points above (obviously there are exceptions to this).

So people prefer to keep the houses empty and take the cost, knowing where renting it lawfully could led.
Milano has a lot of empty houses (some research say at least 1/3 of the total) but they are not property of some big fund based in the Caymans (right, maybe the very expensive ones in the historic center of the city, but are not that many). They are property of people who get as inheritance or who bought them years back when they were less expensive.

Thats a fair point. To me, one is clearly the lesser evil. I can agree that lesser evil arguments suck but its the best I can find, personally. I choose the one I see as the side who won’t deliberately make it worse for us and better for the people they represent. Personally, I’m a post structuralist and I don’t think anyone can be trusted enough to allow mechanisms of power and hierarchy to exist.

The only problem with your approach (that I respect) is that this way you are rewarding anyway the same people that are creating the (supposed) problem you have. While you are thinking that you are voting for the lesser evil, they interpret it as an approval of what they are saying/doing, so they have no reasons to change.
Honestly I prefer to vote for someone else because it is the only way of saying “you are doing it wrong” and have the message delivered.

But what really I am having trouble with is that now everything need to be black or white, there could not be some middle ground point we can agree. People think that if you do not agree with a side then you are obviously be against that side: problem is that both side say intelligent things and both side tell stupid things, so I can agree with a side on an argument and with the other on another but for some reason that is lost.

However, short of a utopian, philosophers revolution, the best I have to offer is a lesser evil argument. Thats where I’m at. The way I see it, maybe wrongly, is that people on the right share my same frustration but that’s been captured by the very powers that force it on them in the first place. They have our neighbours looking down to find the solution and not up, where the problem has always been.

Maybe we should start to vote for who say intelligent thing irregardless of the side he is. I think that both your lesser evil approach and mine “vote for someone else just because” approach are not good enough to offer a stable solution.

“The left” aren’t pro illegal migration, never have been and never will be. Thats a right wing trope and anyone who falls for it is a moron, sorry. Not allowing in vast amounts of cheap labour, to bring down wages, benefits the people funding the right wing parties, not anyone remotely left leaning. I’m also willing to bet that the bigger problem is the legal migration system the right wing allowed business interests to fuck into the ground, to stop wages from rising.

Ok, then a brutal question: why are they opposing the mass deportation of illegal immigrants ?

How do you think tax cuts for the rich are paid for? All the money that should be going towards those things are going into the wealthy pockets of the people who then convince you the problem is anything but them.

Ok, that’s true but overall I don’t think that not cutting the taxes to the rich could put a dent in the total amount (btw, how much one need to earn to be defined rich ?). I mean, I fully support the idea that everyone should pay the taxes based on how much they earns but I don’t understand this idea that the rich are the source of all the problems. Yeah, they may not pay that much taxes but they are also a really small number.

The housing crisis for you and me is the record profit boon for landlords and property developers.

That’s true if you and me can buy (or rent) an house. If you and me need to stay in our parent’s house, the landords and property developers end with empty houses (landlords) or bankrupt. And there are other factors to contribute to the house crisis other than the price.

Youre saying they haven’t been in power for 6 years but its still all their fault? That seems a stretch.

In the UK ? I am not saying it is all their fault but for example in Italy we will pay the damages done by the left (and an idiot on the right) for years to come, whatever the left or the right will be in power.

I never said that once let alone continued. Please drop the victim complex and some people do stupid things. I do stupid things too. However, believing the right wing will save people from themselves is a stupid thing i don’t do.

Look, it is not to play the victim card. The point is that when people vote you need to convince them to vote for you. It is not always a rationale reasoning, I agree, but in general people tends to vote for who say will handle the problems people have (or think to have) in the day by day.
Now, in UK the right were voted, they did not well so now people will presumably vote for the left. Good. In Italy we have the opposite situation: the left was voted, they did not do well and now people vote the right. BTW, in Italy the right wing won because at the last elections people who vote for the left wing did not showed up to vote, now they cannot cry “the right win”, they should have moved their ass that day.

The question is: can we really blame someone that have (or think to have) a problem when he vote for the side that at least acknowledge the problem ? Yeah, most of the time he would not belive in what that side promise but what’s the alternative ?

But sure, keep acting the victim and blaming everyone else. See if that makes me vote for you.

Probably not.

I can do that too you know. I just choose not to.

I know. But even choosing to continue to vote for someone that not solve the problems does not seems a good idea.

Thats just an overly sweeping, thought terminating, cliché thats only ever said by people who would never vote left of Reagan anyway. You’ll excuse me if I don’t bother arguing that “da left” policies =/= zero, I’m sure.

Fair enough and you are welcome.

I think you would struggle to show me anything with “the left” saying there are no problems.

The mayor of Milano for one. Even if some area of the city are basically off-limits after a certain time, expecially for women.

They might not agree with made up problems that don’t contribute to the difficulties people face but that’s not the same thing.

