Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake • Hacker News Board

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

#481

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

chriswarbo wrote: post #470

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Social housing avoids this hypocrisy, since the "owner" is not a person (or person-surrogate, like a corporation). Like the housing projects in the inner cities?

Based on my (very limited) understanding of inner city housing projects in the USA, then yes. AFAIK those planning such projects did not themselves live in social housing (unlike, say, many soviet officials), hence there's still an element of hypocrisy there (note that I never claimed otherwise; I specifically chose the word "this" in the sentence you've quoted. I'll also re-re-state that I've not made any argument f…

The problem is, the housing projects ended up being a major contributor to gangs in the cities. Growing up, "the projects" was a common euphemism for gang-infested ghettos, even though that likely was only true for a small portion of the projects.

See here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized_housing_in_the_Unit...

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

#482

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #356

chriswarbo wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it inherently unjust? Heh, I wasn't taking a position on renting versus ownership. I said there are pros and cons of both. What is unjust is to advocate for renting, if that rent will go to an owner/landlord. After all, why should owners/landlords exist at all, if renting is apparently so good? Social housing avoids this hypocrisy, since the "owner" is not a person (or person-surrogate, like a corporation).

> Social housing avoids this hypocrisy, since the "owner" is not a person (or person-surrogate, like a corporation). Like the housing projects in the inner cities?

> Like the housing projects in the inner cities?

The problem with US housing projects isn’t that they are social housing but that they are deliberate concentration of the poor (and therefore also marginalized, as those are correlated), with the same consequences that always has, whether or not it involves social housing.

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

#483

Post by lucian1900 » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 4:00 PM UTC

maratc wrote: post #469

lucian1900 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true that the flats were sold for symbolic sums. This was done by the counter-revolutionary government after '89 both to prevent revolts from people used to cheap housing and in the hope of engendering individualism through ownership. Of course the destruction of socialism in '89 isn't a good example, most of us would still prefer it over capitalism. And it's not true that the socialist countries were somewhat…

> the destruction of socialism in '89 isn't a good example, most of us would still prefer it over capitalism As the example of pre-wall GDR shows, socialism can only exist with GULAG's for the suppression of the unconvinced. I seriously doubt about most of "us" preferring socialism over capitalism, unless you take a very specific (unknown to me) definition of "us". It would most certainly not apply to HN's readers. >…

There have been numerous surveys in various Eastern European countries, even today a majority of people would prefer the political systems before '89.

The GDR was under constant attack from capitalist countries, I don't think it's that unusual for a country to track and imprison foreign spies and local collaborators and fascists. The current capitalist countries imprison lots of people for political reasons too.

The Marxist labour theory of value has been proven statistically in several ways, it's not disputed even by right-wing economists. Central planning also is used by capitalists to avoid the inefficiencies of markets. The major missing thing is that we live and work under the dictatorship of capitalists, with little to no democratic control for the workers.

No poor under-industrialised country has yet to achieve prosperity under capitalism. Yet the improvements with socialism are quite clear in the past (https://mobile.twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1136693839526223...) and nowadays with China, Vietnam and Cuba.

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

#484

Post by cryptica » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 4:21 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #199

cryptica wrote: post #179

The system is so heavily manipulated. I don't trust statistics anymore. I remember reading a statistic that only 35% of wealth is inherited... The way I read this now is that 35% of wealth is inherited via a will after a parent's death and 64.9% is inherited via some kind of money laundering or power laundering financial scheme while the parents are alive... Leaving only 0.1% to real, self-made individuals.

Making up imaginary facts to deal with data you don't like makes you a conspiracy theorist.

I don't have the statistics and I made it pretty clear that I'm guessing the numbers but I can see what kind of people are getting rich. They all have social connections to rich people, mostly family ties. This is so obvious. I don't need statistics to tell me that the sun rises every morning.

Unfortunately, there is no incentive for anyone with money to fund studies to show how crony-capitalism doesn't work. On the other hand, many people with money are interested to fund studies which show how it does work. So you only see the good parts and even there, the choice of words often distorts the true meaning of the statistics.

Statistics are worthless. My wife has a masters degree in marketing and was working in market research for over a decade before she quit (she worked for several acclaimed agencies and did a lot of work for big corporations and governments). She is the one who told me that statistics are worthless (which is why she ended up quitting). The job of the market research agency is to figure out what the client wants to hear and then they work backwards to make the numbers fit... Then they make creative use of wording, categories and correlations to mislead clients into drawing incorrect but financially beneficial conclusions.

