4 ms·

The article is true if you limit the definition of “good investment” and “wealth-building” to mean rent appreciation. But if you take a broader definition of in

by yonran 7y ago

The article is true if you limit the definition of “good investment” and “wealth-building” to mean rent appreciation. But if you take a broader definition of investment (as in a farmer invested in a tractor, or a contractor invested in a pickup truck, or a property owner invested in improvements, or a landlord invested in buying an underpriced property with an unusually high capitalization rate), then it is counterproductive. When people talk about housing as an investment around the country, how often are they referring to zero-sum rent increases, vs. how often are they referring to capital expenditures that expand the pie? And how do we get people to celebrate one type of investing (capitalism) instead of the other kind of investing (rentiers).

lopmotr 7y ago
Perhaps by national governments preventing local governments from artificially restricting the supply of housing? Local governments will always want those restrictions because their local homeowner voters will want it.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  At least one national government was founded on the basis that those powers not explicitly granted to the national government nor reserved for the people remain in control of the states which united to form it. (That's not to say that they've followed that doctrine, but I predict it would be a long Constitutional challenge for that country to settle that real property [generally immobile, of course] is part of "interstate commerce".) That national government could however put a lot of pressure on the states and local governments by banning federally guaranteed housing loans in areas where zoning laws were not to their liking. This would have a temporary effect (while it was being battled out) of smashing the property values of the little guy homeowners (whose next buyer will likely be taking a federal-supported loan), while leaving the jumbo loan market relatively untouched, so it's a pretty nuclear option to try to accomplish in any kind of a rapid fashion.
- fjsolwmv 7y ago
  California is as big as a nation.

by yonran 7y ago

lopmotr 7y ago

Perhaps by national governments preventing local governments from artificially restricting the supply of housing? Local governments will always want those restrictions because their local homeowner voters will want it.

sokoloff 7y ago
At least one national government was founded on the basis that those powers not explicitly granted to the national government nor reserved for the people remain in control of the states which united to form it. (That's not to say that they've followed that doctrine, but I predict it would be a long Constitutional challenge for that country to settle that real property [generally immobile, of course] is part of "interstate commerce".) That national government could however put a lot of pressure on the states and local governments by banning federally guaranteed housing loans in areas where zoning laws were not to their liking. This would have a temporary effect (while it was being battled out) of smashing the property values of the little guy homeowners (whose next buyer will likely be taking a federal-supported loan), while leaving the jumbo loan market relatively untouched, so it's a pretty nuclear option to try to accomplish in any kind of a rapid fashion.
fjsolwmv 7y ago
California is as big as a nation.