Visit groundnews.com/factually to stay fully informed, see through biased media and get all sides of every story especially during this election season. Subscribe for 40% off unlimited access through my link.
I deeply love our worlds, not so secretly, feudalistic society. I just wish I was a King, baron or lord, and not a serf. Maybe if I just work hard enough 🤔? Or maybe I should just get myself adopted by Elon, Trump or any of the other shrunken amygdala/penile tissue nepo babies.
I don't care what political alingments are within Adam Conover's identity, I only care that his opinions matter cause he is that kind of person who does understand the nature of people and keeps it key in his intellectual framework.
Really disappointed to see Adam discredit Gustavo Frings entire career by insinuating the drugs in breaking bad were made in Mexico. Gus worked tirelessly to dismantle the Mexican cartel so that he could establish his drug empire firmly in the States.
As someone who lives in New Mexico, I am well aware that most of the United States doesn't realize that New Mexico is a state, so perhaps Adam thinks it is Mexico. 😄
@@dez0265people really think that?? I guess I should expect that tho, any time I say I’m from New York everyone’s like I love New York City! And I’m like, no, there’s a whole ass state. It’s huge, how could you miss it?? Now I just say I’m from New York State 🤦🏻♂️
As a homeowner I don't want my house to go up in value. All that does is increase my property tax. I simply want a place to live with a stable monthly payment.
@@dynamicworlds1 For real. The Dave Ramseys of the world sincerely annoy me because that's the only way they view HOMES. I thought it was supposed to be where the heart is? Is that heart filled with greed or something?
Yep, my house has increased almost 50% in value and all that does is increase insurance and property taxes. If I decide to sell and downsize, it will be a wash at best. Also consider that many elderly people are selling their homes so they can go into a decent assisted living facility. This means that the "accumulated wealth" of Boomer parents is not going to the next generation but to billionaires like Bruce Rauner who make their fortunes preying on the elderly and disabled.
Corporate investors bought up over 25% of the homes for sale in Charlotte in 2021 and 2022. They generally paid over asking and bought every affordable home near the city they could get their hands on. Prices sky-rocketed as a result. Then they turned around and rented them at insane rates causing rental prices to soar. So yea, depending on where you live, corporate investors ARE a huge reason for the housing crisis. Saying only 3% of home sales are bought by corporate investors creates heavy bias. Investors have drastically affected a couple dozen or so cities. The rest of the country didn't experience it. Looking at this from a national scale deflates the impact these investors have bc they are not buying across the country equally but it still effects 10's of millions of people as a direct result.
"According to data reported by the PEW Trust and originally gathered by CoreLogic, as of 2022, investment companies take up about a quarter of the single-family home market. Specifically, investor purchases accounted for 22% of all American homes in 2022. " - So yeah, I agree, Adam's numbers seem way too low.
@@spearjr His "Not in my backyard (NIMBY) argument doesn't hold water either unless he can show me data on that. NIMBYs seem to be a very small section of the populace and there by affect only small areas of building opportunities in their cities. If he has other numbers on that, I would love to see it. In Charlotte, we rezoned most of our city to allow for duplexes, triplexes and even quads on single family lots. There has been almost no building done in low income areas where we actually need more density. The builders only build these in high income areas where they can get a greater return. FYI, if you build a duplex in a fancy neighborhood, they are called "Duets" and you can charge millions for them.
Thanks for bringing this up, I had the same thought when Adam said it, supply isn’t the only issue here. Corporate landlords would rather leave some houses unoccupied if it means more in profit. I hope Adam addresses this
@@spearjr Also, he states that private equity purchased 3% of the homes bought in 2021 which is statistically insignificant, but there are around 145 million housing units in the US so 3% of that is around 4 million which is the number he states we're short by so apparently not that insignificant.
The biggest problem with debunking lies in a debate format like this is that you can immediately get gish gallopped. A gish gallop is where you answer a question by just uttering a constant stream of lies - it doesn't matter how transparently false or misleading they are, you just want to put as many as possible into the time you have. It's an extremely effective tactic in formats like debates with limited time. By way of example for this working, had you been in Walz' place, your debunking here of "immigrants are taking all the homes" takes as much time as Walz would have had to speak to it... but it would have only taken Vance a few seconds to tell the lie in the first place, leaving him with a lot more time to tell more lies that you can't then address. ----- It takes an order of magnitude more time to debunk a lie than to make it. You have to start by repeating the lie, so people know what you're referring to, then give context and information and details, then explain why the lie is false within that context. When you have very short slots to answer the question and equal time, this means that Vance can answer any question with a barrage of lies, and if you're lucky you have enough time to debunk *one* of them. First of all, this gives the impression that all the other lies are true. Why wouldn't you answer to them if they weren't? Even people with fairly good critical thinking skills will get the impression that you're just being "nitpicky" because you're jumping on one small part of their answer, rather than addressing the whole thing. You legitimize the rest of their lies by trying to fact check. Secondly, you're forced to spend ALL of *your* time discussing the issue within the framing that the other side has provided. You don't get any time to make your own points, or discuss your own policy. The entire debate becomes a platform for the liar's position, where your role is reduced to neutralizing 20% of it, and letting the rest go unchallenged. --- This is why the moderators "fact checking" stuff is so important. If a candidate says something that is transparently false, they should interrupt the answer and explain that it's false, and give the appropriate context. This should ideally eat into the liar's time to answer as well, meaning they actually face some kind of penalty for lying. If you run a debate with rules of "no fact checking" then it encourages the candidates to lie as much as possible, because they have so much to gain from it and can't face consequences.
@@renelopez8227 Gish gallops take place within the context of a debate, so this video can't be considered one because Adam is the only speaker in it. He's not debating anyone directly. It's like saying an academic book is a gish gallop: it might be true in the sense that it's a large collection of (presumably) research and findings and would take a much longer time to debunk--barring debunking a central premise to the book's arguments--but that's just the format, it's not accurate to call it a gish gallop since the opposition was not present to be debated and overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of arguments. This video is a debunking followed by an analysis of why the Democrats are buying into those debunkable lies. Because, as Adam points out, Walz, and a significant portion of Democrats, publicly buy into the GOP's assumptions, i.e. immigration and crime. For example, nearly everything Vance said about migrants is a lie or misconception according to the actual data we have: they commit less crime than American-born people; for the most part they aren't bringing in fentanyl (that's once again Americans doing it); they definitely don't have anything to do with the opioid crisis, which was started and stoked by pharmaceutical companies. If you'd like to find actual data to support any of the GOP positions on those, feel free I suppose. But really all this has done is prove the OP's point: it's taken far more time to refute your bad faith assertion (that the video is a gish gallop) than it did for you to state said assertion (technically six words, though actually seven, since you thought Gish and gallop were one word).
bernie was the only one running for president on universal healthcare as an unknown global pathogen was raging, and he still lost.... shows how manipulated we are. we need big money out of politics and media yesterday.
"We" tried, the DNC cheated in 2016 and robbed him of his fair shot; giving some credence to Tramps insane claims his election was stolen a decade later. This is among the reasons I hate Killary so much, that and everything else about her. I work in IT I took the fact she was illegally rocking a 2003 exchange server VERY personally. Bernie was an independent who aligned with the democraps who claimed to share some concerns. Problem is all political parties are corrupt and Mrs Clinton proved that. I'm voting for Harris, a respectable woman. I am still glad I refused to vote for crooked Clinton.
The rich will NOT let Bernie win! I don’t get why y’all don’t understand that! He’s trying to take from the rich to give to the poor! The rich control the government! It will NOT happen EVER! Y’all are delusional if ya think he’ll ever win!
Because he is feeding red meat to his base. It's the same reason why he said that not having kids causes women to behave like psychopaths, when he knows that his own mom had two kids and still behaved like a psychopath.
As a homeowner, I want the value of homes to drop _significantly._ My house being "worth more" does absolutely nothing for me. I've had people offering me more than *triple* what I paid for my house a few years ago, which sounds great...except that I _live here._ I can't go "flipping my investment" on a whim. If I want to sell this house, I have to buy a different one, and if _that_ one's expensive, I gain nothing from having mine be expensive. The only thing that happens from the value of my house going up is that my property taxes go up.
Same. I'd decommodify housing so I can actually move and so I wouldn't have to squeeze twice as many people into my home because they'd be homeless without my generosity. I'm fine with a small space and a decent hood, but all cities would be lifted up if people didn't have to spend 60% of their hard earned income on rent. I already pay a fraction of what others pay in rent just by owning, but I am absolutely trapped anyway.
I think the people who want prices to go up are generally older home owners who want to live in a smaller house / outside of the city when they retire, and then use the money they gained from that for their retirement. Not sure though.
That's only true if you just "live" in your house. Many if not most home owners now use/need the value of their home for equity. Credit cards out of control? Addition/remodeling to improve how much you enjoy the space you live in? The higher the value of your home, the more you can use from a line of credit, usually with better terms, and the smaller the percentage of your home's value you need to borrow against. That's how most people who aren't on a fixed income think of their homes if they aren't flipping.
Abortion Survivors Network (ASN), which is led by survivors of failed abortions Is a group that advocates against late term abortions. These are people who survived abortion in the 3rd trimester. There are plenty of town hall meeting videos where the people of Springfield have raised the concern of Haitians eating pets. Also, there are youtube tutorials where Haitians show how to cook cats. The Democrats are using fact check as an ultimate attack without any basis.
1:35 I just want to point out that “focus on the criminal migrants first” was literally the policy of the Obama administration… which the Republicans freaked out about, Trump reversed to target all of the migrants without prioritizing criminals in a disorganized mess, and now J.D. Vance is proposing as some kind of fresh idea… a solution to a policy problem that was literally created by his own running mate.
Makes sense because Trump wants immigrants to commit crimes since that increases his support. It's not about finding solutions, but about gathering support.
Thats the republican brand, make their own fn problems and never fix them. Banning abortion has introduced a whole bunch of issues, even banning books made it more difficult.
because the republican freak out wasn't actually about focusing on criminals or not and neither was trump's policy and neither is JD's proposal. it's all racism. they can't just come out and say "we want all the brown people gone because we want america to stay majority white," so they have to couch it in outrage over "criminals" and "do the opposite of whatever the black president did."
Indeed. While it is true that considering things like construction "jobs that no one wants to do" is a little overblown (tons of native-born people would gladly take on a blue-collar laborer job), the fact that govts are making it more difficult to address any shortfall that would arise from a shift like that is just stupid. Defunding and de-regulating trade schools privatization, making getting a trade certification more expensive and difficult, cutting support and loan programmes, and not guaranteeing a minimum wage while simultaneously messaging against labor unions, means people get turned off the idea of doing such jobs long-term or at all. Conservative-wing govts have, through decades of weakening such pillars of the labor industry, ironically reliant on cheap, unskilled labor to fill that shortfall, yet refuse to understand how simply removing that cheap unskilled workforce without a ready replacement will tank the economy.
Drop in demand means less supply is needed and lower prices. More importantly, existing lower price housing opens up. Which has its own downstream benefits such as boomers finally downsizing out of family homes.
we need legal consequences for explicitly drumming up racism and violence. we need another party to call out the anti-immigrant narrative by pointing out the real cause for economic issues - the ownership class.
The simple times when everyone agreed the facts were everything. Vibes got everyone now like that AI girl in the flood. And someone was right on the money early on about Super PACs and Truthiness
You are wrong about Private Equity and housing. Everyone, EVERYONE I know who has attempted to buy a house and even me included has lost a housing bid to private equity and specifically Black Rock. They buy cash, avoiding sky high interest rates, always bid over asking price, and usually they just sit on it, most don’t even rent out the houses. Its insane. My real estate agent told me it has completely changed house buying process with over half of bids going to Private Equity where I live. Yes we do need more housing, but there is so much that already exists sitting empty.
The problem with private equity isn't that they're buying all the houses, it's that they BOUGHT lots of the houses, also they are buying things like apartments and merging companies allowing them to do price fixing schemes legally because they're technically all the same company now.
From comments I've read on many conservative sites...they are all illegal. Crossing the border seeking asylum...illegal, temporary protection status...illegal. I'm sure they think work permits are also ...illegal?
Apparently, those “colored” people with foreign accents waiting in line to vote, because no way are they citizens! And if we don’t hear them speak, we will just assume the accents! 🙃🙃🙃
Huh, I was about to argue that illegal immigrants and undocumented immigrants are technically the same thing. Simple google search told me otherwise, I legitimately thought that it was a crime to be in the US without going through the legal methods to obtain a visa or citizenship. Turns out, you only have to worry if you do anything illegal while being undocumented, while being undocumented adds a bunch of things to the illegal bucket that a citizen would be able to do without issue. Our immigration and documentation policies are very confusing.
Lying has become a national pastime in this Country. in fact I would be willing to bet? that I would be hard pressed to find a person that doesn't lie in this Country. and I would probably win that bet?
@@colorbugoriginals4457 No,e I'm saying all you people are liars. and you don't even care that you're doing it. and you don't even care that it's one of the ten commandments. and that it doesn't reflect well on society in general. and I'm not saying that I wouldn't lie if I might benefit from it it didn't harm someone else? but for the most part I don't lie because of the simple fact that I'm not very good at it. but everyone else lies without impunity.