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

#485

Post by anthony_barker » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 4:40 PM UTC

michael1999 wrote: post #387

FredPret wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toronto went through an insane boom, yes, but there was a period in I think the 90’s that was very quiet for property values, so some of it may have been pent-up demand. And now they’re building like crazy, with people leaving in droves. Hopefully that’ll depress prices long-term.

The Toronto area consistently adds >100k people each year, and added a full mega-person in the last 5. We have never built units for 100k beds in any year in the last 20. Don't hold your breath.

Immigration is a myth that real estate agents use to justify prices. Last year there were almost no immigrants and prices went up.

Consumer mortgage debt is directly correlated with housing prices in Canada. This plus constraints on permits for single family dwellings.

Drive around and have a look at some of the high end condo's at night - there are no lights on. Mostly dark.

The no capital gains and no inheritance tax loopholes in Canada will eventually be closed.

(https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/canada-popula...) percentage population growth 0.9% is very low based on historical standards.

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

#486

Post by viklove » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

brobdingnagians wrote: post #368

em500 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The natural state is that people and other animals can only "own" land that they physically occupy and defend by force. The kind of property ownership where (you can make) other people stay out of your house without your own presence and without involving arming yourself is largely granted by governments and paid for in taxes. Fortunately most of us are born in a time and place with governments having reasonable atti…

I'm not a Hobbesian; though I take the point, but I believe that if the government disappeared, people would just start building up a local government to enforce established customs. If people really wanted to steal everything, the government couldn't stop them. The real check on violence is that people don't want to, and are quite happy with peaceful exchange according to their established views. Some places would p…

I don't think communities would put up with foreign ownership of local land where said owner literally never sets foot in a 1000 mile radius of the land they "own." Even following your argument, this type of land ownership (pure speculation) would likely cease to exist.

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

#487

Post by VBprogrammer » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #477

keerk43 wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Owning a share of the building has its own issues as well though. If your neighbours suck and don't care about maintaining the building adequately, then you're basically out of luck. Even worse, at least here in Finland some older apartment buildings in smaller cities are worth too little to get funding from bank for larger renovations, effectively making them impossible to do unless every tenant is capable and willi…

Certainly its a difficult subject, but I prefer owning something, rather than leasehold "renting for 100 years" as if we still have feudalism

Freehold is one thing on a block of flats. The poor people who got conned into buying a house on a freehold basis where the legal protection for rent increases doesn't apply. That is a different matter.

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

#488

Post by ephbit » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

gmtx725 wrote: post #118

imtringued wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

What even is a "true price", ontologically speaking?

Based on imtringued's use of the term, "true price" would mean the price (of an asset) that leaves no room for profiting from speculation. If there's no participant in the market left that anticipates the price of the asset to go up (correcting for inflation) in the relevant time frame (and also no participant that anticipates the price to fall), then the current price might be called the "true price" for the relevant time frame.

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

#489

Post by WalterBright » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 8:15 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #478

WalterBright wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they absolutely contribute to rising prices ... because they add demand Speculators buy and sell, in equal measure. That's what makes them speculators. It's a net zero. If they bought and held, they'd be investors .

Helping to push up prices as they do so, attracting more speculators. That's not a net zero. They also hold what are limited resources for a non-zero amount of time, reducing supply in aggregate. More speculators, more supply constraint. This is not some sort of idealised marketplace where people can dip in and out without any effect.

You're missing that they short things they believe are overvalued, like in bubbles.

> This is not some sort of idealised marketplace where people can dip in and out without any effect.

You're right. Speculators work to decrease the peak of a bubble and increase the value of a dip.

The misapprehension is thinking the effect is only one way.

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

#490

Post by chriswarbo » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 9:34 AM UTC

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #481

chriswarbo wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on my (very limited) understanding of inner city housing projects in the USA, then yes. AFAIK those planning such projects did not themselves live in social housing (unlike, say, many soviet officials), hence there's still an element of hypocrisy there (note that I never claimed otherwise; I specifically chose the word "this" in the sentence you've quoted. I'll also re-re-state that I've not made any argument f…

The problem is, the housing projects ended up being a major contributor to gangs in the cities. Growing up, "the projects" was a common euphemism for gang-infested ghettos, even though that likely was only true for a small portion of the projects. See here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized_housing_in_the_Unit...

Yes, there are pros and cons; hence why I haven't argued for or against any approach to housing (although I have been arguing against the hypocricy of someone advocating for an approach that they don't themselves follow, like non-renting landlords having renters)