3 ms·

They offer the service of providing limited-term accommodation with no assumption of liability for regular, small payments. Contrast this to owning a house/con

They offer the service of providing limited-term accommodation with no assumption of liability for regular, small payments. Contrast this to owning a house/condo, where the owner has an indefinite right to the property, but assumes liability (e.g. mortgage debt, property taxes) and/or plunks down a very large amount of cash all at once. > what justifies them getting paid simply for owning more of a thing (housing) than they can personally use? ... Because they own it, and let others use it for a fee. Let me just ask straight up: Do you believe that private property should not exist?

pmiller2 7y ago
>Let me just ask straight up: Do you believe that private property should not exist? Absolutely, that would be an ideal. However, don't make the mistake of conflating private property and personal property. A primary residence would be personal property, as would a car, etc. As for the other "services" you mention, if the housing market weren't distorted by people thinking housing needs to be an inflating asset, most of those problems could solve themselves in a market scenario.
- kyboren 7y ago
  So if I have the cash and I want to buy a lake cottage, a hunting cabin, a second home near my kid's college, etc.--that should be illegal? Commercial property developers should not exist, and any housing needs should be met presumably by government construction? > if the housing market weren't distorted by people thinking housing needs to be an inflating asset, most of those problems could solve themselves in a market scenario. I agree that overly restrictive zoning and planning regulations, IMO largely driven by owners' considerations of property values, distort the housing market by restricting new supply and inflating prices across the board. The problem is the local government in these cases is being misused to prevent the proper functioning of the market. The solution is not to get rid of private property--dude, it's 2020, and communism is still a failure--it's to reduce the local governments' ability to interfere with the market.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    > So if I have the cash and I want to buy a lake cottage, a hunting cabin, a second home near my kid's college, etc.--that should be illegal? Why do you need to own those things? If anything, capitalism has come around to this idea with the "sharing economy," and it works. Do you not think those facilities can be provided for the common use of all who have a need or desire to use them? Why do you feel you should be entitled to exclusive rights to hunt that land, or enjoy the lake shoreline? More importantly, why do you feel you should be able to deny others use of that land? Is there nothing else more useful you can think of to do with that money? > Commercial property developers should not exist, and any housing needs should be met presumably by government construction? That's one way to go about it. As long as builders are adequately compensated for their labor, does it matter? > I agree that overly restrictive zoning and planning regulations, IMO largely driven by owners' considerations of property values, distort the housing market by restricting new supply and inflating prices across the board. Explain Houston, then. The housing market in Houston still inflates at a rate higher than the general rate of inflation, and yet, there is literally no zoning there [0]. > The problem is the local government in these cases is being misused to prevent the proper functioning of the market. Correct, because people think just because they put a lot of money into buying a house, that it should be an investment and prices should always go up. Japan provides a decent model of how to do it differently within a market framework: https://archive.is/jNx7X https://archive.is/jNx7X > The solution is not to get rid of private property--dude, it's 2020, and communism is still a failure--it's to reduce the local governments' ability to interfere with the market. Where and when have we had communism on a nation-state scale? Cuba arguably comes closest to the ideal, and they're doing well. China and the USSR were really more state capitalism than communism of any sort. --- [0]: https://www.zillow.com/houston-tx/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/houston-tx/home-values/
    - gsk22 7y ago
      > Where and when have we had communism on a nation-state scale? Cuba arguably comes closest to the ideal, and they're doing well. Sure, Cuba does well in some important metrics like education and healthcare, but overall it is still an impoverished authoritarian state. Not exactly a communist utopia.
hi_im_miles 7y ago
> They offer the service of providing limited-term accommodation with no assumption of liability for regular, small payments. Contrast this to owning a house/condo, where the owner has an indefinite right to the property, but assumes liability (e.g. mortgage debt, property taxes) and/or plunks down a very large amount of cash all at once. This presents a false dichotomy in my view. If a property is paid for, there's no emergent liability set upon the owner that isn't also set by the state (which grants them absentee property title in the first place). All of the market mechanisms that incentivize transformation, maintenance, and occupation of land can exist without recognizing absentee title as legitimate, enabling people to occupy spaces they don't own without having to pay a rentier in perpetuity.
- kyboren 7y ago
  > If a property is paid for, there's no emergent liability set upon the owner that isn't also set by the state (which grants them absentee property title in the first place). I mostly agree here, although there is an argument that certain torts against property owners are not really "set by the state" except that they recognize that without official codification and means of redress, mob justice or personal vengeance might proliferate. > All of the market mechanisms that incentivize transformation, maintenance, and occupation of land can exist without recognizing absentee title as legitimate, enabling people to occupy spaces they don't own without having to pay a rentier in perpetuity. I'm not clear exactly what you're arguing here: The government could just own all land but allow anyone to build on it and occupy it indefinitely for free? Or nobody can own land they do not reside in? There are so, so many problems here. How do you resolve disputes between rival claimants to a building? How exactly does one move to a new place-do they sell the house? So they retain ownership of the improvements, but not the land? If there is no formal ownership, how are property taxes assessed? Do they just go away? Are they based only on improvements? If we can still own improvements, but only one per person and a person must reside on the property to own it, people will still need an improvement to live in, and they will still have to either buy one or rent one, changing nothing. If we can't own improvements we don't live in, well, who will be building new apartments and condos? You will end up with a huge market inefficiency, with lots of low-capital people with demand for housing and lots of capital owners who could theoretically supply that demand by building commercial residential property but will not because they legally cannot own and profit from any construction.