Abortion Survivors Network (ASN), which is led by survivors of failed abortions Is a group that advocates against late term abortions. These are people who survived abortion in the 3rd trimester. There are plenty of town hall meeting videos where the people of Springfield have raised the concern of Haitians eating pets. Also, there are youtube tutorials where Haitians show how to cook cats. The Democrats are using fact check as an ultimate attack without any basis.
Why are landlords allowed to sequester properties and keep them off the market forever? Shouldn't we punish market manipulation? Maybe make a law to force non-occupant residential property owners to rent or sell? If not, then it won't matter how many new units get constructed; they'll just be snapped up again and kept empty to drive up rents across the board.
@@jacobh9241 some European countries put an additional substantial tax on unoccupied dwellings to prevent this behaviour. In France they charge 17% of the property value in the first year, and 34% during each year after that. It generally seems like a smart move to discourage bad behaviour, and if you had a really smart government you could designate the revenue from said tax directly into government housing programs. 4 years of non compliance would net you enough funds to build or purchase a unit that could replace the non-compliant one…
they've also begun taxing additional homes at a progressively higher rate. No extra tax on the first home, but 2nd+ get taxed. That's something for us to consider in the US.
Vacancy taxes would help a bit but any solution to the housing crisis that isn't "build more of it, and build denser" isn't going to fully solve the problem.
As a homeowner i am in favor of easing zoning laws. More housing is better for everyone. I want to size up to a bigger house for my family, and i can't afford anything bigger right now.
Hey Adam. "Investor-owned homes hit their peak in December 2022, accounting for 28.7 percent of all home sales in America. Per MetLife Investment Management, institutional investors may control 40 percent of U.S. single-family rental homes by 2030. "According to a November report from the Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) the estimate of 1.6 million housing units owned by private equity is “likely a dramatic underestimate due to a lack of transparency in ownership records.” The issue was the subject of a much-publicized Congressional hearing in 2022." You are flat out wrong about the housing issue not being predominantly caused by investors buying houses, and jacking the rents. The amount of stories of this happening are country wide and never ending. To act like its a 2% problem is a GROSS mischaracterization of the facts. I had the links but my comment gets deleted when i post it with those.
I was about to comment the same thing. This is some weird "both-sides"ing that I expect from centrists. A shame we've got lefties playing this game too. Obviously Walz is no Bernie, but the way Adam framed this video, it sounds like he's trying very hard to make Harris and Walz seem way more similar to Trump and Vance than any sane person could ever truly believe.
" institutional investors may control 40 percent of U.S. single-family rental homes by 2030" There is a video by the Plain Bagel that explains this better, but if investors did end up owning 40% of all single-family rentals they would still only own 5.6% of all single family homes, and this also doesn't account for other types of rentals or how many institutional investors there are which would affect competition. It is real easy to manipulate statistics to get a narrative just by making what you are measuring more specific. I'm all for rooting out bad actors that may be driving up home prices, but get the numbers right. And don't accuse people of "GROSS mischaracterization" when you are the one with the skewed facts.
I'd happily take the deal of "housing becomes more affordable, but any property you buy will no longer appreciate in value every year". I don't want a house to sell, I want a house to live in damnit. Its value only matters if you want to sell it.
And even if you did care about the value of your land what happens when you sell it? Not like you can just wander off into the woods and live in a cave, it's really short sighted to think "the number I'm getting is much higher than the number I paid" if you don't consider you're just going to have to pay that price you made to live somewhere else, not to mention you'll literally never make back more money than you invested unless you're constantly buying dirt cheap, making bare minimum cosmetic repairs to bring it's value up to at or above the value of the average equivalent home in the area, and attempt to sell it at above that value. It literally only benefits corporations.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the reason why Walz brought up that border bill was what he said right after the clip that you presented. That being that the Republicans -- who were originally okay with the bill -- decided to drop their support because Donald Trump spoke out against it. In other words, he said that Republicans don't practice what they preach. Although, I don't think pointing out hypocrisy really matters anymore. 😅 At the start of the debate, I was a little disappointed with Walz, but after a bit, I was glad to hear him rail against certain points. For example, I recall him telling Vance that he needed to stop demonizing immigrants, which I was *really* glad to hear. (It gets so exhausting hearing about the latest political boogeyman.) Also, I believe he spoke about the immigration process as a whole taking far, far too long and that the bill was trying to lower the overall duration, which I think is also quite important. Now, maybe my bar has been set very low by politics as of late, but in the end, I was satisfied overall. Although, I will admit... I would've loved to see Buttigieg up there a lot more.
He brought it up because Harris promised to get the bill passed if elected. Democrats are rushing to the right for the brain dead undecided voters disconnected from reality, actual good solutions be damned.
Hypocrisy is see as a strength, the ability to flex on your opposition to the right. The dems keep thinking a referee is gonna step in or the public will see the rulebreaking and hold them to account.
Who cares about the hypocrisy of them not wanting to solve a problem their candidate is winning on when there's a much bigger hypocrisy of being the people that called the border wall dystopian and medieval now saying we have to do it and also deport a bunch of people. Like all you're doing is going look the bad guys are bad while you're still actively agreeing with them.
Walz got along with Vance because fighting him wasn’t going to do any good and debating isn’t his strong suit. He stayed civil, he avoided any major issues, and the news out of the debate was that Vance won’t tell the truth about the 2020 election. That is the best outcome. Adam is very smart and good at policy but campaigns are about persuasion, not policy. People don’t win by trying to tell voters everything they think they know is wrong.
Yeah, it absolutely sucks that elections are won on vibes but they are. Americans don't want to hear about the actual causes of our problems. They're complicated and boring. As soon as you make that the main political strategy, the right will come through with another populist who preaches easy answers, and they'll win in a landslide. Easy answers will always win in a mass popularity contest, regardless of whether they actually solve any problems.
My hopium is that Harris and Waltz are purposefully EXTREMELY opaque because they are trying to reach a very specific audience of undecided voters, and it's not the terminally online ones whose vote they basically secured the second she was announced. It's a tightrope, but probably the widest net they can cast.
I disagree, playing it 'civil' and being 'polite' is the issue. You have JD Vance literally spouting nzi dogwhistles during the debate and hating on immgrants and instead of shutting that down Waltz basically said how he agrees. Think of all of the young impressionable voters who discouraged from voting cus of Biden's politics. This was an opportunity to have another Bernie that goes against the norm but nope we just got another generic donor money focused centerist.
I generally agree, but accepting the right-wing frame of immigration is dangerous and exacerbates the political problem for Democrats. Of course, I blame that more on the campaign their consultants than Walz himself. Obviously, that's how the DNC wants to handle this, because changing minds is difficult- even when the public is wrong.
As a home owner with a modest sized piece of land, I can definitely say that my house nearly doubling in value after the pandemic hit is absolutely ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is that it's only gone down about 10% in my area since around 2022. Pretty much everyone I know is priced out of a house, so I'd welcome prices going back down to a reasonable level. That's coming from someone that plans to eventually sell their house.
You know what also creates a "scarcity" of houses? Banks buying up millions of homes and taking them off the market to hold as speculative assets, which "lowers" supply and increases the value of their portfolio.
Your math isn't mathing here on the homes issue. There are approximately 145 million homes in America. If we're short 4-7 million then the 3% of homes held by private equity would be around 4.2 million. But it's not just that, The Washington Post puts that number substantially higher saying that 44% of homes sold in 2023 were bought by investors Yes there's more at issue in what we're facing than just investment firms and private equity, but I think you're downplaying what Walz had to say here about the issue. We definitely need to build more, but unless we crack down on these investment firms gobbling up all the units, more building would just be a payday to these already incredibly wealthy groups.
And also in some states the problem is significantly more extreme than others, I'm here in Florida and its become an absolute madhouse. Then there's the adjacent problem with the AirBnBs, apparently there are over 30,000 AirBnB units in Kissimmee alone.
Exactly. Unfortunately, this guy doesn't understand policy. He just wants the vibes campaign from Harris/Walz but they are also focused on the details of policy and agenda. That's more important than who roasted who in a debate.
Yep 3% is huge in a market the size of housing....imagine being like "I only own 3% of Microsoft, Meta, Alphabet, Apple and Amazon"....also that was 3% in one year, not 3% of newly built homes, if they are buying 3% a year that means they almost certainly own more than that amount...it could mean that they own close to 9% in just 3 years if they didn't sell any.
Nothing will substantially change in our lives unless, & until Americans educate themselves with objectivity and real facts then use them to push Democratic politicians to denounce the greedy uber rich that are "pulling up the carpet under us." Americans are too lazy to actually stay in this fight.
I'm broke right now because housing prices went up so much that the tax bill for my house nearly doubled since last year and I can't afford it. There's supposed to be a cap on how much they can raise taxes on a house, but it's on me to provide proof that they messed up and my county is very slow with processing paperwork
Rank Choice doesn't solve that! Over 300 cities/towns have ranked choice voting and it doesn't do what you claim. And what is your issue with "polarized" issues? Because Dems are becoming just like Rethuglicons on TOO MANY ISSUES--THAT is our problem!!! RC doesn't solve any real problems we have in our country and where I live--NV, allows for more greedy rich know-nothing business men to get their greedy hands in the political door. They are just as bad as any other corrupted politician, except they are even more ignorant of how politics works. Dumpty ring a bell??
In my opinion we should just be voting directly on individual policies, not on politicians who want to enact a large set of policies which we may disagree with.
Everytime I've ever heard this said, I shutter. Your home is your home! Take care of it, do repairs, maybe remodel for you and your family who live there!
Vance actually did talk about building new houses...on Federal Lands. Walz is against it, as people should be, there is plenty of property to build on already. Walz said in "Minnesota" they are refurbishing older homes and I assume building on vacant lots. There are cities like Detroit that have plenty of vacant property and older homes. We do not need to keep spreading out into the Wilderness
The biggest problem with "cutting the bullshit and telling the truth" are the people who decide not to listen to you anyways, either due to cognitive dissonance or just sheer ignorance. American politics has just devolved down to "As long as the party loses, we win" which I'm sure I don't have to explain why that's completely asinine for any actual meaningful discourse or change.
Those people (party fanatics) always exist, but cutting the bullshit will reduce the amount of regular people who get swayed easily by bullshit. It's a gradual process regardless.
Companies and banks warehousing perfectly good homes are another problem, since they purposely hold onto houses to artificially shorten the supply. There are a lot of homes in my area like this that have been vacant for years and are going to end up having to be demolished from neglect, thanks to greedy banks.
Vance wasn't, actually, talking ABOUT immigrants when he SAID "illegal immigrants". He was talking about *nonwhite people* with the implication that ANYONE who isn't lily-white of European Descent was not, would never be, and could never be a legitimate American Citizen.
I mean think of what he did in Springfield. Attacking their legal status, and promising to make them illegal just so they can be deported. Devilish stuff
Building additional housing doesn’t make existing housing less valuable. It returns the housing to its natural value, not the inflated value it attained through artificial scarcity. All real estate becomes more valuable over time, no matter how many houses you build. This is because its a zero-sum market, there's only so much land, and it gets more and more parceled-out every year.
@patrickbateman1660 Nothing I said contradicts that. Yes, building a lot more houses will lower prices, in the short-term. In the long-term, real estate always goes up in value.
Leaked on YT? Haha. You mean the videos that were posted on their website? You say it like that to make it some conspiratorial devious plan. Tell me, what's the unhinged part?
Re: Immigration in the debate: Walz wasn't defending the bill. He was using it to remind the public of Trump/Vance's hypocrisy, cynicism and incompetence in trying to use the issue as a cudgel against the Harris campaign -- especially as you pointed out its anti-immigration, ultra-conservative contents. This was a VP debate - nothing no one is saying here materially matters. This event had but two purposes for both parties - bring the temperature down and present two candidates with more normal, common dispositions with at least on the surface what a debate traditionally was, and to introduce Walz to a wider audience, and attempt to rehabilitate Vance's gaffe-laden campaign. By some metrics, it's exactly what it accomplished, and reminded the audience what normal politics is like when you don't have an orange shit-gibbon trying to throw his feces on every surface.
This 100%. GOP is always so gung-ho about the border and wanting to seal it. A very rare bipartisanship bill comes up that has everything thr gop wanted for the border and they shot it down because it's trumps entire campaign platform. They literally do not have their people interest in mind at all.
He was defending the bill, period. Hypocrisy shaming does not work. Hypocrisy does. Republicans just outright refuse to work with Democrats to their advantage. Democrats cater to Republicans and give them what they want to everyone's disadvantage.
No-one expects to buy a car, use it for ten years, then sell it for more than they paid for it. Why does every homeowner think they should be able to do that with their house?
Because cars degrade at a much faster rate than a home. Properly maintained a house can last for decades or centuries. A car has parts on it that are designed to fail after a certain amount of time. The only thing maintenance can shepherd on a car is the engine and body.
