4 ms·

Owning your own property goes back further than our founding. It has to do with staking out your rights. Quite the opposite of what some comments here suggest,

Owning your own property goes back further than our founding. It has to do with staking out your rights. Quite the opposite of what some comments here suggest, encouraging home ownership keeps life affordable. It is one way to stave off an oligarchy of property owners. See, for example, Fannie Mae's mission, > Our mission is to facilitate equitable and sustainable access to homeownership and quality affordable rental housing across America. We continue to innovate and promote a stronger, safer, and more efficient housing finance system to support more opportunities for homebuyers and renters in communities throughout the nation. https://www.fanniemae.com/about-us/who-we-are https://www.fanniemae.com/about-us/who-we-are Finance people who make loans take issue with this since they have to match prices with a "government-backed" business, although it's only a charter which isn't the same as govt-backed. Plus, tons of businesses were supported by government in 2008 and 2020-2021 so that point is moot.

SilasX 5y ago
>Quite the opposite of what some comments here suggest, encouraging home ownership keeps life affordable. It is one way to stave off an oligarchy of property owners. A better way would be to ensure that supply can continue to increase with demand, rather than encourage speculative buying and holding of land off the market in the hopes of making a fortune flipping it to the next generation and slowing down any attempt to redevelop. "Oh at least you're locked in" is at best a patch. >See, for example, Fannie Mae's mission, Yes, that's what they say but that translates into making housing an investment, which (see the several other comments on this point) goes directly contrary to it being affordable. I don't see what's better about mom-and-pops milking the next generation rather than a big conglomerate -- the result is the same. >Finance people who make loans take issue with this since they have to match prices with a "government-backed" business, although it's only a charter which isn't the same as govt-backed. Plus, tons of businesses were supported by government in 2008 and 2020-2021 so that point is moot. Wait, what? Finance people love Fannie Mae and the like because it means they can dump mortgages on a government agency merely because they meet some ossified standard rather than being legitimately below risk thresholds by a realistic assessment. And then not have to worry about fixing a rate that's too low for 30 years.
DeathArrow 5y ago
>Finance people who make loans take issue with this since they have to match prices with a "government-backed" business No. They are glad the government is buying away the risks from them, enabling them to give more loans to people who might not afford to pay for them.
- chii 5y ago
  > more loans to people who might not afford to pay for them. so should those people be given the loans then? The choices are to deny the loan, and prevent those on lower income from buying, or to give them loans (that they'd potentially default on in a crisis), and bear the cost of defaults.

SilasX 5y ago

>Quite the opposite of what some comments here suggest, encouraging home ownership keeps life affordable. It is one way to stave off an oligarchy of property owners. A better way would be to ensure that supply can continue to increase with demand, rather than encourage speculative buying and holding of land off the market in the hopes of making a fortune flipping it to the next generation and slowing down any attempt to redevelop. "Oh at least you're locked in" is at best a patch. >See, for example, Fannie Mae's mission, Yes, that's what they say but that translates into making housing an investment, which (see the several other comments on this point) goes directly contrary to it being affordable. I don't see what's better about mom-and-pops milking the next generation rather than a big conglomerate -- the result is the same. >Finance people who make loans take issue with this since they have to match prices with a "government-backed" business, although it's only a charter which isn't the same as govt-backed. Plus, tons of businesses were supported by government in 2008 and 2020-2021 so that point is moot. Wait, what? Finance people love Fannie Mae and the like because it means they can dump mortgages on a government agency merely because they meet some ossified standard rather than being legitimately below risk thresholds by a realistic assessment. And then not have to worry about fixing a rate that's too low for 30 years.

DeathArrow 5y ago

>Finance people who make loans take issue with this since they have to match prices with a "government-backed" business No. They are glad the government is buying away the risks from them, enabling them to give more loans to people who might not afford to pay for them.

chii 5y ago
> more loans to people who might not afford to pay for them. so should those people be given the loans then? The choices are to deny the loan, and prevent those on lower income from buying, or to give them loans (that they'd potentially default on in a crisis), and bear the cost of defaults.