141–150 of 497 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I agreee that speculation on property solely as an asset is an issue Speculation helps create a liquid market and stabilize prices.
In practice, speculation maximises value extracted by speculators. But yes, "maximum bearable" price is stable.
Huge difference is that wealthy/landlords buy properties with debt and operate with cash-flow while for them liability creates wealth. For working people properties on mortgage are just expense. https://www.singsaver.com.sg/blog/robert-kiyosaki-advice-on-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a GenXer and after some time I got tired of obnoxious landlords. Plus, after living in 12 different places and not knowing when the next "please move out, I need this apartment for other purposes" note comes, is sorta stressful. Every coin has two sides. I can imagine that expensive real property may be a burden that prevents you from living fully. I can also imagine having a house as an anchor in a place I love…
>not knowing when the next "please move out, I need this apartment for other purposes" note comes, is sorta stressful. Yeah I've had this happen in the UK, can be inconvenient. The fix is legislation and increased requirements for landlords. I moved to another country where it isn't possible for a landlord to evict a tenant during a tenancy agreement (unless they are withholding rent) and now thankfully I don't need…
to get evicted, you need to withhold paying rent for some time (more than just a few months) or cause severe damage to the property.
if the property is the only property being rented out by the landlord, then the landlord could evict you if they need that property for their own children or for themselves.
but beyond that, they can't evict you.
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…
> If people didn't own houses then someone would, and that someone is still incentivized to constrain the supply. Yes, but constraining the supply is done through political means: planning laws, green belts, individual objections to developments, voting etc. All of those in theory are based on "one man one vote", so if you concentrate ownership of supply you drastically reduce the number of votes it gets. > the middl…
I guess they couldn't state it openly, e.g. like:
"Let's bypass democratic majority rule, by taking away something people vote to protect - and not just anything, but their homes -, and consolidating its ownership to fewer rich property moguls and conglomerates"
Because that would immediately strike people as a tad worse than North Korea...
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 started as way to rent a spare room - fair enough - and if it had stayed like this, its impact would be bearable. But like it evolved - full residential quartiers acting as large hotels - made the housing market unsustainable for the inhabitants not participating in this game.
Huge difference is that wealthy/landlords buy properties with debt and operate with cash-flow while for them liability creates wealth. For working people properties on mortgage are just expense. https://www.singsaver.com.sg/blog/robert-kiyosaki-advice-on-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's "market making". Speculation tends to increase volatility.
> Speculation tends to increase volatility. Speculators make money off of prices deviating from the norm (i.e. volatility) and every time they make money off of a price difference, it pushes that price back to the norm. I.e. it decreases volatility. The fact that speculators are attracted to volatility is an effect of volatility, not a cause.
Homes logically really shouldn't be an appreciating asset. After build(including warranty fixes) they should be in best condition they ever will be(unless further invested). And then just wear down from there and require maintenance to even keep functioning. So after 10, 20 or 50 years it should cost less, not more. I wonder how will this look in let's say 100 or 200 years. That is after we have reached full urbaniza…
People have been trying to explain that to the Federal Reserve for decades. They are not interested in hearing about the problems created by moneyprinting.
Property ownership is bad. Rent for life, dont leave inheritance to your children so they can rent for life too. All you need in life is clothing, entertainment, a bit of travel to distract you from your tiny living space, maybe a gadget or two and of course onsite work. Oh and praise from you manager to add meaning to your daily grind. Or so “they” say while “they” amass thousands of properties and massive fortunes…
Everyone striving to own a home is a consistent scenario, which has pros and cons.
Social housing that's owned by nobody/everybody is a consistent scenario, which has pros and cons.
Having some paying rent to others who own (or, even worse, have buy-to-let mortgages), is inherently unjust.