Exactly. It used to be you bought low, sold high. But like how do you buy low if everyone is selling high? If say 10+ years ago, you were selling a house you bought 10-15 years before at 65K, you might try to get between 80-100K, maybe. But now? That same scenario would be 200s. Your house is still worth 65K, based on how it was built; if you renovated, updated etc, sure ask for more. But like saying its worth 2-3x as much, because other houses around you somehow sold that high, is ridiculous. Not to mention, what about the convivences of the area? Are you in a place with easy to access commercial zones like stores and food? How close are you to major interstates? What is traffic like?
Because a car is just an object, with expected lifespans of at best 15-20 years. Houses come with land, which does not depreciate, and also appreciates especially given how America doesn't have density. The house also depreciates on the scale of decades, a 100k house (structure) with a 100 year lifespan works out to 1k depreciation /year. Meanwhile the land is appreciating at the pace of inflation + increase in demand. So roughly 3%+. If the land is 200k, then that house is 5k positive per year (nominally), not accounting for an area coming more into demand. So your're comparing apples to oranges here, houses should appreciate with time
Well, that sounds awful defeatist. Let me give it a try... j/k, I know what you're saying. You're not wrong. I just wanted to thrash around in the comment section and be a twit for a bit.
@@apexnext That is often true but content creators need to eat too and if you really need a sponsor, the responsible thing to do is partner up with something that actually provides a useful service. I do believe it's a necessary evil at this point with more and more censorship deeming content not appropriate for advertisers.
One additional point, especially on immigration. It should be noted that the reason immigration has been such a salient issue for Trump supporters is racism. There is so much polling/ data showing that the reason they care is not because of a risk of jobs or lower wages (as they often claim), but rather it's simply bigotry. The support for restrictions on immigration is not because people want better policy, but they want to exclude others. AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR KAMALA HARRIS OR THE DEMS! why on earth would they vote for Kamala and "the toughest border bill" when they can vote for "build the wall"? It is not fact based voting, it's vibes based, and they are not going to vote for Trump Lite. They think they are moderating, and are going to get votes in the center, that "Oh, I was going to vote for Trump even though I don't like how racist he is, but Kamala seems like she will solve this issue and give me other policies I like." Instead, it is saying to those voters "remember how we were calling Trump a racist demon for his border policy, well lol he was right, he must not be thaaat racist", and then they are going to vote for the him. The reason that more people support a border wall now than a years ago is because the Dems have adopted the GOP talking points on this issue, and thus made a goofy idea one could use to show that Trump is not serious into a much more palatable idea. It's not just dumb policy, but it's dumb politically. If the argument the campaign is making is "Trump is an idiot/ chaotic/ threat to democracy" then sanewashing him is not a good idea. It alienates the people who actually care about immigration as a policy issue, and it undermines the main messaging against him.
It is not about the hard core MAGA, it is the people who are centrist or moderate Republicans. Which vote according to vibes based politics. This is just a fact
@@Rosebakker5242this is a made up voter the media has convinced you exists in meaningful numbers. The real undecided voters are undecided between voting and sitting on the couch. They want something to vote FOR, and Kamala and Walz are giving us less than nothing. Stop falling for this “mythical moderate” lie - it’s shifting the Overton window and it’s keeping us in this mess.
The country is doing nothing. The fascists are still only 1/5th of the country or less. Thats still far too much, but don't assume they are the majority. Fascists never are, and they only win when they convince you they are the majority, and that their views are normal instead of the delusions of creepy weirdos.
Manifest Destiny was a 19th-century doctrine or belief in the United States that advocated for the expansion of the American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. This belief was grounded in a sense of cultural and religious superiority, under which many European Americans justified the displacement and subjugation of Indigenous peoples and the annexation of their lands. The concept emerged during the early 1800s and gained momentum particularly with the westward expansion. It was seen as a divine right and destiny for Americans to spread democracy and capitalism across the continent. Here are a few key elements that characterized Manifest Destiny: 1. **Divine Sanction**: Proponents often framed the expansion as a divine mission, suggesting it was God’s will for Americans to spread their civilization and ideals. 2. **Nationalism**: There was a strong sense of national pride and identity tied to the expansion of territory, often equating the success of the nation with territorial growth. 3. **Racial Justification**: Many proponents viewed Indigenous peoples as inferior or obstacles to progress, thus rationalizing their displacement or assimilation into European American ways of life. 4. **Economic Motivations**: Westward expansion was driven by economic interests, including the promise of land, resources, and new opportunities for trade and agriculture. 5. **Political Influence**: The idea influenced U.S. policy, leading to events such as the annexation of Texas, the Oregon Trail expeditions, and the Mexican-American War, which resulted in significant territorial acquisitions. Psychologically, Manifest Destiny tapped into several cognitive factors that helped sustain and promote the ideology: - **Cognitive Dissonance**: For many, the belief reconciled the moral and ethical contradictions linked to the displacement of Indigenous peoples. - **Social Identity Theory**: It reinforced a sense of superiority and exceptionalism among European Americans, differentiating them from Indigenous peoples considered part of an ‘out-group’. - **Moral Licensing**: The notion that expansion adhered to a divine plan allowed settlers to feel justified in actions that were often violent and oppressive. - **Bandwagon Effect**: As more people moved westward and adopted the belief of Manifest Destiny, societal pressure and the success stories of some settlers increased its appeal. The implications of Manifest Destiny were devastating for Indigenous peoples, leading to loss of tribal lands, cultures, autonomy, and lives. Though the specific term "Manifest Destiny" eventually faded, its legacy lived on, influencing policies and attitudes toward expansion and treatment of Indigenous peoples throughout American history. The narrative surrounding this doctrine has been subject to much criticism, reflecting a broader understanding of the historical and ongoing impact of colonialism, demanding a more equitable and truthful examination of history. This has been their playbook for centuries now, this is why they continue to just lie and protect the 44 and a half president of this US and they ignore the things Dah Dumpty Dump does which is sad. This is what's going on Adam. I could tell you more but it would be like writing a book.
We're just fucked. I don't get how we recover. I was talking with my dad the other day about the 2020 election (because of course) and he said even if Trump had literally illegally tried to overthrow the government, he'd still vote for him because Kamala is worse.
Most, if not all, of our problems stem from the elimination of competition. Issues like carbon emission, insulin prices can be simplified down to "company A bought out or killed company B". This isn't limited to the privet sector though, it's leaked into our politics. We have a two party system, only the two. Others exist, but our world view has been tunnel visioned down to just the two. With just these two options, they're able pretend to fight, whist controlling everything else they agree on. This isn't an accident either! RFK Jr, a 3rd party that actually had a chance to win this year despite what the media will have you hear, was sued by the DNC (democratic party) over ballot access in EVERY STATE. Along side other tactic they employed, this drained RFK Jr. funding so much that he had to suspend his entire campaign this year. I don't agree with a lot of RFK Jr's policies, but the man should be allowed to run. The DNC has done this with every 3rd party that has ever threatened to even come close to winning. You want to know how to recover? We need to, against all odds, vote in a 3rd party. We need to change our voting system to be either ranked choice or even better, S.T.A.R. We need to educate every member of our nation on the issues at hand and how to solve them, using mass amounts of evidence and proof in order to crush and burn any lie fabricated under the immerse weight and light of the truth. Find someone, anyone, willing to have an elevated discussion with you about these topics, convince and conscript them into the cause. We can and will rend our nation from its corruption, all we need is your help to do it.
@@icedagger9336 If you think all of our problems are because of mergers you're stupid. Yes it has exacerbated problems, but all of these problems have existed for a much longer time than the span of time the FTC just didn't do shit. Also lmao bro thought RKF had a chance to win my brother he was polling at 1% Trump isn't even mentioning him anymore because every day there's a new story about him wearing dead animals or taking a video of him covered in bugs
Smart man. Kamala's policies are moronic, she doesn't even understand them herself, and she had moved away from all of her prior disastrous policies like open borders and limiting fossil fuels. Maybe democrats should have held an actual primary instead of forcing an elderly man through as a spot holder so they could appoint a deeply unliked candidate who never would have won.
Thank you so much for the part on housing policy! As a renter who would love to own a home, I don’t care about having a house as an investment-I just want to have permanency and to be able to stop paying rent when the house is paid off. Real estate as an investment is the cause, not a solution!
At the point in the VP debate where vance was blaming the dems for child separation at the border, and walz was promising to building a border wall, I just started screaming.
Unfortunately, leftwing voters want to bury their heads in the sand just like MAGAts and refuse to criticize Dem politicians. Right now, we need to focus on getting Blue in DC but once the dust settles, if we manage to get this done properly, then we should voice our protests. But that won't happen, either. Americans are too lazy to really educate themselves & get involved with making real change.
almost 30% of homes are being bought by corporations, not 3%. Adam needs to get his facts straight, instead of just doing the bare minimum google search
Unfortunately I agree with this. Walz, and Bernie, are probably the closest things we have to FDR currently and the reason Wals and Harris are seemingly leaning more centric is because this race is way too close and it really shouldn't be considering who's on the other side
political consulting is a big business. this is how they have to win, to appease corporate interests and maintain the inward flow of big money superpacs. the ownership class has every large newspaper, talk radio show, and news station in the country - they control the flow of information. howard dean tried to forge another path and the corporate machine took down his campaign with a relentless attack over an excited yelp he gave.
Because most americans are complete morons and believe that democrats have hurricane machines but climate change is fake, there's also that roach Elon boosting the hell out of right wing propaganda on twitter because he needs Trump, and despite hating Elon's guts Trumps needs him aswell. They are betting everything on a win because if Harris wins Trump goes to Jail and Elon's contracts get cut and he's gonna pay a crapton of taxes on top of that, so they both need eachoter and despite all the shit they pulled they have both a literal cult following of morons that will die for them, so the race is really close. And can't forget the russian propaganda machine with Tim Pool and stuff
You do NOT WIN ELECTIONS by swinging hard left to combat the far right. The vast majority of voters are independent and centrists. You have to compromise un politics. You have to win over voters from all sides. This "100% my team or nothing" shit is what's destroying our countey and democracy. The right have moved so fckin far right that there isnt a chance in hell a progressive gets a single vote from them. The best chance is to be centrist.
Stealing Drugs from a hospital foes make you a bad person. Not to be demonized and imprisoned forever, but STEALING is wrong..which means it is a BAD thing to do!
This is unrelated to the actual video but a few years ago when I was little I found the show Adam ruins everything. I loved it binged the whole thing and it has a place in my heart, an now I learn you have a RUclips and comedy specials. Just wanted to say I love your work
I have a complicated relationship with Adam Ruins Everything. I agreed with everything he said. I appreciated the show. And I wanted to punch the character that he played so hard. I much prefer the character he's playing now!
zoning is local. Federal government has no say in local zoning. 3% of sales is very significant and banning private equity from purchasing homes is something the feds can do.
I would note the 3% of homes in the US that private equity bought up is roughly equivalent to the number of houses we need to build, so while not the main cause it’s definitely not helping.
It's more than just appealing to homeowners A huge reason why politicians on both sides of the aisle don't want to make housing affordable is because it would hurt the local tax base In many areas, the school system is literally funded by property taxes Cheaper housing means less tax revenue, which means less money to local government services Government has an vested interest in keeping housing costs high The only real way out of this is to get rid of property taxes and replace it with something else
One statement in your comment is missing or ignoring half of the equation. "Cheaper Housing means less tax revenue..." If you assume the housing supply stays consistent, no new homes, no one sells, and the values drop, this would be correct in some places. It's worth noting that in most states, your property taxes go up each year, but it's not because of your house value. Your home value for taxation only changes upon sale/purchase. So if a school places a bond measure on the ballot and it passes, your property taxes go up as a result of that bond. The government also has baked in yearly rate increases but these usually don't amount to much, compared to school bonds. Again, the above may not be true in all states, but it is in a majority of them. Back to the statement above. Let's start by assuming that your state revalues your property annually for taxation purposes. If more houses are built and property values go down, but the total value of the market stays the same, then the state/locality will still make the same amount of revenues from property taxes. We all know this is never how things will work. A more realistic scenario would to apply the real world valuation principle explained above, and then compare to the supply of houses. If more houses are built and valuation is only adjusted upon sale, then regardless of your property value, the locality/state makes the same amount off of you that it did before those homes were built, but now they get even more in total as all of those homes will also be taxed. This would indicate that the governments have a vested interest in more homes being built. Now we get to "why aren't more homes being built then?" That is the crux of the issue. If more housing is built in an area with high property values, that will decrease property values in that area as anyone wanting to sell will have to lower their asking price to be competitive with those new homes, assuming they are comparable. So what Adam said is true here, homeowners who view their home as an investment to make money off when they decide to sell are actively voting against new low-income homes being built near their homes. They want more homes to be built, just not anywhere near them that would lower their valuations. This forces some cities to look elsewhere for the land to build new homes on, but that land might not have the same amenities that lots in the city would have, so those houses would be less interesting to potential buyers. No one wants to build a house that might sit vacant for a while, they want to be paid for the work they did as soon as possible. So builders don't want to build in areas where people don't want to live. So we have a lot of vacant land in this country, but builders only want to build in areas where those houses will sell fast. There's no incentive for them to build in undesirable areas outside of cities where people are too far away from the things they need.
