Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Houses are for living, not for speculation

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 135 posts

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#31

Post by recursivedoubts »

You have to understand that our money supply is based on debt. It shouldn't be: the money supply is a public good and should be managed for the public good via citizens dividend or whatever, but currently it is debt-based and managed for the private good of the banks.

Housing debt has to expand or the economy tanks because the money supply shrinks. Since we are at the end of the current debt cycle, housing has gone vertical. It will collapse because eventually exponential curves can't fit reality. We may be seeing the start of that now.

The core problem is how we create money and who benefits from it. That's what needs to be fixed.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#32

Post by rogerrogerr »

mothballed wrote: post #19

Allow anyone to build a shack and shit into a hole on any postage stamp size of land they could get, and it would be far more affordable.

Yep, building codes are a double edged sword. Yes, they make life better for housed people and avoid streets looking like an India-esque mess of exposed wiring and open sewers.

But they also establish a minimum bar to _be_ housed. If you can’t afford a (by global standards) very nice home, you will be on the streets.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#33

Post by Esophagus4 »

cassianoleal wrote: post #22
energy123 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bad idea in isolation, because it forces people to store all their net worth into their main tax free house, causing people to squat in gigantic houses that they don't need or want. I've seen this distorted behavior in people I know. We should reward the person who lives in a normal house below their means, and buys an apartment as an investment (which is private capital into new construction that wouldn't have hap…

> store all their net worth into their main tax free house If you take speculation out of the housing market, storing net worth in your main house becomes a lot less attractive.

Which was the way housing was for many years.

A house used to be viewed as a consumable good a hundred years ago, not an appreciating asset. (Before the New Deal commoditized mortgages)

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#34

Post by rogerrogerr »

lucky_cloud wrote: post #13
juliusceasar wrote: post #2

So is energy, food, water and space. And yet, all cost money.

You say that as if those things have always required money. People had all of those things for hundreds of thousands of years before money was invented.

“Money” is just a way to say “people’s time and resources.”

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#35

Post by boringg »

xtracto wrote: post #3

I wholeheartedly agree with this. My opinion is that governments should tax 2nd, 3rd and further housing so as to prevent people from accumulating residential buildings. If you want to live of your rents, buy a commercial or industrial building, speculate with that. But residential construction should be protected to ensure each household is able to buy one with the average country salary.

How do we feel about cottages or summer homes for people who live in poor weather climates? Is that a luxury that should be universally condemned? I woulnd't think those qualify as speculative but more like lifestyle money pits from what I have heard.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#36

Post by Markoff »

XXX are for living, not for YYY

you can apply this for pretty much everything, who will decide what can be used for speculation? I want much rather free market than someone deciding what I can buy with my earned money

yeah, and gold should be for making space stuff, electronics or jewelerry, and water should be for drinking/cooking, not for having fun in swimming pool, etc.

edit: the problem in China is not expensive real estate, but no options to invest money, Chinese stock is shit, you would earn pretty much nothing over 10 year period, made that mistake once, even real estate prices are not really growing in China, my in laws bought apartment many years ago, now they would be lucky to sell it for zero profit, blame chinese economy with minimal real growth causing minimal inflation causing all these issues

on the other hand it's nice to come to China after 9 years and find out meals in restaurant cost pretty much same as 9 years ago, unnelievable in Europe, sadly so are their salaries and I have still seen job ads offering like 2500-3500RMB same as 10 years ago, though you can rent small apartment for 1200-1600 RMB (talking both about Beijing suburbs)

nice bonus in China is you can't even own the land with your house, just lease it for few decades

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#37

Post by boringg »

lp4v4n wrote: post #8
juliusceasar wrote: post #2

So is energy, food, water and space. And yet, all cost money.

What kind of speculation exists over energy, water and space? I'm really curious to know.

energy speculation very obviously exists. Water and space not so much though at the margins I could see it.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#38

Post by cestith »

reactordev wrote: post #10
staticassertion wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that increasing the taxes would just lead to higher rents, right?

Possibly but it would also create more private equity reits that would build and operate these multi-family units. There isn’t a clean solution without making it illegal for companies to own single-family homes.

You’d have to have exceptions to that. Many new homes are built as whole subdivisions, then sold to initial residential owners. Banks won’t lend on homes they can’t foreclose on as collateral, and banks are companies. Mortgage companies are for this purpose the same as banks.

Some companies buy and update homes then resell them. They don’t all do a cheap flip with a massive markup. Neither do all of them hold them long term to charge high rents. That seems like something that should probably be regulated rather than outright banned.

Beyond single-family homes, it’s very rare for someone to build an apartment building with all of the units already sold. In fact, most are not coops or condos and are rented long term. Those rents also keep going up. A big part of that is how hard it is to get a new complex, especially a mid-rise or high-rise building, permitted to build.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#39

Post by markus_zhang »

Social housing is the way to go. People who live in social housing are mandated to take free plumbing/electrician/whatever classes to serve the community. In this way people get some internal jobs and sense of community, while government reduces the costs of maintaining them.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#40

Post by Esophagus4 »

gdulli wrote: post #27
energy123 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bad idea in isolation, because it forces people to store all their net worth into their main tax free house, causing people to squat in gigantic houses that they don't need or want. I've seen this distorted behavior in people I know. We should reward the person who lives in a normal house below their means, and buys an apartment as an investment (which is private capital into new construction that wouldn't have hap…

Why would someone want all their net worth in real estate properties rather than diversify with other investments, which if they wanted to could also still include the real estate sector?

From people I know: they aren’t aware of / comfortable with traditional financial instruments, so they just buy houses and have the rest in a savings account.

Their houses aren’t even “investments” to them, they’re lifestyle properties that also may increase in value.

Post reply on HN