Again, fair enough. They can think that it is a made up problem. But what should be the correct answer ? Because if I say “look, there is too many illegal immigrants around in this area of Milano (Stazione Centrale) and it is not safe because of the petty crimes”, the answer could not be “you are too ignorant to understand why it is not a problem”, you should explain to my how having thousands of illegal immigrant around living by petty crimes is not a problem, if you can (just an example btw).
Or if I ask for more kindergartens so I can have children you cannot answer to me that we are already too many and the next week say that we need to welcome more immigrants because the population is declining.

Of course, I must be wrong. Its not wealthy business interests who benefit from the housing crisis or falling wages.

Ok, assuming you are right, where is the benefit of a housing crisis where young people could not buy an house since they cannot have a mortage from the banks due to the low wages ? I would understand if the housing crisis rise the price and people could afford to buy more expensive houses, but it not seems to be the case. Ok, I understand that there could be some very short term benefits, but then ? It is not that you can eat the house and as the price increase the number of buyers goes down.

No, clearly its the left! Sorry, I’m not going to fall for the “considers you part of the problem” rhetoric. Youre either lying to push some “you can’t even be white these days” trope or are genuinely part of the problem and deserve it.

Given that the left was in power (in one way or another) for more than 20 years of the last 30 years, at least in Italy, I would say that maybe it not all their fault, but they are not innocent either.

The right have been in power in Italy and the UK and have been for years.

Ok, facts checks.
Here the list of Prime Ministrers from 1994 to today (so the last 30 years) in Italy:

• Berlusconi (Right): 11/05/1994 - 17/01/1995
• Dini (undefined): 17/01/1995 - 18/05/1996
• Prodi (Left): 18/05/1996 - 21/10/1998
• D’Alema (Left): 21/10/1998 - 22/12/1999
• D’Alema (Left): 22/10/1999 - 26/04/2000
• Amato (Left): 26/04/2000 - 11/06/2001
• Berlusconi (Right): 11/06/2001 - 23/04/2005
• Berlusconi (Right): 23/04/2005 - 17/05/2006
• Prodi (Left): 17/05/2006 - 8/05/2008
• Berlusconi (Right): 8/05/2008 - 16/11/2011
• Monti (undefined): 16/11/2011 - 28/04/2013
• Letta (Left): 28/04/2013 - 22/02/2014
• Renzi (Left): 22/02/2014 - 12/12/2016
• Gentiloni (Left): 12/12/2016 - 1/06/2018
• Conte (Mostly Right): 1/6/2018 - 5/9/2019
• Conte (Left): 5/9/2019 - 13/2/2021
• Draghi (undefined): 13/2/2021 - 22/10/2022
• Meloni (Right): 22/10/2022 - today

The 3 undefined are what we call “Governo tecnico”, so not really from the Left or the Right.

Tell me again how the Right have been in power for years, please. Maybe it is true for UK.

When will you lot grow up and admit your own mistakes and abject failure to do anything other than make already very rich people far richer?

Ok, so what the Left did to stop this ? Just make anyone poorer ? Yeah, of course I am part of the problem and continuing to call me “part of the problem” or “too ignorant to understand” obviously will make me to vote for you. Good job.

The point is: don’t trust the polls, especially if there is a social stigma associated with one of the options.

Its true, most right wingers are selfish cowards.

Some right wingers. Many not.

Although, lets be real, the polls are never that wrong.

Oh well, the one about Trump was. And even some more recent ones. What I noted lately is that the polls are no more reliable in any case, they are wrong most of the time even if not by that much, I agree.

The reason people will vote right wing is because Italy has a problem with fascism? Well, thats an interesting take.

No, the reason people in Italy vote right wing is because the left wing has nothing to offer. How the left wing can win when their entire political program is only “the right wing should not win” ? Man, I can vote the left, but they need to have something more concrete than just “the others should not win”.

I mean, if anyone is upset at their purchase power dropping, having to live with their parents or lines at the food kitchen and chooses to vote right wing because of it, they’re beyond stupid. Nothing anyone could say to them would work, as you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

I agree. But you are missing the point, which is that they voted for the only side that at least acknowledges there are problems. Then I concede that maybe their solution is not the best or even the correct one, but at least is something concrete.

“I know, I’ll vote for the people who are directly funded by the groups who directly profit from those problems! I’m so smart!”

What do you even say to that kind of “thinking”?

Wrong, the choice is between a side (the left) that consider you as part of the problem and a side (the right) that promise you to solve the problem. What do you think a person will vote ?

“No, its not that you’re stupid, its just that, actually, when your house is on fire, its generally considered more sensible to reach for the fire extinguisher instead of the flame thrower. I know, I know, I’ve heard the term fight fire with fire before too. However, I’ll tell you what I told my friend, shortly after they lost their job. No, you can’t always fight fire with fire. Especially when you’re a firefighter, you doughnut.”

True, but also calling for the one that spread the fire don’t seems a good idea.

It is really simple: the left had its chance, they failed and so people vote for the alternative. To continue to vote for the same people that create the problem is not that intelligent either.

If houses that were used to house tourists are no longer allowed to do so, why would they not become available for either rent or sale?