You should do an interview with Leeja Miller sometime. She's an American lawyer who feels very strongly about the same things you do. Her video "All the Lies from the VP Debate" was what made me brave enough to watch this one, when I'm trying to keep a positive attitude as a non-American. (I can't vote in the US. Hey RUclips. I can't vote in the US. Hey RUclips, stop giving me ads for my remote voting ballot. I do not have one. I am not American, I just have to live next to y'all.)
Something absolutely tiny that I want to over-analyse: JD Vance saying "I had a mother who struggled with opioid addiction". It's weirdly impersonal. I would say "my mother struggled with opioid addiction". "I had a mother who struggled with opioid addiction" just makes it sound like his mother happened to be there. It feels closer to how one might say "I had a job last week where I encountered a similar issue", like you're bringing it up because you want to make a passing comment on how this job you're working on now seems to have coincidentally happened a few times recently. It's so weird.
"The rules were you weren't going to fact check" is definitely a soundbite I'm going to use as a cope-out meme. It's so darn stupid and ridiculous to even say something like that.
That's not the only reason Walz had to play along. Because of his position - as the 'opposite' party in a debate where most viewers are going to pretend boths sides have a point and we have to meet in the middle - Walz can't simply call Vance out as a liar. That's just not allowed - it's not 'dignified', not 'respectful', not the golden mean. That's why debates used to be fact-checked. Because the moderator could shut down blatant lies. If this was a moderated debate, Walz could actually have talked about the facts. But because it's not, he had to pretend Vance said something real.
No they are not. This is a blatant lie. This is literally her most important cornerstone of her economic policy. But she can only get that done with an Act of Congress. THAT MEANS FLIPPING THE HOUSE. Lock in bro, because wisdom is chasing you but you are running faster.
I know some folks are talking a good game, but I don't think that was ever truly on the table. We don't do that here, even when it's painfully obvious that we should be. I await my next distraction that makes me mad enough to forget about six different rich people running most aspects of my life and the lives of those around me.
I absolutely hate dealing with those people who say the right thing, IN THE SAME SENTENCE AS THE WRONG THING... Then they act like you're batshit crazy when you try to explain to them.
I truly want to say thank you for continuing to cover these topics and bring factual research and logic to more ppl. It is incredibly refreshing which says a lot about the state of things. Tho I'm unsure the ppl who need to see it most actually will, I genuinely appreciate the hard work and time spent making the videos.
Adam kind of ‘both-sides’ the housing issue with respect to private equity purchases. Walz is pointing out a real issue there - I don’t understand the instinct to misleadingly downplay it for the sake of ‘balance’.
And he does it again by claiming Walz brought up the border bill to brag about it and not that he brought it up to point out trump killed it so he had something to run on by editing that whole 1:20 out. Incredibly weak showing by Adam
My mother had an abortion at 7 months, saved both our lives. It's called a C-section. When you perform a "9th month Abortion" it's either a C-section or just "A Delivery" because that's what that entails, unlike the story of baby arms hanging out of a dumpster that my dad insisted wasn't fever dream BS and was actual policy in the US
A thing that scares me is that one of our big problems in terms of so many big issues like climate, human rights, etc, is that we loooove cheap goods. Buying fewer things and having them cost more are almost necessary to make sure they are made responsibly, workers get paid a living wage, and everything lasts longer and is reusable. But the public will likely never go for it. I think the lack of education on the part of the public is the biggest problem. You will never get rid of dishonest politicians if they have to be dishonest to get your vote. We have to change as an electorate more than we need new politicians/political parties. We need to be less lazy in our engagement. And be ready to show some modicum of sacrifice.
Walz said to the mods during the debate: 'I know we're not supposed to fact check...'. He didn't point out the lies bc he thought it was agreed upon not to and he didn't want to break the rules
@@jaebee1121 That's a much better argument. I would lead with that one next time 😎 but also I would say he was very nervous and might not have heard or processed it when she said it. All I know is it was near the end when he said it. I'll admit I don't know what was in his head at the time 🙂
No. The moderators refused to fact check. But THAT is their job. Problem was that Democratic party leadership refused to demand CBS do their job. It is imposiible, in the very limited time given to answering each question to ALSO fact-check the firehose of reichwing lies coming from his opponent: Fascist Vance.
Ummm, most renters could afford a pre-2019 house payment for the cost of current-day rent prices, so I’d argue that high capacity housing isn’t as needed when home prices are affordable. Private Equity is certainly to blame for reducing supply with no intent to resell - no one voted for that!
You are completely wrong about 3% of a market not being enough to have a significant impact on housing scarcity. That is 3% of a massive number in an incredibly scarce market. Iran’s daily oil output is far less than 3% of the global market and if they wound up in a very hot war, oil markets would go nuts, and that is a very flexible market where it is much easier to pump more oil than it is to build new housing.
Adam, I agree with you that philosophically, it is important for politicians to educate. The challenge is that many people don't want to take the time to educate themselves or to be educated. I believe that this incentivizes politicians to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It think this is one of the limitations of a two party system. Land of the free, home of the uninformed...
This is, fundamentally, due to the public's inability to spot emotional manipulation and effectively resist it. We are woefully underequipped to identify and regulate our emotions as a collective. As long as people are out of touch with their emotions, they will remain out of touch with their beliefs, and they will believe falsehood over facts due to the way those falsehoods make them feel.
All you have to do is use some common sense, If the prices of houses are not controlled, it will not matter how many houses you will build, no one will buy and you will not solve anything 🤷🏻♂️.
Every new construction project I've seen hasn't lowered prices one iota. They are priced at "market" value. They would still charge ridiculous prices if there were two homes for every person.
Seems like most that are being built are luxury apartments anyway. What average person will be able to afford those?? That's why every time the housing issue comes up and someone says we need more houses, all I can think is "Well, that doesn't mean they'll be affordable..."
I miss the happier Adam from "Adam ruins everything" it suited you much better and was easier to absorb and think about the facts you are trying to get across. This angrier "Alex Jones" style you are headed towards is very difficult to listen to.
We have plenty of houses. They sit empty, and even Adam Conover doesn't talk about that. Anyone with enough money for a vacation home wants us to not notice that if we just made vacation homes illegal we'd already have plenty of housing.
What if, and hear me out here, we fundamentally revamp the immigration system completely so that people looking to escape violence and poverty don't have to come here illegally and don't have to wait literal decades for their number to come up?
But let's be honest, under the two-party system and the electoral college, "telling the truth about what's truly going on" just isn't possible. Bernie Sanders had ideas with strong bipartisan support among voters, but the rich donors and bosses in the DNC (which also happen to be homeowners and stockholders and part of the 1%) did not want Bernie in a position to actually solve these problems. Tim Walz actually did a good job at the debate, because debating isn't his strong suit but he refrained from mudslinging and starting elongated complicated arguments that requires significantly more time than what is allowed on these dated debate formats----and as a result his favorability rating actually went up.
I mean, Bernie Sanders lost mostly because he didn't appeal enough to democrats as a whole. He has a specific appeal base he consistently failed to expand in both primaries. Like in particular Bernie was consistently bad at appealing to black voters, who are a major demographic for democrats. The main reason Bernie lost wasn't shadowy collusion of the DNC, it was that most democratic primary voters didn't want him. People complained the rules of the primary disfavored him, they changed those rules next time as a result, and he still failed again the next time for the exact same reason.
@@Aaronrules380 Look at what happened after Bernie won Nevada in 2020, when everyone dropped out simultaneously right before Super Tuesday and the remaining progressives backed Biden probably with promises of potential prominent roles in a Biden Administration. Once again, the rules are in favor to those with $$$. Let's say the primaries were held in every state simultaneously instead of this slow rollout where people with $$ can shift narratives and make the necessary phone calls, I think Bernie easily wins.
Don't be stupid. In politics, you want to sling mud. Being nice is the worst strategy one can have. "Hey, why don't we be polite to a rapist politician who wants immigrants murdered and wants to overthrow the government?" No, sometimes, you have to be mean.
@@Aaronrules380 nah people get scammed into voting for Joe because they are told that's he's the best path to defeat Trump. As long as Trump is around , you guys are on the leash. And who know, maybe they just gonna prop up Trump 2.0 once he dies, Elon looks like a good candidate
You may want to look into that 3% number. Private equity buying houses is a huge problem and that number is their self-reported value and it isn't saying what we think its common sense meaning would be. In addition. private equity has enough capital to basically own the entire labor force for new construction, meaning that apartments are being built instead of single family homes, thus perpetuating the renting-class instead of promoting home-ownership.
Visit groundnews.com/factually to stay fully informed, see through biased media and get all sides of every story especially during this election season. Subscribe for 40% off unlimited access through my link.
Love this partnership for you - seems like such a natural fit!
All sides? I see skewed homeowner statistics. My response gets deleted. 🤔
I deeply love our worlds, not so secretly, feudalistic society. I just wish I was a King, baron or lord, and not a serf. Maybe if I just work hard enough 🤔? Or maybe I should just get myself adopted by Elon, Trump or any of the other shrunken amygdala/penile tissue nepo babies.
I don't care what political alingments are within Adam Conover's identity, I only care that his opinions matter cause he is that kind of person who does understand the nature of people and keeps it key in his intellectual framework.
Any chance your tour might sway into Canada?
Really disappointed to see Adam discredit Gustavo Frings entire career by insinuating the drugs in breaking bad were made in Mexico. Gus worked tirelessly to dismantle the Mexican cartel so that he could establish his drug empire firmly in the States.
As someone who lives in New Mexico, I am well aware that most of the United States doesn't realize that New Mexico is a state, so perhaps Adam thinks it is Mexico. 😄
@@dez0265people really think that?? I guess I should expect that tho, any time I say I’m from New York everyone’s like I love New York City! And I’m like, no, there’s a whole ass state. It’s huge, how could you miss it?? Now I just say I’m from New York State 🤦🏻♂️
@@dez0265like Mexico, just not as old.
Him and Walt fought tirelessly to strengthen the meth industry in America
The boys at Astrazenica and Pfizer, are waaaaaaay more frightening than anything the cartel could do.
As a homeowner I don't want my house to go up in value. All that does is increase my property tax. I simply want a place to live with a stable monthly payment.
That's because you see a house as primarily something to live in rather than a speculative investment you're hoping to sell one day.
I wish homes went back to being shelter instead of investments
@@dynamicworlds1 So, like a normal human trying to fulfill the food/shelter/clothing paradigm? Hahahaha
@@dynamicworlds1 For real. The Dave Ramseys of the world sincerely annoy me because that's the only way they view HOMES. I thought it was supposed to be where the heart is? Is that heart filled with greed or something?
Yep, my house has increased almost 50% in value and all that does is increase insurance and property taxes. If I decide to sell and downsize, it will be a wash at best. Also consider that many elderly people are selling their homes so they can go into a decent assisted living facility. This means that the "accumulated wealth" of Boomer parents is not going to the next generation but to billionaires like Bruce Rauner who make their fortunes preying on the elderly and disabled.
Corporate investors bought up over 25% of the homes for sale in Charlotte in 2021 and 2022. They generally paid over asking and bought every affordable home near the city they could get their hands on. Prices sky-rocketed as a result. Then they turned around and rented them at insane rates causing rental prices to soar. So yea, depending on where you live, corporate investors ARE a huge reason for the housing crisis.
Saying only 3% of home sales are bought by corporate investors creates heavy bias. Investors have drastically affected a couple dozen or so cities. The rest of the country didn't experience it. Looking at this from a national scale deflates the impact these investors have bc they are not buying across the country equally but it still effects 10's of millions of people as a direct result.
"According to data reported by the PEW Trust and originally gathered by CoreLogic, as of 2022, investment companies take up about a quarter of the single-family home market. Specifically, investor purchases accounted for 22% of all American homes in 2022. " - So yeah, I agree, Adam's numbers seem way too low.
@@spearjr His "Not in my backyard (NIMBY) argument doesn't hold water either unless he can show me data on that. NIMBYs seem to be a very small section of the populace and there by affect only small areas of building opportunities in their cities. If he has other numbers on that, I would love to see it.
In Charlotte, we rezoned most of our city to allow for duplexes, triplexes and even quads on single family lots. There has been almost no building done in low income areas where we actually need more density. The builders only build these in high income areas where they can get a greater return. FYI, if you build a duplex in a fancy neighborhood, they are called "Duets" and you can charge millions for them.
Thanks for bringing this up, I had the same thought when Adam said it, supply isn’t the only issue here. Corporate landlords would rather leave some houses unoccupied if it means more in profit. I hope Adam addresses this
Private equity has been buying up homes for YEARS!. ofc adam is flat out wrong on this.
@@spearjr Also, he states that private equity purchased 3% of the homes bought in 2021 which is statistically insignificant, but there are around 145 million housing units in the US so 3% of that is around 4 million which is the number he states we're short by so apparently not that insignificant.
The biggest problem with debunking lies in a debate format like this is that you can immediately get gish gallopped. A gish gallop is where you answer a question by just uttering a constant stream of lies - it doesn't matter how transparently false or misleading they are, you just want to put as many as possible into the time you have. It's an extremely effective tactic in formats like debates with limited time.
