Live data from Hacker News

Americans still think they can make money flipping houses

cbsnews.com

191–194 of 194 posts

Re: Americans still think they can make money flipping houses

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Banks would then lend that money out to earn interest. We then basically decided this was too conservative a strategy so we have fractional reserves, meaning if you have $100,000 in deposits you might be able to lend out $1 million. This is entirely wrong. Fractional reserve banking is what allows lending. How do you envision a bank with $100k lends out $1m? What fractional reserves mean is the opposite: if you hav…

Is it possible both things are true? From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking Fractional-reserve banking is the system of banking operating in almost all countries worldwide,[1][2] under which banks may hold liquid assets representing only a portion of the deposits that they are liable to pay.[3] These liquid assets, known as reserves, may include cash in the bank or balances in the bank's acco…

No, if I borrow money from the Fed to lend out, it’s the same as taking in deposits. Banks borrow money from their depositors, and lend to their borrowers.

What OP said is completely wrong.

Re: Americans still think they can make money flipping houses

#192
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to get government approval to build. What are you talking about?

The government should have disincentivized using houses as an investment vehicle. Houses are for families to live in. The primary asset houses should provide are the family and the work they do, not the house. But if a house costs so much money that the family can't really take risks, then the house just becomes a debt prison.

Prior to housing being investment vehicles and superannuation/401k .. most people had no money in old age.

Re: Americans still think they can make money flipping houses

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renters are so much less likely to be voters that this has little impact. In Seattle, for instance, municipal elections are on odd-numbered years. As a result, get out the vote operations that tend to increase renter turnout during presidential elections don’t have much impact on local elections. We had a vote in the 90s that reduced housing supply considerably, “Citizens Alternative Plan.” It was a February special…

> Renters are so much less likely to be voters that this has little impact. This, however, does not mean it is causal. Just because it's the case at the moment does not mean it would be the case if homeownership dropped 50%.

Homeownership is well below 50% of the voting eligible population in many major cities. But it’s the majority of the voters.

There are many studies on homeownership and voting. I recommend the book “The Homevoter Hypothesis” if you’d like to start informing yourself about these issues!

Re: Americans still think they can make money flipping houses

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renters are so much less likely to be voters that this has little impact. In Seattle, for instance, municipal elections are on odd-numbered years. As a result, get out the vote operations that tend to increase renter turnout during presidential elections don’t have much impact on local elections. We had a vote in the 90s that reduced housing supply considerably, “Citizens Alternative Plan.” It was a February special…

But this seems like it could change if we lived in a world where everyone was a renter, rather than renters being a young, transient population that unsurprisingly doesn't vote.

Interestingly, that doesn’t happen in most places - there’s a fairly stable proportion of people who want to own, so you get condo construction.
Post reply on HN