For rent because, depending on the laws, it can be really hard to get it back in case there is a tenant that do not pay or refuse to leave. In many italian cities there were many houses (they talk about 1/3 of the houses in Milano) that were empty because it was too dangerous to rent them (damages, missing payments, evictions which take years, people that refuse to leave even after the end of the contract). The same reasons make way harder to sell a rented house. So all (or most) of these house went to the short rent market (AirBnB and the likes).

For sale because the owner could keep it in case he need some extra money down the road or his son would need it some years from now or any other reason.

What else is there for the owners to do with them?

Nothing, which is better than to have to (eventually) fight to get the house back from a bad tenants, with all the time and money involved.

I see the point of what Barcellona (and other cities) want to do but the raise of short rents are a consequence, not the cause. True, renting on AirBnB make me more money than a normal rent contract but what people do not understand it that this system would have worked even if it would make me less money than a normal rent because 1) I would be sure to be paid, 2) I would be sure that the tenants would leave at the end of the rent, 3) where would be some sort of (partial) compensation in case of damages and 4) if I ever decide that I now need the house I just need to stop listing on the site and I have the house back.

This thread is about the UK, not Italy.

I know. What I mean is that I would not be so sure that what people say they will vote will be what they actually vote.
In Italy many people told they would never vote for Berlusconi but somehow he won the elections. Same with Trump, the poll gave him losing yet he won.

The point is: don’t trust the polls, especially if there is a social stigma associated with one of the options.

However, if we are to talk about Italy, its always had a problem with fascism, being its birthplace and all. A millenniam long hangover from Romes slave economies and Christianity is to blame for what makes it very much the outlier and not the norm here.

You sentence is the exact reason why people are going to vote for the right wings.
The only people talking about fascism in Italy is the left wing. At the last EU election the points of the left were that the fascism must not win and that their secretary is a multigender woman. Not a word about the actual problems we have (for example, that people have seen their purchasing power drop by a considerable amount, a couple that want to build a family must relay on their parents to be able to buy an house and even more if they decide to have a child, lines at soup kitchens get longer and longer and so on).

But yes, we are going off-topic. My bad.

but the conservatives are now starting to talk to them again while the progressives are still talking only to themself in an ivory tower.

Considering the conservatives are about to be whiped out at the next election, I hope that was meant to be ironic

Not sure about that, honestly, at leasto from what I see in Italy.

True but they basically cut how many people could stay in Barcellona, not how many people could go to Barcellona.
So what will happen, in my opinion, is that people will continue to go to Barcellona, staying in the surroundings to sleep.

So both of the problems they want to solve will be not solved: they will continue to have over-tourism and the houses will not go on the market so the prices will not lower.

Keep in mind 2 nations within the UK didn’t want to leave along with a large chunk of the other two.

Irrelevant. It is like saying the Lombardia and Veneto do not agree with what Italian government decide: it could be true but they cannot do whatever they want, they are part of Italy.

While balance can be good some times, the idea that a group of business interests and oligarchs coming together for the sole purpose of lowering their tax bills and buying the nations assets for peanuts, maskerading as a political party, could provide said balance is a strange one.

On the other hand even trying to level everyone to the lowest level is wrong.

Conserving the established power and wealth as well as keeping everyone else down is the only thing they look to conservatives look to conserve. The rest is the lies they tell, in order to get in to do it.

True, the correct balance would be conserve the power and let everyone else to rise, but I undestand it is an utopian vision (the established power would never allow it).

But in the end I think that the main problem is that both parts lost the contact with the normal people but the conservatives are now starting to talk to them again while the progressives are still talking only to themself in an ivory tower.

Everything. And nothing and all.

There is not a single thing the conservatives are completly right about and the progressives are completely wrong (or vice-versa of course), so I cannot truly pinpoint something specific.

Fast forward to 2028: “why tourists do not come here anymore ? We are loosing money here.”

The conservatives still have power in the UK and will continue to have influence for the foreseeable future. As long as conservatism has any place in UK politics, the UK should not be permitted to re-join. Conservatives will eventually just re-Brexit.

I see what you are saying, but I don’t think you are completly right. Re-join can takes years and it will be under the EU rules, not UK, so no more special treatment like before. That alone is difficult to sell to UK, but I am not sure that if UK re-join people will vote again to exit, given that Brexit was sold with lies that was already exposed.

There is simply no place in a healthy, modern society for a conservative government. Let the UK rid themselves of their plague of conservatism first before being allowed to further harm the UE with this dangerous illness.

Disagree. A good government is a balance of progressivism and conservatism. Real life it is not black or white but a shade of grey (for the most part).

Is Brexit an ignorant, lazy, myopic tantrum you can undo?

No, you can only ask to join again, then start the discussion and if everyone agree, join again. But this time it will be on EU terms, not UK terms.
And the process can take years.

Maybe the services that don’t need to sell your data to be in the black.

More than the charging infrastructure it is the city infrastructure: when you have condos built without any planning 50 or more years ago, even if you pass a law that every home need to have a charging station in these condos it is physically impossible to do it. Charging infrastructure comes after you solve the problem where to put 70 or more charging station for every condo in the district.