Live data from Hacker News

Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

economist.com

51–60 of 497 posts

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#51
post #7

I agreee that speculation on property solely as an asset is an issue, but don't really agree with the premise early in the article around the growth of cities. The argument strikes me as something like this: * An increase in the size of urban areas would increase GDP by 4% * Anything which blocks this growth is bad * Home ownership blocks this increase * Therefore, home ownership is bad The implicit premise is that a…

It’s easy to say this as someone wealthy enough to spend time commenting on online forums. What is the economic externality of urban infill development?

Loss of greenspace mainly.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#52
post #7

I agreee that speculation on property solely as an asset is an issue, but don't really agree with the premise early in the article around the growth of cities. The argument strikes me as something like this: * An increase in the size of urban areas would increase GDP by 4% * Anything which blocks this growth is bad * Home ownership blocks this increase * Therefore, home ownership is bad The implicit premise is that a…

It’s easy to say this as someone wealthy enough to spend time commenting on online forums. What is the economic externality of urban infill development?

> It’s easy to say this as someone wealthy enough to spend time commenting on online forums

This feels a little ad-hominem. I criticised the argument laid out in the article. Do you agree with the point made in the article? If so, why?

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#53
post #7

I agreee that speculation on property solely as an asset is an issue, but don't really agree with the premise early in the article around the growth of cities. The argument strikes me as something like this: * An increase in the size of urban areas would increase GDP by 4% * Anything which blocks this growth is bad * Home ownership blocks this increase * Therefore, home ownership is bad The implicit premise is that a…

> I agreee that speculation on property solely as an asset is an issue Speculation helps create a liquid market and stabilize prices.

The article lays out that Germany - a market where property isn't speculated on - has stable houseprices. This is in contrast to English-speaking countries where speculation has caused houseprices to grow beyond the reach of most millenials.

It doesn't strike me that speculation has led to stable prices here.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#54
post #7

I agreee that speculation on property solely as an asset is an issue, but don't really agree with the premise early in the article around the growth of cities. The argument strikes me as something like this: * An increase in the size of urban areas would increase GDP by 4% * Anything which blocks this growth is bad * Home ownership blocks this increase * Therefore, home ownership is bad The implicit premise is that a…

Speculation isn't the problem. Speculation is like a time machine for prices. Speculators use information to discover the true price of an asset and keep buying until the difference between the market price and the "true price" shrinks to 0. In other words, they are making the market more efficient for buyers and sellers. Buyers benefit when the asset would be overpriced because of volatility. Sellers benefit when the asset would be undervalued because of volatility.

It turns out that the price of housing will go up in the future because of various reasons (primarily migration), but that information is available today. So what does the price time machine do? It transports future prices in the present and oh boy are those prices unbelievably high. The speculators are essentially whistleblowers. They are saying that the emperor has no clothes and promptly get burned on the stake.

Let's assume the opposite, that speculation itself was the problem, and not an external factor that is only brought to light. It would imply that the market price is exceeding the "true price" of the underlying asset and therefore the speculator will have a hard time selling his asset, unless another speculator buys the asset in an infinite loop. However, it doesn't change the fundamental problem, because at some point someone has to take the "true price" - market price loss because they are massively overpaying and cannot find a greater fool.

If you thought the latter was the case then you could just decide against buying a house because it is overpriced. Of course the problem is that no long lasting crash has occurred, even 2008 wasn't bad enough to keep house prices on a downward trend.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#55

What if renters could have a way to pay more to gain partial ownership of their property? E.g., could progressively own up to 10%. That woulf allow for more of the feeling of ownership and allow renters to participate in the appreciation. That would mitigate some of the negative impacts of gentrification. Has anyone given this sort of renter-ownership blend a thought?

This exists in the UK already at least. Last time I checked (10+ years ago) you could choose to split 50/50 rent/mortgage or 25/75 either way.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#56
post #36
post #34

> a generation of young people who cannot easily afford to rent or buy and think capitalism has let them down Thats not some irrational misconception- capitalism has indeed let these people down. Capitalism, a set of social policies that prioritises the needs of capital over the needs of people, is literally a system that is designed to concentrate ownership. Under capitalism the best way to make money is to own, or…

You could regulate the market. 1 house per person perhaps? I can only sleep in one bed at a time. It makes sense to have only one.

Here's a funny thing, in the UK the main tax associated with owning a house is council tax, you pay it to the local council for the services they provide (although we can have an argument about where the money actually goes since it's all fungible anyway and the central government repeatedly butts in and restricts councils). As you suggest we could disincentivize second home ownership by levying a higher tax on it.

How does this manifest in real policy in the UK today - 2nd homes, and homes occupied by only one person more often than not receive lower taxes than normal.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#57
post #48

I don't think this article makes a logical argument at all. It says house ownership is bad because it gives people a vested interest in constraining the supply of housing. That's true but that's not a problem. If people didn't own houses then someone would, and that someone is still incentivized to constrain the supply. I'm also not sure that reducing home ownership is a good idea - "let's make everyone poorer" doesn…

It would make so much more sense to just implement a progressive wealth tax combined with tax rules which make owning more than one home very expensive.

I would also be interested to see what would happen if the rental and sales markets were forced to only supply houses which matched the current building codes - it would make building much more competitive.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#58
post #34

> a generation of young people who cannot easily afford to rent or buy and think capitalism has let them down Thats not some irrational misconception- capitalism has indeed let these people down. Capitalism, a set of social policies that prioritises the needs of capital over the needs of people, is literally a system that is designed to concentrate ownership. Under capitalism the best way to make money is to own, or…

I expected your last two paragraphs to argue for abolishing capitalism, after such a robust critique of its fundamental contradiction.

Why not publicly owned and democratically controlled housing, like socialist countries have? I grew up in a flat where my parents paid less for rent to the state than for utilities.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#59

So am I reading this right, that the Economist is suggesting “mortgage bad, rental good”?? Seems I’ve seen something similar referenced quite a lot recently... https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/how-life-could-change...

Seen from another angle, homeownership (once the mortgage has been paid) grants freedom, while a rent-dweller will remain a slave to his landlord forever, with Damocles's sword named "Eviction and homelessness" always dangling over their heads.

rent dwellers on the other hand can move whenever they want while home owners are chained to their property. Each time they sell and buy a new property they run a risk of buying lower quality than advertised, selling under value, and they do lose money in fees. Also, home ownership doesn't make you immune from gentrification due to property taxes. Especially if you "only" own a flat in a multi storey building, then you have only little influence in your maintenance fees bills.

That being said, personally, I still prefer home ownership over renting.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#60
post #44
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tbf, put in place mostly by homeowners There you have it. Follow the money. Home ownership concentrates wealth. Wealth often determines political clout and thus directs legislation and policy. The cycle continues. So surely - largely by your own logic - home ownership is the problem?

That's what the government is for. Regulate on behalf of the majority. Sadly, that seems to be evolving backwards, from practice to theory.

Government is for regulating on the behalf of everyone, not just a majority.
Post reply on HN