5 ms·

> Out of curiosity, why wouldn’t we want the government managing mortgages for the whole country? > Real estate seems like a pretty important part of the econo

> Out of curiosity, why wouldn’t we want the government managing mortgages for the whole country? > Real estate seems like a pretty important part of the economy... You just answered your own question. Governments do not have a history of distributing scarce resources effectively. You need various market forces. > the government artificially making housing more accessible for potential first time buyers creates a virtuous cycle where people can finally save money and the eventually spend that money to stimulate their micro economies This is not what happens. As you said - it's artificial. Markets, like the internet, route around this sort of censorship. Any attempt to make housing artificially more affordable will have the effect of increasing demand (by design). When you increase demand, prices rise. And thus becomes unaffordable again. You can then increase the subsidies further to try to offset your original manipulation, which will only worsen the problem. This is precisely what happened in the 90s/early 00s and the result was the 2008 housing bubble.

horsemessiah 6y ago
Markets are basically anarchy... there are countless examples of markets inefficiently allocating resources (homes, for one). Not sure I buy this.
- qeternity 6y ago
  This thread is literally about how the housing market isn't a true market...it's a government run welfare program backed by the Fed. You're proving my point.
black_puppydog 6y ago
> Governments do not have a history of distributing scarce resources effectively. To be fair, "various market forces" also don't have the best track record of distributing resources, especially scarce ones. Somehow those always end up being "distributed" into the same few hands...
- pyronik19 6y ago
  Karl Marx has entered the chat
- crisdux 6y ago
  To be fair, how is that even remotely true? Look at the wealth, convenience, leisure and abundance all around you. Even people with lower income experience high standards of living. The system we have now is not without fault, but it has done better than any other before in meeting our needs and desires. I don't understand why people make wild claims that everything is distributed to only a few hands, thats preposterous. If you really believe that, you are poisoned by ideology.
  - charlesu 6y ago
    > Look at the wealth, convenience, leisure and abundance all around you. Even people with lower income experience high standards of living. The system we have now is not without fault, but it has done better than any other before in meeting our needs and desires. You should spend some time in Appalachia if you think that's true.
    - crisdux 6y ago
      You are making a logical fallacy and I don't think it's worth my time to actually attempt to discuss this with you.
      - charlesu 6y ago
        There's nothing to discuss because you don't really have much of an argument. "Look around. Things are better than what they were" doesn't negate the fact that market forces are bad at distributing resources. You can look at the COVID-19 crisis as well. "Market forces" led to distribution channels with no redundancy, leaving the United States with a shortage of something super basic: PPE.
        motorcycleman9 6y ago
jeffreyrogers 6y ago
It's not like the market is doing a good job distributing scarce resources either, particularly in the case of housing.
- qeternity 6y ago
  Capitalism is like democracy: it's the worst form of economics, except for all the others. The fact that it has flaws does not make other systems superior. Also, this thread is literally about how the housing market isn't a true market...it's a government run welfare program backed by the Fed. You're proving my point.
  - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
    I'm not anti-capitalism, but markets aren't a naturally regulating thing. They need to be managed.[0] And the government plays a role in shaping to what ends those markets are managed for. E.g. if your market is allowing wealthy foreigners to buy property that then goes unused it's not a well-functioning market, regardless of how much it is aligned with "capitalism".[1] [0]: And they are always managed. Even "free"-markets are managed, since free-markets are not a natural state, at least not for long. [1]: Capitalism itself is a vague word that can be used to describe any number of only superficially related systems. E.g., 1800s Britain was capitalist, and had working conditions so appalling that they made Marx's ideas attractive. Modern Nordic capitalism is quite different from that, but would also still be described as capitalism (except by Democratic Socialists who know nothing about Scandinavia and are trying to convince people that those countries are actually socialist).
jdashg 6y ago
Fortunately, we don't actually need to make housing more affordable to the whole market, just the ones for whom it matters: the poor.

horsemessiah 6y ago

Markets are basically anarchy... there are countless examples of markets inefficiently allocating resources (homes, for one). Not sure I buy this.

qeternity 6y ago
This thread is literally about how the housing market isn't a true market...it's a government run welfare program backed by the Fed. You're proving my point.

black_puppydog 6y ago

> Governments do not have a history of distributing scarce resources effectively. To be fair, "various market forces" also don't have the best track record of distributing resources, especially scarce ones. Somehow those always end up being "distributed" into the same few hands...

pyronik19 6y ago
Karl Marx has entered the chat
crisdux 6y ago
To be fair, how is that even remotely true? Look at the wealth, convenience, leisure and abundance all around you. Even people with lower income experience high standards of living. The system we have now is not without fault, but it has done better than any other before in meeting our needs and desires. I don't understand why people make wild claims that everything is distributed to only a few hands, thats preposterous. If you really believe that, you are poisoned by ideology.
- charlesu 6y ago
  > Look at the wealth, convenience, leisure and abundance all around you. Even people with lower income experience high standards of living. The system we have now is not without fault, but it has done better than any other before in meeting our needs and desires. You should spend some time in Appalachia if you think that's true.
  - crisdux 6y ago
    You are making a logical fallacy and I don't think it's worth my time to actually attempt to discuss this with you.
    - charlesu 6y ago
      There's nothing to discuss because you don't really have much of an argument. "Look around. Things are better than what they were" doesn't negate the fact that market forces are bad at distributing resources. You can look at the COVID-19 crisis as well. "Market forces" led to distribution channels with no redundancy, leaving the United States with a shortage of something super basic: PPE.
      - motorcycleman9 6y ago

jeffreyrogers 6y ago

It's not like the market is doing a good job distributing scarce resources either, particularly in the case of housing.

qeternity 6y ago
Capitalism is like democracy: it's the worst form of economics, except for all the others. The fact that it has flaws does not make other systems superior. Also, this thread is literally about how the housing market isn't a true market...it's a government run welfare program backed by the Fed. You're proving my point.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  I'm not anti-capitalism, but markets aren't a naturally regulating thing. They need to be managed.[0] And the government plays a role in shaping to what ends those markets are managed for. E.g. if your market is allowing wealthy foreigners to buy property that then goes unused it's not a well-functioning market, regardless of how much it is aligned with "capitalism".[1] [0]: And they are always managed. Even "free"-markets are managed, since free-markets are not a natural state, at least not for long. [1]: Capitalism itself is a vague word that can be used to describe any number of only superficially related systems. E.g., 1800s Britain was capitalist, and had working conditions so appalling that they made Marx's ideas attractive. Modern Nordic capitalism is quite different from that, but would also still be described as capitalism (except by Democratic Socialists who know nothing about Scandinavia and are trying to convince people that those countries are actually socialist).

jdashg 6y ago

Fortunately, we don't actually need to make housing more affordable to the whole market, just the ones for whom it matters: the poor.