21–30 of 162 posts
https://outline.com/ZCPPvZ
Why does HN allow intentional bypass of paywalls? It’s no different than providing links to pirated software. On the one hand, we complain about aggressive advertising while simultaneously doing everything possible to ensure publications don’t earn any money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not a conflict but its sort of weird. Sellers pay the commissions.
The buyer's agent is supposed to act in the best interest of the buyer. It's tough to say that's always the case when the buyer paying a bit more rather than walking away would actually help the buyer's agent earn more. Normally there are pre-negotiated commission rates the buyer's agent would receive. To ensure you've got someone who is truly on your side as the buyer, maybe it'd make sense for your agent to be paid…
I've actually heard/read of a few boutique style agencies taking this approach in LA. Will dig around the history and update this post if I find the blog post talking about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does HN allow intentional bypass of paywalls? It’s no different than providing links to pirated software. On the one hand, we complain about aggressive advertising while simultaneously doing everything possible to ensure publications don’t earn any money.
Because, for all our self righteous indignation, we still want free stuff like everyone else.
Doesn't surprise me, younger millenials won't have a home to sell and will thus have a hard time affording a home in an inflated market. Compounded with the fact that median wages haven't increased that much the last 30 years. Prices have to fall for that group to afford a home.
Median income has gone up by about 150% (to 2.5x) in nominal terms between 1986 and 2016.
Almost as if this could have all been predicted[0].
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory
"Some home builders are so desperate to attract interest they are offering agents the chance to win Louis Vuitton handbags or Super Bowl tickets with round-trip airfare, if their clients buy a home." That seems like a serious conflict of interests.
If you'll humor the anecdote for what it is: I worked as a consultant business partner to real estate agencies and property management groups for a few years out of college (friend and I started a handyman company, grew it, sold it, became consultants), the phrase 'serious conflicts of interests' could unironically be adopted, publicly as an industry wide motto for the real estate profession and I don't think a soul…
Doesn't surprise me, younger millenials won't have a home to sell and will thus have a hard time affording a home in an inflated market. Compounded with the fact that median wages haven't increased that much the last 30 years. Prices have to fall for that group to afford a home.
The post housing crash housing boom was almost entirely the result of the federal government--which has made, guaranteed, or bought significantly more than half the residential mortgages since 2008--deciding there should be a housing boom. If it is indeed coming to an end it is because the federal government collectively has decided not to double down and keep the party going. This isn't the weather or even the price…
The Federal Reserve (which orchestrates interest rates to manage inflation and achieve full employment [two of its mandates]) is not (edit: a branch) of the US government, and does not set government policy. Edit: This is incorrect. The Board Of Governors who set interest rates is a part of the federal govrnment as an agency (accountable to Congress), the individual Federal Reserve Banks are not.
The post housing crash housing boom was almost entirely the result of the federal government--which has made, guaranteed, or bought significantly more than half the residential mortgages since 2008--deciding there should be a housing boom. If it is indeed coming to an end it is because the federal government collectively has decided not to double down and keep the party going. This isn't the weather or even the price…
The Federal Reserve (which orchestrates interest rates to manage inflation and achieve full employment [two of its mandates]) is not (edit: a branch) of the US government, and does not set government policy. Edit: This is incorrect. The Board Of Governors who set interest rates is a part of the federal govrnment as an agency (accountable to Congress), the individual Federal Reserve Banks are not.
Yes, it is. It's established by US statute, its board of governors is appointed by the President, and its personnel are paid by the US government. It is not considered part of any of the usual three branches of the US government (legislative, executive, judicial), but that doesn't mean it's not part of the US government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Federal Reserve (which orchestrates interest rates to manage inflation and achieve full employment [two of its mandates]) is not (edit: a branch) of the US government, and does not set government policy. Edit: This is incorrect. The Board Of Governors who set interest rates is a part of the federal govrnment as an agency (accountable to Congress), the individual Federal Reserve Banks are not.
While it is technically true that the Fed is privately owned, it's not how it runs in actuality. The Fed chairman meets with presidents regularly, and many other politicians. The president also nominates the Chair of the Fed. So hardly independent [1]. [1] https://mises.org/library/myth-fed-independence