3 ms·
You are basically arguing that most people should never be able to own real estate, doomed to live as perpetual tenants. Over the course of a lifetime, that is
by babypuncher 8y ago
You are basically arguing that most people should never be able to own real estate, doomed to live as perpetual tenants. Over the course of a lifetime, that is actually more expensive than a 30 year mortgage.
- moltar 8y agoActually many countries around the world don’t have a healthy borrowing market and they do fine with real estate. Some people have to live with family for a while or build in stages. It’s a challenge, but it’s doable.
- denimnerd42 8y agoyeah sorry that's not the life I want. I'm glad I didn't grow up in some country like argentina or whatever that has a no lending where I would have to live with my parents until I'm 35 and take my girlfriends to love hotels.
- coldtea 8y ago>yeah sorry that's not the life I want Yeah, sorry, the life you want might not be sustainable and could be detrimental to society.
- mrec 8y agoAnd I think you're arguing that the disappearance of mortgages would have no effect on real estate prices. IMO, and that of many others, loose credit has been the major factor driving up property prices to their current insane heights. There's a place for credit, but right now I think it does more harm than good.
- hirsin 8y agoOn the contrary - no mortgages would mean I couldn't afford a house, and someone richer than me would buy it and loan^H^H^H rent it to me. They'd get richer, and do the same to the next person who couldn't quite afford to buy a house. You've described a society closer to feudalism than efficient housing.
- wbl 8y agoAnd you would have a house to live in, while your own investments are diversified. How did homeownership work in Detroit?