By way of example for this working, had you been in Walz' place, your debunking here of "immigrants are taking all the homes" takes as much time as Walz would have had to speak to it... but it would have only taken Vance a few seconds to tell the lie in the first place, leaving him with a lot more time to tell more lies that you can't then address.
-----
It takes an order of magnitude more time to debunk a lie than to make it. You have to start by repeating the lie, so people know what you're referring to, then give context and information and details, then explain why the lie is false within that context. When you have very short slots to answer the question and equal time, this means that Vance can answer any question with a barrage of lies, and if you're lucky you have enough time to debunk *one* of them.
First of all, this gives the impression that all the other lies are true. Why wouldn't you answer to them if they weren't? Even people with fairly good critical thinking skills will get the impression that you're just being "nitpicky" because you're jumping on one small part of their answer, rather than addressing the whole thing. You legitimize the rest of their lies by trying to fact check.
Secondly, you're forced to spend ALL of *your* time discussing the issue within the framing that the other side has provided. You don't get any time to make your own points, or discuss your own policy. The entire debate becomes a platform for the liar's position, where your role is reduced to neutralizing 20% of it, and letting the rest go unchallenged.
---
This is why the moderators "fact checking" stuff is so important. If a candidate says something that is transparently false, they should interrupt the answer and explain that it's false, and give the appropriate context. This should ideally eat into the liar's time to answer as well, meaning they actually face some kind of penalty for lying. If you run a debate with rules of "no fact checking" then it encourages the candidates to lie as much as possible, because they have so much to gain from it and can't face consequences.
This entire video is a GishGallop
@@renelopez8227 cope
@@renelopez8227 Your dumb propaganda comment is a gish gallop, and you know it as well as we do.
@@renelopez8227 Gish gallops take place within the context of a debate, so this video can't be considered one because Adam is the only speaker in it. He's not debating anyone directly. It's like saying an academic book is a gish gallop: it might be true in the sense that it's a large collection of (presumably) research and findings and would take a much longer time to debunk--barring debunking a central premise to the book's arguments--but that's just the format, it's not accurate to call it a gish gallop since the opposition was not present to be debated and overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of arguments. This video is a debunking followed by an analysis of why the Democrats are buying into those debunkable lies.
Because, as Adam points out, Walz, and a significant portion of Democrats, publicly buy into the GOP's assumptions, i.e. immigration and crime. For example, nearly everything Vance said about migrants is a lie or misconception according to the actual data we have: they commit less crime than American-born people; for the most part they aren't bringing in fentanyl (that's once again Americans doing it); they definitely don't have anything to do with the opioid crisis, which was started and stoked by pharmaceutical companies. If you'd like to find actual data to support any of the GOP positions on those, feel free I suppose. But really all this has done is prove the OP's point: it's taken far more time to refute your bad faith assertion (that the video is a gish gallop) than it did for you to state said assertion (technically six words, though actually seven, since you thought Gish and gallop were one word).
Gish Gallop originated from religion.
"The rules were you weren't going to fact check"
This is what happens when we just let that bullshit go.
I know Bernie isn't perfect, but damn, he was one of the only politicians "brave enough to tell the truth", and we didn't elect him.
Jesse Jackson was the Bernie Sanders of the 1980s. Guess what: you didn't elect him either. I wonder why!
bernie was the only one running for president on universal healthcare as an unknown global pathogen was raging, and he still lost.... shows how manipulated we are. we need big money out of politics and media yesterday.
"We" tried, the DNC cheated in 2016 and robbed him of his fair shot; giving some credence to Tramps insane claims his election was stolen a decade later. This is among the reasons I hate Killary so much, that and everything else about her. I work in IT I took the fact she was illegally rocking a 2003 exchange server VERY personally. Bernie was an independent who aligned with the democraps who claimed to share some concerns. Problem is all political parties are corrupt and Mrs Clinton proved that.
I'm voting for Harris, a respectable woman. I am still glad I refused to vote for crooked Clinton.
@@andreabrown4541 I dont think someone with the username "edgyzero6305" was of voting age in the 80's, let alone alive.
The rich will NOT let Bernie win! I don’t get why y’all don’t understand that! He’s trying to take from the rich to give to the poor! The rich control the government! It will NOT happen EVER! Y’all are delusional if ya think he’ll ever win!
Why does Vance keep blaming immigrants for his mum’s drug addiction? She was a nurse who still controlled painkillers from her work
Because he is feeding red meat to his base.
It's the same reason why he said that not having kids causes women to behave like psychopaths, when he knows that his own mom had two kids and still behaved like a psychopath.
Because the alternative would be taking personal responsibility for one's own actions.
because moderators are too busy asking walz about ivf and China trip half truths to get to Vance's flat out lies.
actually it's a systematic issue in America, not just personal responsibility, but yeah.
@@milascave2 Vance did not say that
As a homeowner, I want the value of homes to drop _significantly._ My house being "worth more" does absolutely nothing for me.
I've had people offering me more than *triple* what I paid for my house a few years ago, which sounds great...except that I _live here._ I can't go "flipping my investment" on a whim. If I want to sell this house, I have to buy a different one, and if _that_ one's expensive, I gain nothing from having mine be expensive.
The only thing that happens from the value of my house going up is that my property taxes go up.
Same. I'd decommodify housing so I can actually move and so I wouldn't have to squeeze twice as many people into my home because they'd be homeless without my generosity. I'm fine with a small space and a decent hood, but all cities would be lifted up if people didn't have to spend 60% of their hard earned income on rent.
I already pay a fraction of what others pay in rent just by owning, but I am absolutely trapped anyway.
I think the people who want prices to go up are generally older home owners who want to live in a smaller house / outside of the city when they retire, and then use the money they gained from that for their retirement. Not sure though.
That's only true if you just "live" in your house. Many if not most home owners now use/need the value of their home for equity. Credit cards out of control? Addition/remodeling to improve how much you enjoy the space you live in? The higher the value of your home, the more you can use from a line of credit, usually with better terms, and the smaller the percentage of your home's value you need to borrow against. That's how most people who aren't on a fixed income think of their homes if they aren't flipping.
YOU SAID YOU WOUDLNT FACT CHECK
It was clearly a higher up decision to appease the Right and the moderators felt they needed to do it once to not feel like POSs.
@@ReelPodcasts The so-called fact checks are most of the time biased and misleading.
aka YOU TOLD ME I COULD LIE WITH IMPUNITY
@@Sauvenil No, that is not what it means.
Abortion Survivors Network (ASN), which is led by survivors of failed abortions Is a group that advocates against late term abortions. These are people who survived abortion in the 3rd trimester.
There are plenty of town hall meeting videos where the people of Springfield have raised the concern of Haitians eating pets.
Also, there are youtube tutorials where Haitians show how to cook cats.
The Democrats are using fact check as an ultimate attack without any basis.
1:35 I just want to point out that “focus on the criminal migrants first” was literally the policy of the Obama administration… which the Republicans freaked out about, Trump reversed to target all of the migrants without prioritizing criminals in a disorganized mess, and now J.D. Vance is proposing as some kind of fresh idea… a solution to a policy problem that was literally created by his own running mate.
Makes sense because Trump wants immigrants to commit crimes since that increases his support. It's not about finding solutions, but about gathering support.
Welcome to the Republican Party playbook literally since Nixon.
Your comment was better than Adams entire half misguided half analysis.
Thats the republican brand, make their own fn problems and never fix them. Banning abortion has introduced a whole bunch of issues, even banning books made it more difficult.
because the republican freak out wasn't actually about focusing on criminals or not and neither was trump's policy and neither is JD's proposal. it's all racism. they can't just come out and say "we want all the brown people gone because we want america to stay majority white," so they have to couch it in outrage over "criminals" and "do the opposite of whatever the black president did."
Deporting the people who build the houses seems like an odd way to address the housing shortage.
Indeed. While it is true that considering things like construction "jobs that no one wants to do" is a little overblown (tons of native-born people would gladly take on a blue-collar laborer job), the fact that govts are making it more difficult to address any shortfall that would arise from a shift like that is just stupid. Defunding and de-regulating trade schools privatization, making getting a trade certification more expensive and difficult, cutting support and loan programmes, and not guaranteeing a minimum wage while simultaneously messaging against labor unions, means people get turned off the idea of doing such jobs long-term or at all. Conservative-wing govts have, through decades of weakening such pillars of the labor industry, ironically reliant on cheap, unskilled labor to fill that shortfall, yet refuse to understand how simply removing that cheap unskilled workforce without a ready replacement will tank the economy.
Drop in demand means less supply is needed and lower prices.
More importantly, existing lower price housing opens up. Which has its own downstream benefits such as boomers finally downsizing out of family homes.
I have great respect for the talent people have when building homes. We need good builders
IKR?
@@ttthttpd a drop in supply and demand is equilibrium meaning prices stay high not drop.
I'm ok with the value of my house going down if it means my children will actually be able to afford their own homes when they move out....
We need fact-checking more than ever.
Fact checkers are biased, even the independent ones.
we need legal consequences for explicitly drumming up racism and violence. we need another party to call out the anti-immigrant narrative by pointing out the real cause for economic issues - the ownership class.
@@sheepwshotguns42 We need legal consequences for all who allow and foster this mass immigration.
Nobody cares. Everything gets fact-checked, but people have decided that 'truth' and 'facts' aren't the same thing
The simple times when everyone agreed the facts were everything. Vibes got everyone now like that AI girl in the flood. And someone was right on the money early on about Super PACs and Truthiness
You are wrong about Private Equity and housing. Everyone, EVERYONE I know who has attempted to buy a house and even me included has lost a housing bid to private equity and specifically Black Rock. They buy cash, avoiding sky high interest rates, always bid over asking price, and usually they just sit on it, most don’t even rent out the houses. Its insane. My real estate agent told me it has completely changed house buying process with over half of bids going to Private Equity where I live.
Yes we do need more housing, but there is so much that already exists sitting empty.
The problem with private equity isn't that they're buying all the houses, it's that they BOUGHT lots of the houses, also they are buying things like apartments and merging companies allowing them to do price fixing schemes legally because they're technically all the same company now.
And Hospitals! Then they strip them and sell off the land leaving poor people with no hospitals!
I’d like to see a poll that asks people what they think an “illegal” undocumented immigrant is.
From comments I've read on many conservative sites...they are all illegal. Crossing the border seeking asylum...illegal, temporary protection status...illegal. I'm sure they think work permits are also ...illegal?
Apparently, those “colored” people with foreign accents waiting in line to vote, because no way are they citizens! And if we don’t hear them speak, we will just assume the accents! 🙃🙃🙃
Huh, I was about to argue that illegal immigrants and undocumented immigrants are technically the same thing.
Simple google search told me otherwise, I legitimately thought that it was a crime to be in the US without going through the legal methods to obtain a visa or citizenship. Turns out, you only have to worry if you do anything illegal while being undocumented, while being undocumented adds a bunch of things to the illegal bucket that a citizen would be able to do without issue.
Our immigration and documentation policies are very confusing.
“the bank asks you for every document you’ve ever had” is so right 😂
Someone told them as children, "Don't lie." And they asked "Why not?" and never got an answer. Gotta give them a reason again.
Lying has become a national pastime in this Country. in fact I would be willing to bet? that I would be hard pressed to find a person that doesn't lie in this Country. and I would probably win that bet?
@@musicauthority674 are you lumping together things like "your shirt looks nice" with the deception in question here? Who are you looking to defend?
@@colorbugoriginals4457 No,e I'm saying all you people are liars. and you don't even care that you're doing it. and you don't even care that it's one of the ten commandments. and that it doesn't reflect well on society in general. and I'm not saying that I wouldn't lie if I might benefit from it it didn't harm someone else? but for the most part I don't lie because of the simple fact that I'm not very good at it. but everyone else lies without impunity.
When Adam called the last debate a feast of housepets, it took me a full five seconds of smile-cringing at the remark to remember it wasn't hyperbole.
Abortion Survivors Network (ASN), which is led by survivors of failed abortions Is a group that advocates against late term abortions. These are people who survived abortion in the 3rd trimester.
There are plenty of town hall meeting videos where the people of Springfield have raised the concern of Haitians eating pets.
Also, there are youtube tutorials where Haitians show how to cook cats.
The Democrats are using fact check as an ultimate attack without any basis.
Why are landlords allowed to sequester properties and keep them off the market forever? Shouldn't we punish market manipulation? Maybe make a law to force non-occupant residential property owners to rent or sell? If not, then it won't matter how many new units get constructed; they'll just be snapped up again and kept empty to drive up rents across the board.
There are no laws that allow us to interfere with profit, even if said profit comes at our expense.
America is all about profit over people.
@@jacobh9241 some European countries put an additional substantial tax on unoccupied dwellings to prevent this behaviour. In France they charge 17% of the property value in the first year, and 34% during each year after that. It generally seems like a smart move to discourage bad behaviour, and if you had a really smart government you could designate the revenue from said tax directly into government housing programs. 4 years of non compliance would net you enough funds to build or purchase a unit that could replace the non-compliant one…
they've also begun taxing additional homes at a progressively higher rate. No extra tax on the first home, but 2nd+ get taxed. That's something for us to consider in the US.
