611–620 of 691 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It's an argument against rent-seeking and predatory market tactics.
Same, By this definition you shouldn't invest anywhere where the supply is low and demand is high, which by very consequence rules out all investments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Liquidity is a huge problem in real estate. Right now, every single person forfeits 5-6% of their home value every time they exchange homes. That's $20k on average. Reducing the spread on homes by providing liquidity would be a huge financial boon to all classes except realtors.
Is that true if you sell your home yourself? I've never bought a home, but I know I can transfer a title to a vehicle without forfeiting anything beyond the sales tax and the $50 title fee. Is there no way to sell/buy real estate directly like that using cash transactions direct between parties?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if housing was cheap enough that paying the mortgage was around the same as what it now costs to rent. There definitely needs to be some rentals, but I believe that there needs to be controls over how many and the rental price.
My mortgage + insurance + taxes is a lower monthly payment than what my rent was at the time I bought my house. Compared to that same unit renting today, its several hundred dollars a month cheaper. It has over twice the square footage and a private garage. This is in a pretty big metro area, not the middle of nowhere. One of the biggest benefit of owning is a hedge against housing inflation. Its not a perfect hedge,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "liquidity" provided by high-frequency traders in the stock market does not benefit anyone but themselves. For everyone else the difference between trading in minutes and hours (or even days) is near-meaningless. That liquidity is also what's driving the price of executing a retail trade to or below zero. You used to have to pay fees whenever you bought or sold stock.
Can you explain why that's true? I understand why it would be true if the broker provides that liquidity for you and settles the trade immediately, while taking the risk that on his end it may settle at a different time and place. But If I just put an order directly on the exchange book using full collateralized cash in my trading account, why would that cost my broker more? Wouldn't this liquidity thesis mean that b…
You could make an argument of the form "HFTs have made trading so cheap that people are hurting themselves more than they used to, and we need to bring the price of trading back up so that people won't be tempted". But that is a pretty different argument than "HFTs don't provide any value". They clearly do. When you place an order to buy or sell stock, you pay lower fees and you get better prices than you otherwise would, because you look just like a million idiots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe Im naive, but whats wrong with building entirely bew towns and cities? Last time I flew across the US, I saw vast wilderness with a few tiny populated places here and there.
low density suburbia only survives by siphoning funds away from the nearby city.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It's an argument against rent-seeking and predatory market tactics.
Same, By this definition you shouldn't invest anywhere where the supply is low and demand is high, which by very consequence rules out all investments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So buy at 3.5% down. The more leverage you have - the more you're taking advantage of The Federal Reserve mandate that prices go up at least 2% per year. 2%x33 = 66% return GUARANTEED by yours truly, the Federal Reserve.
Isn't it an exponential formula instead of a mere multiplication? 1.02^33 ?
If prices appreciate 2% = $2000.
$2000 / $3000 = 66%
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Renting for life isn't the same thing as being indebted for life. You can move out at any time and the landlord doesn't have any hold over you. Doesn't sound much like peonage to me.
Only if you are renting month to month
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every right requires infrastructure, investment, and labor to ensure. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren’t free. People had natural rights long before the concepts of infrastructure, investment, or labor were ever conceived. > Whether or not housing should be a right, rights that are expensive to provide but are nonetheless provided anyway are nothing new. My point wasn't about expense. It was about a…
We all depend on labor and resources that don’t belong to us. There’s no right to property, speech, or even life itself without institutions like the police, military, and courts. There’s no right to vote without a massive election bureaucracy. There’s no right to education without a school system. Why are we given rights like the ones I mentioned, but not housing or healthcare or basic income? It’s simply because th…
Police protection exists because the state has a monopoly on violence. Even if the police were never present however, as in the case of very remote areas with small populations, one always has a right to self-defense.
Roads and schools are not rights. They're paid for by other people's money and built by the labor of others. Parks are pieces of land the government has almost always wrongfully taken by way of eminent domain.
Elections are a complicated case. Individuals have a right to vote, but state legislatures have wide berth to set the terms of voting within their respective jurisdictions. While I would say there is a right to vote, there isn't a right to an election on terms or rules one finds favorable for one's self.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why that's true? I understand why it would be true if the broker provides that liquidity for you and settles the trade immediately, while taking the risk that on his end it may settle at a different time and place. But If I just put an order directly on the exchange book using full collateralized cash in my trading account, why would that cost my broker more? Wouldn't this liquidity thesis mean that b…
The broker isn't selling your trading information. He is selling the opportunity to trade with you, and quantitative traders will pay him for that, because you are -- in all likelihood -- really bad at trading stocks. The professionals are so convinced that you have no idea what you're doing that they're happy to give you better-than-market prices, because the market is going to move against you anyway. (And of cours…