Just ban corporate ownership of private homes. Ban second homes altogether.
Lots of rich people here I guess.
US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
981–990 of 1001 posts
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#982Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking of middle school mindsets; so by your logic, you should take in how many strangers into your home against your will? …and if your infantile logic has any value, why don’t we just cram every single human on earth into the USA, at your expense of course, right? What immature peasant-logic people as yourself don’t understand is that no, there is negative net benefit to the common person, while the common Americ…
> so by your logic, you should take in how many strangers into your home against your will? You do realise you don't own all of America, right? Nobody actually forced you to take 30 million immigrants into your home, because your home stops at your property boundaries. I've seen this nonsensical argument in my home country, the UK, too. If you want to claim *all of [the USA]* as your country because you're a citizen…
I’ll at least give you some credit for effort, where the other CIA mush-mind just sent a link to peek CIA-brainwashing central link, but you’re clearly arguing in bad faith because you’re so mentally deranged from the life long conditioning.
But you are a well trained NPC, repeating all the installed “knowledge” you have faithfully, with no ability to even realize the inherent contradictions in your statements and beliefs, largely because what you have been conditioned with like a good mindless NPC is only what the ruling class wants you to know for a fact and then infect others with in places like Reddit. You’re a good zombie infecting and devouring those brains, lacking any ability to recognize you serve those who hate you and you say you hate.
But not matter how angry reality makes you, it does not change whether you hear it from me or not at all.
You are an inherent contradictions, just like the ruling class wants you.
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#983Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I feel people and especially corporations/REITs do not have the right to hide what real estate they own. Sure put it in a trust, but the public has the right to know who controls it.
Where do you stand on encryption? Do you feel like the "I have nothing to hide" argument has any merit? If you think people have the right to privacy, why should real estate be an exception? I personally find the fact that real estate ownership is public in the US to be quite bizarre.
> Where do you stand on encryption?
This is a really complicated and broad topic that I cant take the time to type out here. I do not stand on the side of "I have nothing to hide." I fully understand the risks of that position. People must keep some secrets to protect themselves from society. Especially as everything devolves into increasingly strict "purity" tests.
With that said, I don't think the right to obfuscate real estate transactions is the same as spicy personal beliefs/private conversations/etc. IMO there is nothing more public than real estate. I do not consider real estate transactions as protected speech nor one that can be legally hidden. We live in this world together.
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#984Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much of the US works this way, but individual consumers don't buy it that way. It's the level above that.
In other words it doesn’t work that way. The people who actually pay for the end product do not have the opportunity to apply market pressure by choosing a different source.
So you weren't really "just curious". You felt it necessary to cherry pick a particular commodity to debunk the notion that markets are markets? Do harder to steel man it.
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#985Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's obviously incorrect . If X people are trying to buy Y houses, and 1 of them can always buy Y/2 houses, then you'll need to build a hell of a lot more than Y houses if Y is only equal to X. Right now in most places, Y < X, and a certain percentage of people can still buy many more than 1, so it seems like that's a real problem shouldn't continue during times of scarcity.
That is an additional problem, but does not contradict what you replied to. N_dissatisfied > max(0, N_for_sale - N_individuals_and_couples_buying) When N_for_sale > N_individuals_and_couples_buying, it is still possible for N_dissatisfied to be > 0 for the reason you give. But N_dissatisfied must be > 0 whenever N_for_sale < N_individuals_and_couples_buying, even if everyone is limited to having at most one.
Agreed, but I wasn't disagreeing with their whole sentiment, just their assertion that the GP was obviously correct, namely that it doesn't matter how many homes people can buy.
Less supply couldn't possibly be helpful for those disappointed, but also there's less supply than there would be if access to it as a commodity was limited, supposing that all other artificial restrictions and funding models could rely on less concentrated investments, which I think they could
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#986Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much of the US works this way, but individual consumers don't buy it that way. It's the level above that.
In other words it doesn’t work that way. The people who actually pay for the end product do not have the opportunity to apply market pressure by choosing a different source.
Yes, they do apply market pressure. They can change who they buy from and there are different deals - like fixed rate, or different charges for different time periods.
The intermediate players "electricity retailers" then participate in a day ahead and real time market to fulfill their obligations to their customers. This is a good summary (https://chatgpt.com/share/696170d5-5d08-8002-a0ff-e2f45e42c4...) - if you hate ai links, so be it, this is a good description of an esoteric topic.
You'll find most markets actually work this way. When I go to the supermarket to buy sugar, the price isn't jumping around real time with the underlying price of sugar. Same for coffee etc. But it changes with a lag, and consumers respond and the effects flow through even if not in real time. Similar things occur in most markets where there is a wholesale market for something and then several players between that market and the consumer, each player doing some combination of logistics, risk eating, aggregation/disaggregation etc.
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#987Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can rent a home after you’ve personally owned it and lived in it for 10 years? That would cap any individual to 3-4 rentals in a lifetime
We need more rental units, and it isn't clear how that policy would help the situation.
These things aren't mutually exclusive. There's a supply problem and it depends. You'd be right if there was only a demand for rentals, but people also want to buy homes to live in, and currently those people are completely priced out of the market by landlords because they've bought all the homes as investments. A landlord can buy a 10 bedroom sfh and split it up into student housing near a university (good), or they can buy a 2 bd bungalow and price a new family out of the market (bad). It just depends. It depends entirely on the market.
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#988Even if this won’t work in practice it’s one of the things I’ve found myself agreeing more with than anything else done by the current White House/congress
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#989Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given how inexorably tied the US economy is to SFH prices, a drop may do more harm than good. Many families have the majority of their wealth tied up in their home, and another significant portion of it (knowingly or not) in the SFH MBS market via their retirement investments. If prices fall quickly enough to impact the MBS market, a large number of households could suddenly see big dips their two biggest sources of…
You don't even need a drop; you just need prices to stay stable for a decade or so, and inflation will "drop" the real cost of new ownership.
Exactly. I am so glad someone gets it. Or a drop of 3% per year. There are plenty of tools to use to help achieving this. The question is whether government have any intention to bring housing market to an affordable level.
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#990Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because commercial real estate works on weird counter-intuitive things, and dropping rental rates adversely affects their entire portfolio more than leaving a building vacant does.
I should have mentioned a bit more - residential real estate (e.g., your house) is valued on comps for the purposes of a mortgage backed by that property alone - commercial real estate is valued by the local rent multiplier and mortgages are against bundles of it, or the entire company. So (simplified) an "empty building, but it rents at $2k a month" is valued at 200k say; if you drop the rent to $1500 and now are ge…
This, and it is already happening in as we speak. London, Hong Kong, South Korea ( a little different but all the same ) Vancouver, Sydney. Basically anywhere you see housing bubble.
The trigger of re-evaluation also hurts banks's balance sheet. Crediting Rating agency, a whole lots of other financial institution. i.e Their interest is to not let it fall.