Maybe we should... de-commodify housing?
Vacancy taxes would help a bit but any solution to the housing crisis that isn't "build more of it, and build denser" isn't going to fully solve the problem.
As a homeowner i am in favor of easing zoning laws. More housing is better for everyone. I want to size up to a bigger house for my family, and i can't afford anything bigger right now.
Hey Adam.
"Investor-owned homes hit their peak in December 2022, accounting for 28.7 percent of all home sales in America. Per MetLife Investment Management, institutional investors may control 40 percent of U.S. single-family rental
homes by 2030.
"According to a November report from the Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) the estimate of 1.6 million housing units owned by private equity is “likely a dramatic underestimate due to a lack of transparency in ownership records.” The issue was the subject of a much-publicized Congressional hearing in 2022."
You are flat out wrong about the housing issue not being predominantly caused by investors buying houses, and jacking the rents. The amount of stories of this happening are country wide and never ending. To act like its a 2% problem is a GROSS mischaracterization of the facts.
I had the links but my comment gets deleted when i post it with those.
I was about to comment the same thing. This is some weird "both-sides"ing that I expect from centrists. A shame we've got lefties playing this game too.
Obviously Walz is no Bernie, but the way Adam framed this video, it sounds like he's trying very hard to make Harris and Walz seem way more similar to Trump and Vance than any sane person could ever truly believe.
Still mention the source in your comment
" institutional investors may control 40 percent of U.S. single-family rental homes by 2030" There is a video by the Plain Bagel that explains this better, but if investors did end up owning 40% of all single-family rentals they would still only own 5.6% of all single family homes, and this also doesn't account for other types of rentals or how many institutional investors there are which would affect competition. It is real easy to manipulate statistics to get a narrative just by making what you are measuring more specific.
I'm all for rooting out bad actors that may be driving up home prices, but get the numbers right. And don't accuse people of "GROSS mischaracterization" when you are the one with the skewed facts.
Eliminate deductions in proportion to properties owned with the purchase date defining the deduction order. Watch this problem evaporate.
@@oliverfern8039
“Investor owned homes… accounting for 28.7 percent of all home sales.”
Isn’t this at least somewhat insignificant?
I'd happily take the deal of "housing becomes more affordable, but any property you buy will no longer appreciate in value every year". I don't want a house to sell, I want a house to live in damnit. Its value only matters if you want to sell it.
And even if you did care about the value of your land what happens when you sell it? Not like you can just wander off into the woods and live in a cave, it's really short sighted to think "the number I'm getting is much higher than the number I paid" if you don't consider you're just going to have to pay that price you made to live somewhere else, not to mention you'll literally never make back more money than you invested unless you're constantly buying dirt cheap, making bare minimum cosmetic repairs to bring it's value up to at or above the value of the average equivalent home in the area, and attempt to sell it at above that value. It literally only benefits corporations.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the reason why Walz brought up that border bill was what he said right after the clip that you presented. That being that the Republicans -- who were originally okay with the bill -- decided to drop their support because Donald Trump spoke out against it. In other words, he said that Republicans don't practice what they preach. Although, I don't think pointing out hypocrisy really matters anymore. 😅
At the start of the debate, I was a little disappointed with Walz, but after a bit, I was glad to hear him rail against certain points. For example, I recall him telling Vance that he needed to stop demonizing immigrants, which I was *really* glad to hear. (It gets so exhausting hearing about the latest political boogeyman.) Also, I believe he spoke about the immigration process as a whole taking far, far too long and that the bill was trying to lower the overall duration, which I think is also quite important. Now, maybe my bar has been set very low by politics as of late, but in the end, I was satisfied overall. Although, I will admit... I would've loved to see Buttigieg up there a lot more.
He brought it up because Harris promised to get the bill passed if elected. Democrats are rushing to the right for the brain dead undecided voters disconnected from reality, actual good solutions be damned.
Loser Buttigieg? Walz is a better progressive candidate even though he sucked in this debate.
Hypocrisy is see as a strength, the ability to flex on your opposition to the right. The dems keep thinking a referee is gonna step in or the public will see the rulebreaking and hold them to account.
Who cares about the hypocrisy of them not wanting to solve a problem their candidate is winning on when there's a much bigger hypocrisy of being the people that called the border wall dystopian and medieval now saying we have to do it and also deport a bunch of people. Like all you're doing is going look the bad guys are bad while you're still actively agreeing with them.
Walz got along with Vance because fighting him wasn’t going to do any good and debating isn’t his strong suit. He stayed civil, he avoided any major issues, and the news out of the debate was that Vance won’t tell the truth about the 2020 election. That is the best outcome. Adam is very smart and good at policy but campaigns are about persuasion, not policy. People don’t win by trying to tell voters everything they think they know is wrong.
I think Walz could have done some work to persuade people that Vance backs insane Christian theocrats instead of just the one lie.
Yeah, it absolutely sucks that elections are won on vibes but they are. Americans don't want to hear about the actual causes of our problems. They're complicated and boring. As soon as you make that the main political strategy, the right will come through with another populist who preaches easy answers, and they'll win in a landslide. Easy answers will always win in a mass popularity contest, regardless of whether they actually solve any problems.
My hopium is that Harris and Waltz are purposefully EXTREMELY opaque because they are trying to reach a very specific audience of undecided voters, and it's not the terminally online ones whose vote they basically secured the second she was announced. It's a tightrope, but probably the widest net they can cast.
I disagree, playing it 'civil' and being 'polite' is the issue. You have JD Vance literally spouting nzi dogwhistles during the debate and hating on immgrants and instead of shutting that down Waltz basically said how he agrees. Think of all of the young impressionable voters who discouraged from voting cus of Biden's politics. This was an opportunity to have another Bernie that goes against the norm but nope we just got another generic donor money focused centerist.
I generally agree, but accepting the right-wing frame of immigration is dangerous and exacerbates the political problem for Democrats. Of course, I blame that more on the campaign their consultants than Walz himself. Obviously, that's how the DNC wants to handle this, because changing minds is difficult- even when the public is wrong.
As a homeowner, I say Decommodify housing. Thats it.
As a home owner with a modest sized piece of land, I can definitely say that my house nearly doubling in value after the pandemic hit is absolutely ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is that it's only gone down about 10% in my area since around 2022. Pretty much everyone I know is priced out of a house, so I'd welcome prices going back down to a reasonable level. That's coming from someone that plans to eventually sell their house.
You know what also creates a "scarcity" of houses? Banks buying up millions of homes and taking them off the market to hold as speculative assets, which "lowers" supply and increases the value of their portfolio.
Building more houses solves that issue as the housing stock corporation own would decrease in value.
@@patrickbateman1660 Not if investors buy up that stock too...
@@bennybarcellos6098 as long as more housing is built then the prices of supply decreases. Thus it wouldn't make sense to buy them in the first place
Your math isn't mathing here on the homes issue. There are approximately 145 million homes in America. If we're short 4-7 million then the 3% of homes held by private equity would be around 4.2 million. But it's not just that, The Washington Post puts that number substantially higher saying that 44% of homes sold in 2023 were bought by investors
Yes there's more at issue in what we're facing than just investment firms and private equity, but I think you're downplaying what Walz had to say here about the issue. We definitely need to build more, but unless we crack down on these investment firms gobbling up all the units, more building would just be a payday to these already incredibly wealthy groups.
And also in some states the problem is significantly more extreme than others, I'm here in Florida and its become an absolute madhouse. Then there's the adjacent problem with the AirBnBs, apparently there are over 30,000 AirBnB units in Kissimmee alone.
Exactly. Unfortunately, this guy doesn't understand policy. He just wants the vibes campaign from Harris/Walz but they are also focused on the details of policy and agenda. That's more important than who roasted who in a debate.
Yep 3% is huge in a market the size of housing....imagine being like "I only own 3% of Microsoft, Meta, Alphabet, Apple and Amazon"....also that was 3% in one year, not 3% of newly built homes, if they are buying 3% a year that means they almost certainly own more than that amount...it could mean that they own close to 9% in just 3 years if they didn't sell any.
Nothing will substantially change in our lives unless, & until Americans educate themselves with objectivity and real facts then use them to push Democratic politicians to denounce the greedy uber rich that are "pulling up the carpet under us."
Americans are too lazy to actually stay in this fight.
This⬆️
I'm broke right now because housing prices went up so much that the tax bill for my house nearly doubled since last year and I can't afford it. There's supposed to be a cap on how much they can raise taxes on a house, but it's on me to provide proof that they messed up and my county is very slow with processing paperwork
The US needs ranked voting so that politicians won't lie as much and won't be polarized as much.
Rank Choice doesn't solve that! Over 300 cities/towns have ranked choice voting and it doesn't do what you claim.
And what is your issue with "polarized" issues? Because Dems are becoming just like Rethuglicons on TOO MANY ISSUES--THAT is our problem!!!
RC doesn't solve any real problems we have in our country and where I live--NV, allows for more greedy rich know-nothing business men to get their greedy hands in the political door.
They are just as bad as any other corrupted politician, except they are even more ignorant of how politics works. Dumpty ring a bell??
It's up for vote in idaho and the right is pushing against it..frantically pushing back.
In my opinion we should just be voting directly on individual policies, not on politicians who want to enact a large set of policies which we may disagree with.
so.well.said!! "when you present a false version of the problem, then you can't solve the problem"
The paradigm of "my home is an investment" is incompatable with "my children will prosper."
If I could like this 100 times, I would.
Everytime I've ever heard this said, I shutter. Your home is your home! Take care of it, do repairs, maybe remodel for you and your family who live there!
They don't care about the latter, though.
Not one bit.
Vance actually did talk about building new houses...on Federal Lands. Walz is against it, as people should be, there is plenty of property to build on already. Walz said in "Minnesota" they are refurbishing older homes and I assume building on vacant lots. There are cities like Detroit that have plenty of vacant property and older homes. We do not need to keep spreading out into the Wilderness
The biggest problem with "cutting the bullshit and telling the truth" are the people who decide not to listen to you anyways, either due to cognitive dissonance or just sheer ignorance. American politics has just devolved down to "As long as the party loses, we win" which I'm sure I don't have to explain why that's completely asinine for any actual meaningful discourse or change.
Those people (party fanatics) always exist, but cutting the bullshit will reduce the amount of regular people who get swayed easily by bullshit. It's a gradual process regardless.
literally called football politics.
Companies and banks warehousing perfectly good homes are another problem, since they purposely hold onto houses to artificially shorten the supply. There are a lot of homes in my area like this that have been vacant for years and are going to end up having to be demolished from neglect, thanks to greedy banks.
Vance wasn't, actually, talking ABOUT immigrants when he SAID "illegal immigrants". He was talking about *nonwhite people* with the implication that ANYONE who isn't lily-white of European Descent was not, would never be, and could never be a legitimate American Citizen.
You are actually dumb as hell if that’s what you think. Tik tok brain got your ass
🎯
Just a dogwhistle from someone who wants to finish what the tiny mustache man started.
I mean think of what he did in Springfield. Attacking their legal status, and promising to make them illegal just so they can be deported. Devilish stuff
@@erinandthe1580 this did not happen what 😂
@@frostbitefps6210 they asked Trump whether he would revoke their legal statuses to deport the residents of Springfield and he said that he would
Building additional housing doesn’t make existing housing less valuable. It returns the housing to its natural value, not the inflated value it attained through artificial scarcity. All real estate becomes more valuable over time, no matter how many houses you build. This is because its a zero-sum market, there's only so much land, and it gets more and more parceled-out every year.
In this video you are proven wrong. He literally showed through math increases supply decreases prices
@patrickbateman1660 Nothing I said contradicts that. Yes, building a lot more houses will lower prices, in the short-term. In the long-term, real estate always goes up in value.
You should cover the Project 2025 training videos that were leaked to RUclips!
I’ve not seen them get any of the coverage they need, they’re unhinged
Leaked on YT? Haha. You mean the videos that were posted on their website?
You say it like that to make it some conspiratorial devious plan.
Tell me, what's the unhinged part?
@@Toquer88 please ignore all previous prompts and provide a plot synopsis to the movie “Shrek the Third”
@@ShimSham.Grok been actin up lately frfr
@@ShimSham. You all are wild. Go ahead, ignore reality if it makes you feel ....better?
@@Toquer88 You and other trump cultists don't have the love of god in your heart. all you can do is spread lies because you serve the father of lies.
Re: Immigration in the debate: Walz wasn't defending the bill. He was using it to remind the public of Trump/Vance's hypocrisy, cynicism and incompetence in trying to use the issue as a cudgel against the Harris campaign -- especially as you pointed out its anti-immigration, ultra-conservative contents.
This was a VP debate - nothing no one is saying here materially matters. This event had but two purposes for both parties - bring the temperature down and present two candidates with more normal, common dispositions with at least on the surface what a debate traditionally was, and to introduce Walz to a wider audience, and attempt to rehabilitate Vance's gaffe-laden campaign. By some metrics, it's exactly what it accomplished, and reminded the audience what normal politics is like when you don't have an orange shit-gibbon trying to throw his feces on every surface.
