His entanglements with various lobby groups aside, Merz is just a terrible politician.
Merz is not a diplomat or negotiator he just wants to be the boss and give orders.
That is not how you get things done in a coalition government or in parliament.

It is somewhat misleading but not false. He did vote against it as the linked article also points out.

English tl:dr for those interested: He did vote for an earlier proposal that would have made marital rape illegal but allowed potential victims to block an investigation.
Critics feared that abusive spouses could force their victims to block investigations.
That proposal ultimately failed, a new version without “veto” was proposed, Merz voted against but it ultimately passed.

Depends on the game.
100 hours in WOW is nothing, 100 hours in Firewatch is mental

I was talking about this comment

Is Bavarian an official language of Bavaria? Are children taught in Bavarian most of their classes, are laws published in Bavarian, are movies released in Bavarian?

So the comment that listed multiple arguments besides the number of speakers? In reply to my comment about the only the number of speakers not being enough? To which i reiterated my point about only the number of speakers not being enough, causing you to list even more other arguments?

The main difference is probably that Catalan is an official language of Catalunya. All the other aspects are a consequence of that legal status.

I start to feel like you’re trolling me but let me try one last time:
I am making the argument that THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS ALONE IS NOT ARGUMENT ENOUGH.
Catalan having a different legal status is a DIFFERENT argument from the number of speakers.

Those aspects were already listed in the above comment

In this comment I originally replied to, where?

why you don’t want to answer my questions about the use of Bavarian

Because I thought they were rhetorical questions, as mentioning Bavaraian in the first place was rhetorical.
I never argued that it should become a recognized EU language, I used it as an example of why a large number of speakers alone is not a good argument.

But since you’re interested:

• Is Bavarian an official language of Bavaria? - No the official language in Germany is German.
• Are children taught in Bavarian - Official school language is also German but if the teacher and class speak Bavarian they also teach in Bavarian.
• are laws published in Bavarian - No, Laws are published in the official language of Germany, German
• are movies released in Bavarian? - Yes, movies set in Bavaria often use some form of Bavarian though usually in a way that would still be mostly intelligible to standard German speakers.
• Is there a movement in Bavaria to get the language recognized as an EU language? - Afaik not as an EU language but there are various language associations that do fight for more recognition and promotion of Bavarian.

see also: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Austro-Bavarian#Use

I’m not saying that the number of speakers isn’t a good reason

No I’m saying the number of speakers ALONE isn’t a good reason and you listing a myriad of reasons beyond just the number of speakers that you think Bavarian doesn’t fulfill just further proves my point.

So, you’re saying the number of speakers alone is not a good reason?

Also Catalan is spoken as a first language by about 4 million people.

That alone does not make a good reason. There are 12 million speakers of Bavarian. Should that also become an official EU language?

Ned dass i do wos dagegn häd.

One nice, warm, sunny summer afternoon I fell asleep reading The Trial by Kafka…
Three times. On the same page.

Tat used to be not so uncommon under capitalism as well.
The big, old fashioned manufacturing companies often had livelong employees.

I’d say inheritable professions are more pre industrial revolution than Soviet.

Isn’t there also a “buy Canadian” movement in Canada?
I agree that the focus should be on boycotting the US but it’s a nice opportunity for businesses anywhere to promote themselves over international competition and it’s a much easier message for politicians to rationalize.

Technically true but ideologically it’s basically the same thing.
Also German nationalism existed before a German nation state, so that is not a necessary prerequisite.

Oh no, if we ban the racists, non-racists have a chance to grow!
God forbid!

I honestly wouldn’t say they are keen to cooperate with the AfD, especially as long as it is possible to achieve their goals with a partner as malleable as the SPD

And when they don’t get what they want from any of the other parties they will cooperate with the AfD.
As they have done in Thuringia, as they have done in the Bundestag. Once voting together has been established as normal, forming a coalition is not a big next step.

Why did the landlords charge $300 20 years ago when they could have charged $500? Or was the supply of homes appropriate for the number of people?

Yes supply and demand limit how much they can charge. I’ve already conceded as much 8 hours ago.

People have always been greedy. […] Is it a problem? Yes.

So that feels like an appropriate answer to your question from yesterday

Is it greedy landlords? Or is there a bigger issue at play, and landlords are the scapegoat?

I think you summarized it nicely, including your comment on the nature of capitalism. It is not a coincidence, that basically all early criticism of capitalism is centered around landlords. Even Adam Smith criticized the “rentier”.

Look, I agree with you. We need more housing supply. It reduces landlords ability to raise rents.
But it does not change the underlying issue that landlords are greedy and will charge as much as they can get away with.

Fact is, the supply of homes is just as much to blame for high rent prices as greedy landlords.

Again, supply and demand only determine how much a landlord can charge, they do not force them to raise prices.
If anything, supply not matching demand enables more greedy behavior.

If the landlords charged less than what the home is worth, you would never be able to find a place to live near where you want/need as everything would be sold out.

Only if you assume that only local landlords rent out cheaply while all others continue to raise rents. Besides that there are always factors why certain locations are more popular than others.

You’re generally right that insufficient housing is a supply problem but housing is not like other goods that can just be substituted.
If the price of steak goes up, I can just stop eating steak but if the price of housing rises, just becoming homeless is not a reasonable option.
And sure, if the rent in the place you want to move to is too high then maybe don’t move there.
But if the rent in the place you already live in rises then what? Just move out, away from your home, away from friends and family, away from your job?

So yes, more housing supply might be the solution* but it still is no argument that greed is not the problem.

*with all the previous caveats

To be clear, I am making one statement in this discussion and that is that the price is being set higher than it needs to be.
By stating that int he discussion about Landlord greed, it can be inferred that I equate this with greed.

It’s no different than any other product you could buy in a store.

Saying that other businesses operate similarly does not refute my point. As you yourself pointed out, at best your argument is that all “capitalism is greed”.

It’s interesting that when talking about the people building homes, you totally get the profit driven mentality.

I never pretended not to “get” it. I’m just claiming that it’s greedy.

The way I see it there are two ways to counter my argument:
Either show that landlords have no choice and must demand the prices they do.
Or argue that wanting more than you need (usually to the detriment of others) is not greed. In that case I would be very interested where greed actually starts.

The price is set by the landlord based on what people are willing to pay.

What people are willing to pay sets the upper limit of what he can charge. He is not forced to set the price at this upper limit. No amount of demand forces him to increase the price beyond cost + enough profit to live off.

Or the local/state governments need to create zones for lower/middle income homes or apartments. Or in some way they need to encourage developers to build these homes.

I’m not sure how zoning in the US works. How exactly does this reduce construction costs or increase return on investment without high rents? What incentive does this give profit oriented investors to invest in affordable housing instead of other investment options?

supply and demand is driving these costs

In an abstract economy 101 sense that is true.
In a more concrete real world sense, the price is set by the landlord. Neither the supply nor the demand curve force the landlord to increase rent.

We need to prioritize building low income/affordable homes. Flood the market with supply and the price will go down.

That too is somewhat true. In a profit oriented market however the lower bound of the price of rent is dictated by the building costs, the time it takes to recuperate these costs and the expected profit margin.
Assuming building costs are more or less fixed in the short term, flooding the market and reducing the price you can charge will reduce potential profits. Thus private investors are incentivized to build only so much that it does not significantly lower prices.

So, the “we” that could lower prices by building more would have to be the state or some public entity that is less profit focused, not private landlords.