pmiller2 7y ago

>Let me just ask straight up: Do you believe that private property should not exist? Absolutely, that would be an ideal. However, don't make the mistake of conflating private property and personal property. A primary residence would be personal property, as would a car, etc. As for the other "services" you mention, if the housing market weren't distorted by people thinking housing needs to be an inflating asset, most of those problems could solve themselves in a market scenario.

kyboren 7y ago
So if I have the cash and I want to buy a lake cottage, a hunting cabin, a second home near my kid's college, etc.--that should be illegal? Commercial property developers should not exist, and any housing needs should be met presumably by government construction? > if the housing market weren't distorted by people thinking housing needs to be an inflating asset, most of those problems could solve themselves in a market scenario. I agree that overly restrictive zoning and planning regulations, IMO largely driven by owners' considerations of property values, distort the housing market by restricting new supply and inflating prices across the board. The problem is the local government in these cases is being misused to prevent the proper functioning of the market. The solution is not to get rid of private property--dude, it's 2020, and communism is still a failure--it's to reduce the local governments' ability to interfere with the market.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  > So if I have the cash and I want to buy a lake cottage, a hunting cabin, a second home near my kid's college, etc.--that should be illegal? Why do you need to own those things? If anything, capitalism has come around to this idea with the "sharing economy," and it works. Do you not think those facilities can be provided for the common use of all who have a need or desire to use them? Why do you feel you should be entitled to exclusive rights to hunt that land, or enjoy the lake shoreline? More importantly, why do you feel you should be able to deny others use of that land? Is there nothing else more useful you can think of to do with that money? > Commercial property developers should not exist, and any housing needs should be met presumably by government construction? That's one way to go about it. As long as builders are adequately compensated for their labor, does it matter? > I agree that overly restrictive zoning and planning regulations, IMO largely driven by owners' considerations of property values, distort the housing market by restricting new supply and inflating prices across the board. Explain Houston, then. The housing market in Houston still inflates at a rate higher than the general rate of inflation, and yet, there is literally no zoning there [0]. > The problem is the local government in these cases is being misused to prevent the proper functioning of the market. Correct, because people think just because they put a lot of money into buying a house, that it should be an investment and prices should always go up. Japan provides a decent model of how to do it differently within a market framework: https://archive.is/jNx7X https://archive.is/jNx7X > The solution is not to get rid of private property--dude, it's 2020, and communism is still a failure--it's to reduce the local governments' ability to interfere with the market. Where and when have we had communism on a nation-state scale? Cuba arguably comes closest to the ideal, and they're doing well. China and the USSR were really more state capitalism than communism of any sort. --- [0]: https://www.zillow.com/houston-tx/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/houston-tx/home-values/
  - gsk22 7y ago
    > Where and when have we had communism on a nation-state scale? Cuba arguably comes closest to the ideal, and they're doing well. Sure, Cuba does well in some important metrics like education and healthcare, but overall it is still an impoverished authoritarian state. Not exactly a communist utopia.

hi_im_miles 7y ago

> They offer the service of providing limited-term accommodation with no assumption of liability for regular, small payments. Contrast this to owning a house/condo, where the owner has an indefinite right to the property, but assumes liability (e.g. mortgage debt, property taxes) and/or plunks down a very large amount of cash all at once. This presents a false dichotomy in my view. If a property is paid for, there's no emergent liability set upon the owner that isn't also set by the state (which grants them absentee property title in the first place). All of the market mechanisms that incentivize transformation, maintenance, and occupation of land can exist without recognizing absentee title as legitimate, enabling people to occupy spaces they don't own without having to pay a rentier in perpetuity.

kyboren 7y ago
> If a property is paid for, there's no emergent liability set upon the owner that isn't also set by the state (which grants them absentee property title in the first place). I mostly agree here, although there is an argument that certain torts against property owners are not really "set by the state" except that they recognize that without official codification and means of redress, mob justice or personal vengeance might proliferate. > All of the market mechanisms that incentivize transformation, maintenance, and occupation of land can exist without recognizing absentee title as legitimate, enabling people to occupy spaces they don't own without having to pay a rentier in perpetuity. I'm not clear exactly what you're arguing here: The government could just own all land but allow anyone to build on it and occupy it indefinitely for free? Or nobody can own land they do not reside in? There are so, so many problems here. How do you resolve disputes between rival claimants to a building? How exactly does one move to a new place-do they sell the house? So they retain ownership of the improvements, but not the land? If there is no formal ownership, how are property taxes assessed? Do they just go away? Are they based only on improvements? If we can still own improvements, but only one per person and a person must reside on the property to own it, people will still need an improvement to live in, and they will still have to either buy one or rent one, changing nothing. If we can't own improvements we don't live in, well, who will be building new apartments and condos? You will end up with a huge market inefficiency, with lots of low-capital people with demand for housing and lots of capital owners who could theoretically supply that demand by building commercial residential property but will not because they legally cannot own and profit from any construction.