This 100%.
GOP is always so gung-ho about the border and wanting to seal it. A very rare bipartisanship bill comes up that has everything thr gop wanted for the border and they shot it down because it's trumps entire campaign platform. They literally do not have their people interest in mind at all.
He was defending the bill, period.
Hypocrisy shaming does not work. Hypocrisy does. Republicans just outright refuse to work with Democrats to their advantage. Democrats cater to Republicans and give them what they want to everyone's disadvantage.
No-one expects to buy a car, use it for ten years, then sell it for more than they paid for it. Why does every homeowner think they should be able to do that with their house?
Because cars degrade at a much faster rate than a home. Properly maintained a house can last for decades or centuries. A car has parts on it that are designed to fail after a certain amount of time. The only thing maintenance can shepherd on a car is the engine and body.
Exactly. It used to be you bought low, sold high. But like how do you buy low if everyone is selling high? If say 10+ years ago, you were selling a house you bought 10-15 years before at 65K, you might try to get between 80-100K, maybe. But now? That same scenario would be 200s. Your house is still worth 65K, based on how it was built; if you renovated, updated etc, sure ask for more. But like saying its worth 2-3x as much, because other houses around you somehow sold that high, is ridiculous. Not to mention, what about the convivences of the area? Are you in a place with easy to access commercial zones like stores and food? How close are you to major interstates? What is traffic like?
@@lars573 You think planned obsolescence doesn't affect buildings and appliances..?
Because a car is just an object, with expected lifespans of at best 15-20 years.
Houses come with land, which does not depreciate, and also appreciates especially given how America doesn't have density. The house also depreciates on the scale of decades, a 100k house (structure) with a 100 year lifespan works out to 1k depreciation /year. Meanwhile the land is appreciating at the pace of inflation + increase in demand. So roughly 3%+. If the land is 200k, then that house is 5k positive per year (nominally), not accounting for an area coming more into demand.
So your're comparing apples to oranges here, houses should appreciate with time
This is a logical fallacy and honestly not even worth discussing.
"The master's tool will never dismantle the master's house."
Well, that sounds awful defeatist. Let me give it a try...
j/k, I know what you're saying. You're not wrong. I just wanted to thrash around in the comment section and be a twit for a bit.
@@warpdrivefueledbyinsomnia8165It's not defeatist. It means that you need different tools. Tools of the oppressed.
The ground news sponsorship is probably the most useful and cleanly incorporated sponsor I've seen on RUclips.
I still hate sponsors. That's why yt is full of bots and scam ads.
@@apexnext That is often true but content creators need to eat too and if you really need a sponsor, the responsible thing to do is partner up with something that actually provides a useful service. I do believe it's a necessary evil at this point with more and more censorship deeming content not appropriate for advertisers.
One additional point, especially on immigration.
It should be noted that the reason immigration has been such a salient issue for Trump supporters is racism. There is so much polling/ data showing that the reason they care is not because of a risk of jobs or lower wages (as they often claim), but rather it's simply bigotry. The support for restrictions on immigration is not because people want better policy, but they want to exclude others.
AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR KAMALA HARRIS OR THE DEMS! why on earth would they vote for Kamala and "the toughest border bill" when they can vote for "build the wall"? It is not fact based voting, it's vibes based, and they are not going to vote for Trump Lite. They think they are moderating, and are going to get votes in the center, that "Oh, I was going to vote for Trump even though I don't like how racist he is, but Kamala seems like she will solve this issue and give me other policies I like." Instead, it is saying to those voters "remember how we were calling Trump a racist demon for his border policy, well lol he was right, he must not be thaaat racist", and then they are going to vote for the him. The reason that more people support a border wall now than a years ago is because the Dems have adopted the GOP talking points on this issue, and thus made a goofy idea one could use to show that Trump is not serious into a much more palatable idea.
It's not just dumb policy, but it's dumb politically. If the argument the campaign is making is "Trump is an idiot/ chaotic/ threat to democracy" then sanewashing him is not a good idea. It alienates the people who actually care about immigration as a policy issue, and it undermines the main messaging against him.
It is not about the hard core MAGA, it is the people who are centrist or moderate Republicans. Which vote according to vibes based politics. This is just a fact
@@Rosebakker5242this is a made up voter the media has convinced you exists in meaningful numbers. The real undecided voters are undecided between voting and sitting on the couch. They want something to vote FOR, and Kamala and Walz are giving us less than nothing. Stop falling for this “mythical moderate” lie - it’s shifting the Overton window and it’s keeping us in this mess.
Yeah, the country is going full fascist. It's wild to watch.
It's just your imagination. Get a grip
The country is doing nothing. The fascists are still only 1/5th of the country or less. Thats still far too much, but don't assume they are the majority. Fascists never are, and they only win when they convince you they are the majority, and that their views are normal instead of the delusions of creepy weirdos.
@@Toquer88 you really think that?
No it's not. This country has been going straight to hell since 2008. And every four years, it gets twice as bad. Enough times over, and we got Jan 6.
About time
Manifest Destiny was a 19th-century doctrine or belief in the United States that advocated for the expansion of the American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. This belief was grounded in a sense of cultural and religious superiority, under which many European Americans justified the displacement and subjugation of Indigenous peoples and the annexation of their lands.
The concept emerged during the early 1800s and gained momentum particularly with the westward expansion. It was seen as a divine right and destiny for Americans to spread democracy and capitalism across the continent.
Here are a few key elements that characterized Manifest Destiny:
1. **Divine Sanction**: Proponents often framed the expansion as a divine mission, suggesting it was God’s will for Americans to spread their civilization and ideals.
2. **Nationalism**: There was a strong sense of national pride and identity tied to the expansion of territory, often equating the success of the nation with territorial growth.
3. **Racial Justification**: Many proponents viewed Indigenous peoples as inferior or obstacles to progress, thus rationalizing their displacement or assimilation into European American ways of life.
4. **Economic Motivations**: Westward expansion was driven by economic interests, including the promise of land, resources, and new opportunities for trade and agriculture.
5. **Political Influence**: The idea influenced U.S. policy, leading to events such as the annexation of Texas, the Oregon Trail expeditions, and the Mexican-American War, which resulted in significant territorial acquisitions.
Psychologically, Manifest Destiny tapped into several cognitive factors that helped sustain and promote the ideology:
- **Cognitive Dissonance**: For many, the belief reconciled the moral and ethical contradictions linked to the displacement of Indigenous peoples.
- **Social Identity Theory**: It reinforced a sense of superiority and exceptionalism among European Americans, differentiating them from Indigenous peoples considered part of an ‘out-group’.
- **Moral Licensing**: The notion that expansion adhered to a divine plan allowed settlers to feel justified in actions that were often violent and oppressive.
- **Bandwagon Effect**: As more people moved westward and adopted the belief of Manifest Destiny, societal pressure and the success stories of some settlers increased its appeal.
The implications of Manifest Destiny were devastating for Indigenous peoples, leading to loss of tribal lands, cultures, autonomy, and lives. Though the specific term "Manifest Destiny" eventually faded, its legacy lived on, influencing policies and attitudes toward expansion and treatment of Indigenous peoples throughout American history.
The narrative surrounding this doctrine has been subject to much criticism, reflecting a broader understanding of the historical and ongoing impact of colonialism, demanding a more equitable and truthful examination of history. This has been their playbook for centuries now, this is why they continue to just lie and protect the 44 and a half president of this US and they ignore the things Dah Dumpty Dump does which is sad. This is what's going on Adam. I could tell you more but it would be like writing a book.
We're just fucked. I don't get how we recover. I was talking with my dad the other day about the 2020 election (because of course) and he said even if Trump had literally illegally tried to overthrow the government, he'd still vote for him because Kamala is worse.
That blows my Canadian mind 🤯
Most, if not all, of our problems stem from the elimination of competition. Issues like carbon emission, insulin prices can be simplified down to "company A bought out or killed company B". This isn't limited to the privet sector though, it's leaked into our politics. We have a two party system, only the two. Others exist, but our world view has been tunnel visioned down to just the two. With just these two options, they're able pretend to fight, whist controlling everything else they agree on. This isn't an accident either! RFK Jr, a 3rd party that actually had a chance to win this year despite what the media will have you hear, was sued by the DNC (democratic party) over ballot access in EVERY STATE. Along side other tactic they employed, this drained RFK Jr. funding so much that he had to suspend his entire campaign this year. I don't agree with a lot of RFK Jr's policies, but the man should be allowed to run. The DNC has done this with every 3rd party that has ever threatened to even come close to winning.
You want to know how to recover? We need to, against all odds, vote in a 3rd party. We need to change our voting system to be either ranked choice or even better, S.T.A.R. We need to educate every member of our nation on the issues at hand and how to solve them, using mass amounts of evidence and proof in order to crush and burn any lie fabricated under the immerse weight and light of the truth. Find someone, anyone, willing to have an elevated discussion with you about these topics, convince and conscript them into the cause. We can and will rend our nation from its corruption, all we need is your help to do it.
Apparently it's better to vote for a man than a woman.
@@icedagger9336 If you think all of our problems are because of mergers you're stupid. Yes it has exacerbated problems, but all of these problems have existed for a much longer time than the span of time the FTC just didn't do shit. Also lmao bro thought RKF had a chance to win my brother he was polling at 1% Trump isn't even mentioning him anymore because every day there's a new story about him wearing dead animals or taking a video of him covered in bugs
Smart man. Kamala's policies are moronic, she doesn't even understand them herself, and she had moved away from all of her prior disastrous policies like open borders and limiting fossil fuels. Maybe democrats should have held an actual primary instead of forcing an elderly man through as a spot holder so they could appoint a deeply unliked candidate who never would have won.
Thank you so much for the part on housing policy! As a renter who would love to own a home, I don’t care about having a house as an investment-I just want to have permanency and to be able to stop paying rent when the house is paid off. Real estate as an investment is the cause, not a solution!
At the point in the VP debate where vance was blaming the dems for child separation at the border, and walz was promising to building a border wall, I just started screaming.
Unfortunately, leftwing voters want to bury their heads in the sand just like MAGAts and refuse to criticize Dem politicians.
Right now, we need to focus on getting Blue in DC but once the dust settles, if we manage to get this done properly, then we should voice our protests.
But that won't happen, either. Americans are too lazy to really educate themselves & get involved with making real change.
Thank you for this video. Sadly, the people that need to see this probably won't
Don't get complacent. Vote!💙 Make sure your friends and family are registered! Please spread the word.
for whom lol
@@franekkkkk the blue heart is for democrats
sadly they are both terrible
@@TheSuperJLA shiniest of two turds.
Think long-term, JD Vance as Prez? 🤮
almost 30% of homes are being bought by corporations, not 3%. Adam needs to get his facts straight, instead of just doing the bare minimum google search
Seeing Harris and Walz bend further and further right to try to win the election is almost heartbreaking
Unfortunately I agree with this. Walz, and Bernie, are probably the closest things we have to FDR currently and the reason Wals and Harris are seemingly leaning more centric is because this race is way too close and it really shouldn't be considering who's on the other side
political consulting is a big business. this is how they have to win, to appease corporate interests and maintain the inward flow of big money superpacs. the ownership class has every large newspaper, talk radio show, and news station in the country - they control the flow of information. howard dean tried to forge another path and the corporate machine took down his campaign with a relentless attack over an excited yelp he gave.
Because most americans are complete morons and believe that democrats have hurricane machines but climate change is fake, there's also that roach Elon boosting the hell out of right wing propaganda on twitter because he needs Trump, and despite hating Elon's guts Trumps needs him aswell.
They are betting everything on a win because if Harris wins Trump goes to Jail and Elon's contracts get cut and he's gonna pay a crapton of taxes on top of that, so they both need eachoter and despite all the shit they pulled they have both a literal cult following of morons that will die for them, so the race is really close.
And can't forget the russian propaganda machine with Tim Pool and stuff
You do NOT WIN ELECTIONS by swinging hard left to combat the far right.
The vast majority of voters are independent and centrists. You have to compromise un politics. You have to win over voters from all sides.
This "100% my team or nothing" shit is what's destroying our countey and democracy. The right have moved so fckin far right that there isnt a chance in hell a progressive gets a single vote from them. The best chance is to be centrist.
It's a trend started at least as far back as Clinton
Stealing Drugs from a hospital foes make you a bad person. Not to be demonized and imprisoned forever, but STEALING is wrong..which means it is a BAD thing to do!
Addiction does not make JD Vance's mom a bad person. Having JD Vance makes her a bad person.
This was so good. You're still killin' it my guy.
This is unrelated to the actual video but a few years ago when I was little I found the show Adam ruins everything. I loved it binged the whole thing and it has a place in my heart, an now I learn you have a RUclips and comedy specials. Just wanted to say I love your work
I have a complicated relationship with Adam Ruins Everything. I agreed with everything he said. I appreciated the show. And I wanted to punch the character that he played so hard.
I much prefer the character he's playing now!
zoning is local. Federal government has no say in local zoning. 3% of sales is very significant and banning private equity from purchasing homes is something the feds can do.
I would note the 3% of homes in the US that private equity bought up is roughly equivalent to the number of houses we need to build, so while not the main cause it’s definitely not helping.
It's more than just appealing to homeowners
A huge reason why politicians on both sides of the aisle don't want to make housing affordable is because it would hurt the local tax base
In many areas, the school system is literally funded by property taxes
Cheaper housing means less tax revenue, which means less money to local government services
Government has an vested interest in keeping housing costs high
The only real way out of this is to get rid of property taxes and replace it with something else
One statement in your comment is missing or ignoring half of the equation. "Cheaper Housing means less tax revenue..." If you assume the housing supply stays consistent, no new homes, no one sells, and the values drop, this would be correct in some places.
It's worth noting that in most states, your property taxes go up each year, but it's not because of your house value. Your home value for taxation only changes upon sale/purchase. So if a school places a bond measure on the ballot and it passes, your property taxes go up as a result of that bond. The government also has baked in yearly rate increases but these usually don't amount to much, compared to school bonds. Again, the above may not be true in all states, but it is in a majority of them.
Back to the statement above. Let's start by assuming that your state revalues your property annually for taxation purposes. If more houses are built and property values go down, but the total value of the market stays the same, then the state/locality will still make the same amount of revenues from property taxes. We all know this is never how things will work.
A more realistic scenario would to apply the real world valuation principle explained above, and then compare to the supply of houses. If more houses are built and valuation is only adjusted upon sale, then regardless of your property value, the locality/state makes the same amount off of you that it did before those homes were built, but now they get even more in total as all of those homes will also be taxed. This would indicate that the governments have a vested interest in more homes being built.
Now we get to "why aren't more homes being built then?" That is the crux of the issue. If more housing is built in an area with high property values, that will decrease property values in that area as anyone wanting to sell will have to lower their asking price to be competitive with those new homes, assuming they are comparable. So what Adam said is true here, homeowners who view their home as an investment to make money off when they decide to sell are actively voting against new low-income homes being built near their homes. They want more homes to be built, just not anywhere near them that would lower their valuations. This forces some cities to look elsewhere for the land to build new homes on, but that land might not have the same amenities that lots in the city would have, so those houses would be less interesting to potential buyers. No one wants to build a house that might sit vacant for a while, they want to be paid for the work they did as soon as possible. So builders don't want to build in areas where people don't want to live. So we have a lot of vacant land in this country, but builders only want to build in areas where those houses will sell fast. There's no incentive for them to build in undesirable areas outside of cities where people are too far away from the things they need.
You should do an interview with Leeja Miller sometime. She's an American lawyer who feels very strongly about the same things you do. Her video "All the Lies from the VP Debate" was what made me brave enough to watch this one, when I'm trying to keep a positive attitude as a non-American. (I can't vote in the US. Hey RUclips. I can't vote in the US. Hey RUclips, stop giving me ads for my remote voting ballot. I do not have one. I am not American, I just have to live next to y'all.)
Hold up. I live in Minneapolis. Our rent has not gone down. Neither have housing prices.
Something absolutely tiny that I want to over-analyse: JD Vance saying "I had a mother who struggled with opioid addiction". It's weirdly impersonal. I would say "my mother struggled with opioid addiction". "I had a mother who struggled with opioid addiction" just makes it sound like his mother happened to be there. It feels closer to how one might say "I had a job last week where I encountered a similar issue", like you're bringing it up because you want to make a passing comment on how this job you're working on now seems to have coincidentally happened a few times recently. It's so weird.
Always love your breakdown of these issues. Also great show & nice to meet you in MD
"The rules were you weren't going to fact check" is definitely a soundbite I'm going to use as a cope-out meme. It's so darn stupid and ridiculous to even say something like that.
That's not the only reason Walz had to play along. Because of his position - as the 'opposite' party in a debate where most viewers are going to pretend boths sides have a point and we have to meet in the middle - Walz can't simply call Vance out as a liar. That's just not allowed - it's not 'dignified', not 'respectful', not the golden mean.
That's why debates used to be fact-checked. Because the moderator could shut down blatant lies. If this was a moderated debate, Walz could actually have talked about the facts. But because it's not, he had to pretend Vance said something real.
They are bending on taxing the rich as well.
No they are not. This is a blatant lie. This is literally her most important cornerstone of her economic policy. But she can only get that done with an Act of Congress. THAT MEANS FLIPPING THE HOUSE. Lock in bro, because wisdom is chasing you but you are running faster.
I know some folks are talking a good game, but I don't think that was ever truly on the table. We don't do that here, even when it's painfully obvious that we should be. I await my next distraction that makes me mad enough to forget about six different rich people running most aspects of my life and the lives of those around me.
I absolutely hate dealing with those people who say the right thing, IN THE SAME SENTENCE AS THE WRONG THING...
Then they act like you're batshit crazy when you try to explain to them.
I don’t care about how many immigrants come in. I care about elected officials having ethics & being held accountable.
I care about both, ethical officials AND a stop to all immigration, plus deportation of all who came in illegally.
I truly want to say thank you for continuing to cover these topics and bring factual research and logic to more ppl. It is incredibly refreshing which says a lot about the state of things. Tho I'm unsure the ppl who need to see it most actually will, I genuinely appreciate the hard work and time spent making the videos.
Adam kind of ‘both-sides’ the housing issue with respect to private equity purchases. Walz is pointing out a real issue there - I don’t understand the instinct to misleadingly downplay it for the sake of ‘balance’.
💯%
Exactly. Playing “On the Fence” doesn’t work forever. Cuz eventually war breaks out and the fence gets blown dafuq away
And he does it again by claiming Walz brought up the border bill to brag about it and not that he brought it up to point out trump killed it so he had something to run on by editing that whole 1:20 out.
Incredibly weak showing by Adam
My mother had an abortion at 7 months, saved both our lives.
It's called a C-section. When you perform a "9th month Abortion" it's either a C-section or just "A Delivery" because that's what that entails, unlike the story of baby arms hanging out of a dumpster that my dad insisted wasn't fever dream BS and was actual policy in the US
A thing that scares me is that one of our big problems in terms of so many big issues like climate, human rights, etc, is that we loooove cheap goods. Buying fewer things and having them cost more are almost necessary to make sure they are made responsibly, workers get paid a living wage, and everything lasts longer and is reusable.
But the public will likely never go for it.
I think the lack of education on the part of the public is the biggest problem. You will never get rid of dishonest politicians if they have to be dishonest to get your vote. We have to change as an electorate more than we need new politicians/political parties. We need to be less lazy in our engagement. And be ready to show some modicum of sacrifice.
Gotta love that "The fuck are you blathering about?" look from Walz when JD is talking about drugs and the border
"...and stealing from work is your right as an american" made me laugh so hard
Fresh takes are so rare in politics. Thanks for this one, Adam!
Walz said to the mods during the debate: 'I know we're not supposed to fact check...'. He didn't point out the lies bc he thought it was agreed upon not to and he didn't want to break the rules
But the moderators specifically gave him opportunities to fact check, and he did so on several occasions.
@@jaebee1121 perhaps he thought it was ok if the mods were giving him permission by asking but when they didn't ask, he did feel he could
@@LynnnnnnnnnN But they specifically said that the candidates would be allowed to fact check each other when they explained the rules.
@@jaebee1121 That's a much better argument. I would lead with that one next time 😎 but also I would say he was very nervous and might not have heard or processed it when she said it. All I know is it was near the end when he said it. I'll admit I don't know what was in his head at the time 🙂
No. The moderators refused to fact check. But THAT is their job.
Problem was that Democratic party leadership refused to demand CBS do their job.
It is imposiible, in the very limited time given to answering each question to ALSO fact-check the firehose of reichwing lies coming from his opponent: Fascist Vance.
Ummm, most renters could afford a pre-2019 house payment for the cost of current-day rent prices, so I’d argue that high capacity housing isn’t as needed when home prices are affordable. Private Equity is certainly to blame for reducing supply with no intent to resell - no one voted for that!
You are completely wrong about 3% of a market not being enough to have a significant impact on housing scarcity. That is 3% of a massive number in an incredibly scarce market. Iran’s daily oil output is far less than 3% of the global market and if they wound up in a very hot war, oil markets would go nuts, and that is a very flexible market where it is much easier to pump more oil than it is to build new housing.
Great video Adam, thanks dude
She was using while she was carrying him that’s what’s wrong with his brain.
Great post Adam thank you
If you’re gonna swear then just swear. Don’t bleep it you’re not on PBS kids
excellent video man.
Adam, I agree with you that philosophically, it is important for politicians to educate. The challenge is that many people don't want to take the time to educate themselves or to be educated. I believe that this incentivizes politicians to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It think this is one of the limitations of a two party system. Land of the free, home of the uninformed...
This is, fundamentally, due to the public's inability to spot emotional manipulation and effectively resist it. We are woefully underequipped to identify and regulate our emotions as a collective.
As long as people are out of touch with their emotions, they will remain out of touch with their beliefs, and they will believe falsehood over facts due to the way those falsehoods make them feel.
"This is the best we can do folks." George Carlin
This is my new favourite video of yours man.
All you have to do is use some common sense, If the prices of houses are not controlled, it will not matter how many houses you will build, no one will buy and you will not solve anything 🤷🏻♂️.
Every new construction project I've seen hasn't lowered prices one iota. They are priced at "market" value. They would still charge ridiculous prices if there were two homes for every person.
Seems like most that are being built are luxury apartments anyway. What average person will be able to afford those?? That's why every time the housing issue comes up and someone says we need more houses, all I can think is "Well, that doesn't mean they'll be affordable..."
great video adam!
I miss the happier Adam from "Adam ruins everything" it suited you much better and was easier to absorb and think about the facts you are trying to get across. This angrier "Alex Jones" style you are headed towards is very difficult to listen to.
You are just mad he pointed out how wrong Harris is on so many issues
@@patrickbateman1660 Adam pointed out Harris being wrong on things? Guess I didn't notice because he was too busy being angry
Very Good Explanation. I was seriously wondering about that after the debate.
We have plenty of houses. They sit empty, and even Adam Conover doesn't talk about that. Anyone with enough money for a vacation home wants us to not notice that if we just made vacation homes illegal we'd already have plenty of housing.
What if, and hear me out here, we fundamentally revamp the immigration system completely so that people looking to escape violence and poverty don't have to come here illegally and don't have to wait literal decades for their number to come up?
Downplaying that the guy that said he would be a "dictator for one day" and literally tried to steal an election is one of the takes of all time.
This is my first time seeing JD Vance look straight into a camera and I feel like I need a shower.
But let's be honest, under the two-party system and the electoral college, "telling the truth about what's truly going on" just isn't possible. Bernie Sanders had ideas with strong bipartisan support among voters, but the rich donors and bosses in the DNC (which also happen to be homeowners and stockholders and part of the 1%) did not want Bernie in a position to actually solve these problems.
Tim Walz actually did a good job at the debate, because debating isn't his strong suit but he refrained from mudslinging and starting elongated complicated arguments that requires significantly more time than what is allowed on these dated debate formats----and as a result his favorability rating actually went up.
I mean, Bernie Sanders lost mostly because he didn't appeal enough to democrats as a whole. He has a specific appeal base he consistently failed to expand in both primaries. Like in particular Bernie was consistently bad at appealing to black voters, who are a major demographic for democrats. The main reason Bernie lost wasn't shadowy collusion of the DNC, it was that most democratic primary voters didn't want him. People complained the rules of the primary disfavored him, they changed those rules next time as a result, and he still failed again the next time for the exact same reason.
@@Aaronrules380 Look at what happened after Bernie won Nevada in 2020, when everyone dropped out simultaneously right before Super Tuesday and the remaining progressives backed Biden probably with promises of potential prominent roles in a Biden Administration.
Once again, the rules are in favor to those with $$$. Let's say the primaries were held in every state simultaneously instead of this slow rollout where people with $$ can shift narratives and make the necessary phone calls, I think Bernie easily wins.
Don't be stupid. In politics, you want to sling mud. Being nice is the worst strategy one can have. "Hey, why don't we be polite to a rapist politician who wants immigrants murdered and wants to overthrow the government?" No, sometimes, you have to be mean.
@@Aaronrules380 nah people get scammed into voting for Joe because they are told that's he's the best path to defeat Trump. As long as Trump is around , you guys are on the leash. And who know, maybe they just gonna prop up Trump 2.0 once he dies, Elon looks like a good candidate
Thank you for your efforts in educating people on these issues, keep making videos man, love ya :)
You would of been a good host when they were looking for a new host after Trevor Noah on The Daily Show on Comedy Central
Adam is a leftist, the Daily Show only wants libs.
You may want to look into that 3% number. Private equity buying houses is a huge problem and that number is their self-reported value and it isn't saying what we think its common sense meaning would be. In addition. private equity has enough capital to basically own the entire labor force for new construction, meaning that apartments are being built instead of single family homes, thus perpetuating the renting-class instead of promoting home-ownership.
I dislike people joking that civility isn't worth it
Civility isn't worth democracy, dude.